[filmscanners] Blackpoint noise, was grain
Now I'm confused (so what's new).. Why would adjusting the black point *up* cause noise to appear, given that the adjustment I'm making isn't sufficient to affect the deep shadow detail? This seems backward to me - if I increase the black point, am I not telling the scanner to throw away some of my deepest blacks (ie shadow detail), and therefore some of the noise (if there was any) should go with it..? I'm seeing the reverse. Well, it's Friday, late, and maybe my mind is going.. Anyway, if anyone wants to see what I mean, and can then humour me and explain in words of few syllables :-), the samples and more info are here: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~markthomasz/problems/blackpt.htm (As it may affect your decision to visit, it's about a 270K download altogether.) Thanks for any enlightenment.. mark t Tony wrote: (markthomasz..) wrote: I've noticed that on some transparency films, I get a grain-like effect in shadows when I use a black point other than zero (in Vuescan). I haven't yet looked into exactly what is happening, but the 'noise' vanishes as soon as I set bp to 0. So it is obviously not CCD noise What you describe is very likely CCD noise. On well behaved scanners most of it is below the black point on any film you want to scan, on less fortunate models it climbs up toward the midtones and you can't just chop it off without sacrificing shadow detail. Regards Tony Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] OT - Endorsement of List charter alterations
Tony wrote: Naturally I have received a complaint.. only *one*...! ..text about new list arrangements neatly clipped ..I trust this new, enlightened structure meets the requirements of all list participants. I *would* heartily endorse this.. but it's Saturday and I'm out of the office.. When I return, br GET ME OFF THIS LIST br stupid grin Thanks for brightening my evening, Tony! /stupid grin PS - Who on earth *would* want to leave this list now, and miss the witty repartee? Bring back AA and Dicky, I reckon. PPS - Or were you serious? :) PPPS - Click here for winmail.dat file Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Polaroid SS4000, noise, andoversampling (was: VueScan 7.5 beta 8 Available)
Steve wrote: Eric ... Does a noiseless scanner exist? Why wouldn't oversampling and averaging help reduce hardware-caused noise? Hardware problems can often be somewhat fixed in software, after all. Eric I'm surprised anyone is even arguing about this. There's no argument, it's just that scanner mileages vary! My Acer has effectively zero noise in shadows (and its dynamic range is actually pretty good), so multiple passes are effectively worthless to me (for slides). However, if I get the black point just slightly wrong, I can certainly introduce noise. The important thing is to *try* all the possibilities, and not just assume that multi-scanning is getting the best out of your scanner.. I've been caught before thinking that I had got the best out of a problematic slide, only to discover days/weeks/months later that using a slightly different approach (and not necessarily the one suggested by conventional wisdom!) solved the problem. In some cases multi-scanning may well be the solution - in the case of the Acer, and I suspect the Polaroid, I doubt it. But the only way to know is to try.. mark t Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] OT - Identifying Kchrome 25 v 64
Without removing the film from the mount, is there any simple way to identify a K25 from a K64? I guess I could project them right up and compare grain, but I'm not sure even that will tell me.. The ones I wish to identify are cardboard mounted, processed in Australia (Melbourne I think), and have 'APR 80M4' printed on them. Thanks for any clues. mt Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Vuescan 7.5.7 bug? Load options..
Ralf, this doesn't really answer your question, but I turn off the sliders/buttons :) - so I'll leave that for someone else. But Vuescan is now setup to automatically separate the options for negatives and slides in the *one* INI file. (I presume this also works for the LS40?) It should call up the appropriate settings when you change carriers - it does on mine (Thanks Ed!). So if all you want is two sets of options, for negs v slides, you're already covered.. mark t At 10:16 PM 2/02/02, you wrote: Hi everybody, on my combo (Athlon 900, Win98SE, Nikon LS-40) I cannot load saved options - if I load an option file different from the current one, oddly enough, the sliders move accordingly but neither the text fields change nor the preview is affected by the changes that should have taken place. My intention is to save different option sets for negs and slides. Am I getting something wrong or is this a bug that can be fixed? See ya - Ralf Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: calibration for beginners
I just asked a very similar question here, on photo.net.. http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=001tSp Certainly Norman Koren's site at: http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html is worth a long look.. regards mt At 08:53 PM 19/01/02, you wrote: Calibration is a frequent topic on this list. But these are often highly advanced methods. I'd be interested in knowing the rudiments of calibration. First of all I want to achieve a 90% matching of image put into my scanner with that on my monitor, with that printed on my Epson. Simple, eh? ;-) I'm interested in most straightforward and effective method of calibrating my system, without resorting to expensive hard- or software. I do not intend to clutter this list with unnecessary OT mails so if you can give link to sites devoted to this topic, this will me ok for me. Regards Tomasz Zakrzewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Film types with VueScan..
Hi, Tim. ..I can only select 2 slide vendors - Kodak or Generic - in the 'slide vendor' window Ed created this option purely to try to correct for the different 'look' of E- and K-chromes. Transparencies by their nature shouldn't really require a vendor setting - the primary reason you have it for negatives is that each vendor/film uses a different mask color. He has stated before on this list that the *Image* setting should normally be used for slides, as the Slide setting may (and does for me) result in clipping. I suspect his intention was to provide a 'quick and dirty' color correction to show the differences in the way these film types capture reality. For 'serious' scanning (whatever that is), I suggest you use the Image settings, and do those corrections yourself if you want to change the look of the film. although the online manual lists the 'available' profiles for over 200 tranny types, I can't select any of them. If you look carefully, you'll see they are all color negatives or bw, not transparency.. regards, mark t Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: OT : links re Canon S800
(Any further responses to this should probably go to me off list - so as not to clog it at a bad time.. :) For anyone else who is interested in this printer, I found 2 enlightening links.. but still no review from a 'real' photographer who has used one. http://home.cox.rr.com/meyerfamily/epson/canons800.html A well-known page about the Epson orange fade problem (which hasn't struck me yet I might add..). And the Canon stands accused of the same behaviour. Mr Meyer also draws attention to the quite remarkable similarity of the Canon and Epson inks.. http://www.silverace.com/dottyspotty/issue9.html Go to bottom of page for links to magnified samples from various printers. Maybe it is my color perception problem that emphasises it, but to me the vertical stripes of the S800 are a *lot* worse than the horizontal streaks of the 870/1270.. Think I'll sit back, hug my 1270, and wait to see if Epson's PM-9xx series ever gets out of Japan. Or maybe the *next* Canon.. mt Tony wrote: ... The S800 is A4 (11.75 x 8.25) but has just been superceded by the S900. The S9000 A3 version has been announced at the same time. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Neat Image noise/grain removal prog, was'Anyone Have Exp WithGrainSurgery..'
Maris - thanks very much for the link. This software is a well kept secret (I hadn't stumbled over it despite frequent searches on this topic), but it looks very promising indeed. Even after a little experimentation it gives much better results than any other method I've tried, and it is less prone to adding artefacts than Grain Surgery. If anyone else is looking for a noise/grain/grain-aliasing solution, I would suggest you take a (long) look. As Maris pointed out, the catches seem to be: - doesn't work on TIF's yet, so files have to be converted to/from BMP/JPG - default settings are too high for my liking, and you DO need to read up on how to get the best from it - *very* slow ..then again, perhaps my 366MHz Celeron does need that upgrade ;-) - struggles with 'gross' grain-aliasing (- still better than anything else I've tried) - still in beta form, but seems stable enough.. - doesn't work on a Mac (obvious cruel comment deleted!) I particularly like its method of creating profiles for image types, eg I can set up a filter to suit the grain-aliasing on Superia 400 on my 2700dpi scanner, or one for a digicam's dark noise, and save them individually. And you can't complain about the current price.. :-) mark t Maris wrote: Neat Image is a digital filter designed to reduce visible noise in digital photographic images. http://absoft.nm.ru/ It presently supports only JPG and BMP files so you will have to convert from TIFF to BMP first, but I wrote them and they responded that they are working on TIFF support (though who knows when?). Do follow their suggestion - print out the Help files (only about 10 pages) for optimal results. It is still at the beta stage and is therefore free for now. Maris Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe' in the title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Anyone Have Experience WithGrainSurgerySoftware?
FWIW my experiments with the demo of this software left me *very* cold. It seems quite effective on patterned images (eg flatbed scans from textured paper). However, I found it to have little benefit on normal grain - when it was adjusted up enough to be any 'better' than the usual grain softening techniques, it introduced strange vertical streaks and other artefacts. Plus the effect is inconsistent, giving a very odd look to the images. Vuescan's grain removal is far more usable, I think. Maybe I just didn't get the hang of it? But I wasn't all that impressed with their demo images either (is it just me, or does the 'grain' look a little fake..?), so that must be a bad sign. Too fussy, perhaps - but at that price I'd want something a lot better. mt Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe' in the title or body
Re: filmscanners: iCorrect software
Reviews here: http://www.btinternet.com/~ian.lyons/icorrect/icorrect.htm http://server1.imaging-resource.com/SOFT/ICOR/ICOR.HTM http://www.luminous-landscape.com/icorrect.htm http://www.digitalproducer.com/2001/05_may/reviews/icorrect/icorrectpro.htm Given my respect for Mess'rs Lyons and Reichmann (first and third links above), and my need for such a tool (r-g colourblindness), I jumped at it. I only bought the standard, stand-alone version, as I don't have a need for colourmatching at the moment, and I only use Photoshop when I have to.. The good - it works. REALLY well. I had some friends watch over my experiments with it, in case you are wondering how I could judge..:-) Its ability with skintones is impressive enough, but it is exceptional with neutrals, even over a wide range of tones - I could spend quite some time with curves and still not manage what it does in a couple of clicks.. The bad - The undo is a bit slow, so it can be a pain to 'back-up'; it doesn't remember the last folder used (probably easily fixed via its shortcut); and the standard version only works on 24-bit files, which may be an issue for some. Up until now, I felt very uneasy about the possibility of giving out an image with a slight cast I had missed because of my 'affliction' - this product has really made a difference to me - so I apologise if I sound like a sales person.. mark t Tris, you wrote: I agree the plug-in seems the way to go, assuming the stand-alone software has the same feature set. After working a few times with the demo, though., I question somewhat the wisdom of buying it at all. It works after a fashion, but not on all material and the results are here and there. Also, I'm not sure it's any faster to use the iCorrect filter than the other image-correction tools already available to PS or PSP users. Appreciate the password if I do bite--where's your review of this software? I'd like to read it. Tris
Re: filmscanners:Vuescan 'bugs'
Can't help with your problem, but I have to make comment (as president of the Ed Appreciation Society!) 4) I see from the viewscan site, he no longer answers e-mails for tech support!!! Is this really so? Then why is the log file option box still available? Given Ed is a one man show (or so I understand it) and his product supports a multitude of scanners on 3 operating systems, with a variety of connection methods...and then given the number of weird configurations we all have, is this unreasonable? Heavens, I can't cope with the technical support on *my* system alone, and I'm not exactly illiterate.. :-\ What happened between version 7.33 (worked fine) and version 7.35 and why doesn't Ed support the product anymore? In the past he has been eager to fix problems when we reported bugs to him. And up until yesterday he still was... :-) I think he is simply asking folk not to email him as soon as something goes wrong - just by reading this list it is obvious that there all sorts of problems getting a system running sweetly, many of which are *not* Ed's responsibility. Ed seems to me to be VERY responsive whenever there is a major issue, or a problem that affects more than one user. If you are having a problem that is Vuescan's fault, there's a good chance others on this list will quickly back you up, and I'm sure Ed will sort it. In the meantime, drop back to the version you were happy with... mark t
Re: filmscanners: VueScan Histogram
I would second Julian's comments - expecially the part about leaving the histograms in view for the Preview Memory function - that's the first thing I tried to do and was a little frustrated by not being able to see what happened until I had hit the tab again. Ideally leave the old histo there until the moment that it changes - then when we see the actual 'switch' take place I think we will quickly get the hang of the relationship between the numbers and the graph. mark t PS - I find it hard to believe we are all sitting here having our needs/wants met by a software developer, often in hours, let alone months or years.. Ed, I hope you never learn the 'normal' way to develop software... :-) Julian wrote: Looks good so far, Ed. I like the layout, with the combined histo on top, and the RGB histos superimposed. I'm sure there will be a raging torrent of suggestions on more gongs and whistles to add. I would like to see some way of connecting the histograms to the numbers entered in the WP, BP, and gamma settings, but I am not sure about the best way to do this. .. Here's one request that I think makes sense, and which would be easy to implement. If the user is viewing the Prev Hist tab and then executes a Preview or Prev Mem, leave the Prev Hist tab in front, rather than switching to the Preview tab. Chances are, the user wants to see the effects of the new scan on the histogram. Similarly, if Scan Hist is in front, leave it in front if the user does a Scan or Scan Mem. My own preference would be for disabling automatic flipping of the display and histo tabs altogether, and let me choose when to flip them.
Re: filmscanners: OT (a bit) - Software for the colour-challenged
Thanks for the replies (which quickly talked me into getting ICorrect), and thanks also for the warning, Roger. I went ahead and got the 'off-the-net' version, and didn't get hit with any extra taxes that I could see - the final message in the purchasing process stated what my card had been debited, and it was correct. I printed it, and will check my statement, though (converting the US dollars to Oz ones). It downloaded fine - I am sure your consumer protection laws would protect you if you did have a failed download - I can't believe they could get away with charging you again..!? Now to start playing with it.. :) mark t Roger wrote: ... Digital River charged me more than Pictographics quoted and they did so without notifying me..
filmscanners: OT (a bit) - Software for the colour-challenged
As a person who battles with moderate red-green colour-blindness, I am seeking software that can help out.. (Yes, I know I should have picked a more sensible hobby..) The 2 methods I currently use - 'doing it by the numbers' or getting my work checked by someone else! - can be quite frustrating at times. And before you tell me to use transparencies, I wish to continue using negatives for low-contrast portraiture. I have been having a quick look at a product mentioned briefly on the list before, namely ICorrect (www.picto.com), which basically gives a 'quick and dirty' fix by making assumptions about skin-tones, neutral areas, foliage and sky. At first glance, the free demo seems to give a very good starting point - much quicker and better than I can do by eye-dropping/curve-fiddling. Some shots I had almost given up on (tungsten, no filtration, underexposed - yeuch!) looked as though they would be usable after the ICorrect treatment. I have read positive reviews on the web (inc. from Ian Lyons Michael Reichmann) and I think I'm convinced anyway, but would be very interested to hear from any others on the list who are using it, both from a normal or colorblind perspective. My feeling is I probably don't need the features of the Pro version, which makes it a *very* cheap (US$40) solution to most of my c-b problems. Thanks, mark t
RE: filmscanners: VueScan 7.3 Available
One small bug, Ed, or maybe it is just me? When I try to *tab* from one field to the next, eg from Black to White Point, the focus jumps to the preview window instead.. Otherwise, I really like the new layout. Well done! mt
filmscanners: OT - Viruses and MS Outlook / Express
Sorry to go off-topic, but now might a good time - just in case anyone on the list does not keep up-to-date with virus information: If you use MS Outlook, or MS Outlook Express to read your mail, be afraid! There are now viruses that will attack your PC *just by you reading the mail*. It used to be that you had to open attachments to be at risk, but that is no longer the case. Even an automatic *preview* of an infected message will result in infection. So if you use either of these products, please visit MS.com and get the patches, and (everyone) please keep your virus checker updated.. mt
Re: filmscanners: OT - a bit more public praise for Ed :)
Thanks Ed. It is SUCH a pleasure to get this sort of response from a software developer. Just imagine - if certain unnamed organisations acted like this their software might only be half as pretty, but *wouldn't crash*. I know which I'd prefer. :) Now I must get back to installing Linux on my spare PC grin mark t. Ed wrote: .. Why does my image change so dramatically between white point 0.001 and 0? It's a bug - zero was being treated as the same as setting Color|Color balance to None. I've fixed this, and will release it in 7.2.11. Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: VueScan white balance question
Maybe a dumb question (I'm tired).. :-) Why does my image change so dramatically between white point 0.001 and 0? When tweaking white point, I find I get small useful changes down to 0.001, but if I try to go lower or to zero, the image suddenly drops VERY dramatically in brightness/gamma. Is this something intentional ? I thought I was simply changing the number of clipped data points from a very small number to zero, so I am a little puzzled at the size of the sudden drop in brightness... Acer 2720, no fancy settings, and my crop area is well within the borders... thanks for any clues for the clueless..! mt
Re: filmscanners: flatbed scanners
Ian wrote: I'm running into people who earnestly tell me that the better grade flatbeds now do 2400 dpi and are therefore OK for 35mm negs slides. Ian, I would be asking these earnest folk - do they actually *use* them for that purpose, and are they (at least) amateur photographers? :-) I would be very leery of specifications and marketing hype. May I quote from a currently running ad from Canon, about their D2400UF..a flatbed with a transparency adapter.. 'get virtually DRUM SCANNER QUALITY, for an unbelievable price.' 'professional quality scanning is now within the reach of the small professional studio' 'six-line hyper CCD also delivers an Optical Density of 3.3, a standard by which desktop drum scanners are judged' I've seen reviews and results from the D2400UF, and suffice to say I am not running out to buy this 'drum-scanner equivalent'...!!! Maybe I'm just too cynical in my old age.. Sigh. :) mark t
Re: filmscanners: Novice scanner
At 09:44 AM 21/11/01 -0500, you wrote: I have an Acer ScanWit 2720S and Epson 1270 printer, and I'm using Photoshop 5. Ditto here. ...All of the prints I've made so far, color and BW, exhibit excessive grain. I'm told that it isn't really grain, and I agree that it probably isn't since it is quite prominent in BW images shot with Ilford Pan F, a film that has no grain problems. If you're doing a lot of bw (in fact no matter what you are doing!) get hold of Vuescan at www.hamrick.com. On another list this same problem appeared, and the victim was amazed at the difference Vuescan made. Miraphoto makes some lousy choices if left to it's own devices, and you can end up with noise in places it shouldn't be.. My Acer does have some problems with grain-aliasing in deep shadow areas of colour negatives, but I doubt if this is your problem with Pan F. Re grain-aliasing - there are a number of helpful techniques discussed on this list some time back - if you want a copy give a yell.. ...Some of the prints are banded, but not all. In one case, there even appears to be banding in the scan! But in scans that have no apparent banding, I still get banded prints at times. Unless the banding is in the same position on the print as on screen, it is probably inkjet cleaning time... there are some scanner faults that might cause this, but if they are not always appearing on screen, it sounds much more like a printer issue. ...I'm very frustrated that I can't dodge and burn in BW images. I've read an article about simulating these functions by using multiple layers, but I haven't learned about layers, yet, and the whole thing was over my head. Be patient. I'm still struggling with layers.. :-( I feared that this technology would not satisfy me after so many years in a darkroom, but I thought it would at least give me acceptable results in color. So far, it's worse than I expected. I'm sure that much of the problem is due to my lack of knowledge and experience with the software. I also suspect that some of it may be the fault of the scanner. If you got one of the good Acer's (they seem to have a few quality control issues, but mine is great), then keep at it.. Having played with both Nikon and Canon 4000 dpi-ers, I have decided that the Acer is excellent value for money.. So give it a bit more of a chance :-) mt
Re: filmscanners: Any real 4000x6000 camera back???
For an estimated 13,000+ UK pounds, I think I would be wanting at least 4Kx4K pixels :-) Yes, the DCS Pro back is definitely a 16Mp device. Try here for a quick summary: http://photo.askey.net/news/0009/00091901kodakproback.asp Harvey wrote: But aren't those really just 4000 x 4000 *sensors* (not pixels), and since each pixel is made up of an R, G B (and usually an extra G) sensor, it would mean that it's really just 1000 x 1000...the rest is interpolation. Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC
RE: filmscanners: Any real 4000x6000 camera back???
Austin wrote: ... I would conclude, without any further information, that is does use a color quad, and does interpolate the color information as was speculated in the other post. BTW, it would be 2000 x 2000, not 1000 x 1000... ;-) So, pro photographers are being asked to pay an extortionate amount for a device which will only give about 180 pixels per inch on an 11 x 8 printout, from something originally taken on say a Hasselblad?? I understand your concerns and explanation of sensor operation, but if the DCS Pro really only gives a 'true' 4Mp, surely the ouput will give the game away - no-one in their right mind would pay that much for it. I must be missing something obvious.. (It's Friday, so my brain may be out of gear..) mt
Re: filmscanners: (OT) Flash durations, was Pixels per inch vs DPI
Just for the record, for those who don't use *studio* flashlighting, *on-camera* flashguns rarely drop below 1/500 second flash duration, as Dave said. (Just checked 3 different flashgun manuals to make sure my memory serves correctly..) In fact, the cheaper and smaller the flash, generally the shorter the flash duration. Only high-power flashguns (eg the 'hammer' type generally seen hanging off Bronicas, Hassleblads, etc) get down around 1/500 and they get there only when you need an awful lot of light.. So compared to the lowest fully-open, ie synch-able, shutter speed of a typical SLR it is still a much shorter duration. I doubt that any latency would be relevant - I mean, you can slave a second flash off an electronic eye, and *still* not catch the second shutter curtain... And before anyone asks, I'm not going to any effort to prove it - I got over all this stuff when I first learnt about cameras.. ;-) You simply *must* use the synch speed or less (or experiment to see whether they have erred on the low side - eg on my usual SLR, the synch speed is 1/100, but I've satisfied myself that 1/125 is actually still OK). At 1/250, hardly surprisingly, I don't get a full-frame of flash - for the reasons already explained in some detail.. mt From: SKID Photography [EMAIL PROTECTED] For the record, we use ProFoto studio lights, where we've experienced the 250th of a second cut off of lighting output on our Polaroids.
filmscanners: Canon FS4000 scanner 'review'
at samples and tests, so I think I know a good scan from a bad one, even at 4000 dpi - This was a test over just one hour with software and equipment I have never used before.. So bear that in mind when I summarise with - I think this would be a very fine scanner for those who do mainly negative work, and/or who don't tend to make a career out of underexposing their slides... :-) For me, the small increase in resolution over a 2700 dpi image, and even the FARE ability, just wasn't enough of an attraction to me, given the problem I would have had with underexposed transparencies. Maybe Vuescan is a solution, or I may have missed something quite obvioous, but that's the best I can offer.. Hope this is of some use - if anyone wishes to discuss issues off-list, feel free. Regards to all combatants (er I mean list members :-), mark t
Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 ppi film scanner
mt Why not take a copy of Vuescan with you and output a Raw file, you could then take the Raw file home and open it within Vuescan for more heavyweight testing. Just a thought. Thanks Richard - a *good* thought - I will. Given the extraordinary differences in colour balance that I get out of my Acer, just by using the defaults in Miraphoto vs the defaults in Vuescan, I won't be spending too much effort judging the colour accuracy on negatives.. The areas I am mostly interested in, in rough order of importance, are: - dynamic range (I have some awkward shadowy Provias Kchromes to throw at it, and I am a chronic underexposer..:-) - overall sharpness - edge to edge sharpness (I got lots of 'bent' Kchromes that I have no desire to demount.) - colour accuracy (mainly on slides) - freedom from lens defects (flare, etc) - ease of use and my perception of how the unit 'feels' (ie will it last..?) - ease of batch scanning - efficiency of the FARE dust and scratch removal I'll report back soon.. mt
RE: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI
Austin wrote: My largest print size is 17x22 from my 3000. I can see differences from standard viewing distances that have convinced me that 180+ is the minimum resolution that is acceptable to me for the type of work I do, if not 240+ preferred. 100 is vastly degraded. 'Vastly'? Well, I bow to your excellent eyesight! It sounds like your work includes a lot of BW which does make a difference.. You obviously do have high standards, but don't forget us lesser mortals.. :) (please note - all said in good humour and definitely *not* meant unkindly!) It is generally agreed that your average photo lab print is at best 200 dpi, Where has this been agreed upon? I'm not doubting it, but I never heard that. I also would say that probably doesn't hold true for (especially BW) darkroom prints In my end of the world a 'photo lab' is the downmarket, 1-hour-color-processing type place.. so perhaps we are talking at crossed purposes - if you are talking BW or pro-lab prints, then I agree 200 is too low. As to where it is agreed (or maybe argued!) upon: www.scantips.com 'When we get right down to it, scanning color prints can rarely yield more detail when scanned at more than 300 dpi. And in many cases, that number may be closer to 200 dpi. I am carefully saying color prints, to exclude film and BW prints. In particular, I'm speaking of typical 4X size 35 mm photographic color prints from the photofinisher.' http://www.scanjet.hp.com/ (this quote used to be there, but I can't find it now, I admit) 'The vast majority of scanning projects require resolutions lower than 300 dpi. For example, scanning a photograph at resolutions higher than 150 to 200 dpi only produces a larger file, not more detail.' On the output side, there's some interesting magnified samples here: http://www.imaging-resource.com/TIPS/PRINT1/PRINT1A.HTM Go down to the samples, move right back until the '360' image is clear, and then look at the difference from the 120ppi one. For the *alternate* view, (yes I often argue with myself) and to show that I really don't dispute your opinion, try here (*well* worth a visit): http://www.users.qwest.net/~rnclark/scandetail.htm Here, amongst lots of other interesting stuff, the author shows that 400 ppi is required to get everything off a SHARP print (his emphasis). I would argue that the average joe has probably never seen *that* sort of sharp print :-( , and that a print from a 1-hour lab is about half as good.. Point is, whether 100ppi looks good at all VASTLY depends on print size. AND viewing distance, and image content. :) It's a bit like the debate I have had with people who tell me their 2Mp camera gives superb results when printed to 11x8. Some show me a print, and it can indeed look *darn good*, even up close. But then I say, 'OK, give me the camera and let *me* pick the subject', and the debate is lost - they know images with fine detail will show up the low resolution.. Certainly 100ppi will look GREAT if the print is the size of a billboard, but for a 13x19, it looks poor, IMO. Up-close-and-personal, and on an image with detail, I agree. But what about a slightly soft-focus, close-up, color portrait? I know that's cheating, but my point is that low resolutions like 100 ppi shouldn't be strenuously avoided at all costs. I think members of the list (esp newer ones) should find out for themselves what low-res prints look like, before locking their brains into the 240-and-above zone. Just more of that 'variable mileage' we all get, I guess! :-) mark t
Re: filmscanners: OT: Email contacts
Sorry 'bout the late reply, but for those annoyed at being ignored by companies with web-presences but no email contact info, sometimes you may get yourself noticed by trying the 'default' email addresses. Most companies use at least some of the addresses below, and it is unusual for them not to be monitored by a human. Your mileage will vary depending on that human, of course.. :-( Do remember that these folk are probably not 'the enemy', but they may forward your concerns on if you play your cards right. If trying to contact www.xyzcompany.com, try [EMAIL PROTECTED] webmaster@... admin@... administrator@... abuse@... system@... Some more knowledgable 'web-heads' may be able to add to or correct that list. If the addresses don't exist the emails will just bounce back to you. And of course you can always just stab in the dark, and try [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] :) Requesting a return receipt can help if you need to verify your claims later.. Good luck. mark t At 11:09 PM 23/10/01 -0400, David wrote: By the way, does anyone know how to email Minolta?
filmscanners: Lossless JPEG's? was Hello
At 04:06 AM 21/10/01 -0600, Bill wrote: ... o The JPEG standard includes a lossless setting. Photoshop 6 supports it: set the quality level to 12. it will compress to, say, 1/3 of the original size. JPEG only supports 24-bit images. G'day Bill. I had never heard of a lossless JPG, so I checked the JPEG FAQ, which basically says that there *was* an early version of a lossless JPEG, but it never took off. They also referred to a new standard called JPEG-LS - is this what you meant? I couldn't see anything about it in the PS Help file, but I only took a quick look. I would be most interested if PS6 really does supprt a lossless JPG.. As far as I knew, the main players were/are: TIFF - 48-bit, lossless, large files TIFF with LZ compression - As above but files can be much smaller (esp if image is not grainy or detailed), eg typically 1/2 to 1/5 original size JPEG - 24-bit, lossy but adjustable. File sizes often less than 1/5 of the uncompressed TIFF (depending on quality setting and image content) PNG - 24-bit, lossless. File sizes usually a bit smaller than compressed TIFF, but not as small as JPEG. (PNG's are also readable by most browsers, which makes them useful for 'critical' web-display.) FWIW, I always use TIFF without compression if in any doubt (I have had quite a few problems with lack of portability of LZ'd TIFs), and I am now moving over to PNG's for my own file storage in order to save CD space. The lack of 48-bit quality hasn't yet been an issue for me.. mt
Re: filmscanners: Glass slide mounts - caution advised
Apart from the problems already listed, namely: - newton rings (you will definitely want the anti-newton-glass type, IMO) - possible degradation of image due to extra surfaces - more potential to gather dust, and more effort to remove .. may I add these - as a person who tried them for a while and then decided not to continue: - danger to film (a 'normally' damaged slide can usually be retouched, but if a glass breaks it can get REALLY nasty) - fungal growth may be increased if moist air gets trapped in the mount - similarly, just like the windscreen on a new car, g-m mounts can get that horrible 'film' on them, presumably from chemicals released from plastics, etc (eg other slides in the same box, film emulsions?) I've had some slides effectively ruined because of the fungal growth issue - maybe I mounted stored them on a humid day..? Anyway, just be careful (and *never* post or lend out a g-m original!) and keep an eye on them if stored for the long term.. mt
Re: filmscanners: NIKON LS 4000 AND D1X
At 11:31 PM 15/09/01 +, Mikael wrote: MY CONCLUSION IS The history ends here for me regarding using 24 x 36 mm film and Nikon Ls4000 scanner. ...The Nikon D1 x produce remarkable clean pictures comparing to film. What's around the corner? Umm, one that I can afford? :) I'll give it a year or two, and then like you I will be jumping ship. That still leaves all those boxes of negatives and slides that I already have, sadly.. mark t
Re: filmscanners: Another undusting method - was Dust in Sprintscan 4000?
At 03:19 PM 15/09/01 -0400, Dale wrote: Doesn't anyone use Photoshop's Dust and Scratch filter? I find it useful in cleaning up dirty scans, and automated selections using the magic wand and color range tools. Up until recently I would just clone away dust spots, as I didn't like the unwanted side effects of D S. Someone else on the list suggested an alternative method from Eddie Tapps website (sorry, don't have the link handy) which I have found useful. It lets you *paint* the D S filter, and I find this method, along with cloning in some areas, is fast and invisible if done well. Here's a quick step by step.. 1. Run the Dust and Scratch (Filter, Noise, DS). Set Radius to kill most of the spots (2-4?), and set Threshold to match the noise in the image. 2. At the bottom of the History Window, hit the Create New Snapshot button. 3. Now that you have captured the processed version, go to Edit, Undo to reverse the D S effect. 4. Select History Brush, and change options to Lighten (slides) or Darken (negs). You may want to reduce Opacity, but I don't. 5. Click in the spot to the left of Snapshot 1 to make the processed image the source for the History brush. 6. Select an appropriate brush size, and wisk (sic) away the spots! Of course you can flick between History and Rubber Stamp modes as you go.
RE: filmscanners: ReSize, ReSample or ReScan ?
For the record, I just printed Dean's test on an Epson 1270 (the old version of the 1290, with 1440 dpi). Used EPP, 1440 dpi, highest quality settings. Out of curiosity, I'll mention that the white lines in black were only barely visible in the top 3 resolutions (239, 240 and 241) - they were completely lost in the rest. Needless to say I don't use Postscript, and maybe that is also why the font used for the res numbers looks fat and horrible (on screen as well as on the print)..? Anyway, just using the criteria of looking for variations in line widths (ie adjacent lines loking fatter or thinner), there seem to be 2 'sweet spots', at 240 dpi and 360 dpi. In practice however, I would agree with other comments that there is little difference when printing 'real' images, once over 200 dpi. I had pretty well settled on 240 dpi as being a nice balance between huge file sizes and good looking prints. I can just pick the difference between 240 and 300+ dpi, but at normal viewing distances it is irrelevant. Your eyesight, fussiness and mileage may vary of course.. :) mark t Ps - Who is about to sign off, because of the traffic generated by the 'aa bait'. I'll come back when it gets back to less 'did so-did not' arguments and more f-s topics. Sincere thanks to the many excellent contributors, both pro and beginner who largely remain on-topic, eg Tony, Art, Rob, Julian, Steve, Dean, Lawrence, Cary, rafe, Mikael (and others who I apologise for not listing but you know who you are). Bye.
RE: filmscanners: OT: Aaaargh...! not more @#$%^y X-ray fogging
I usually monitor OT messages in the hope I might see something worthwhile, but I am giving up on this one as flogged *well* beyond death. :-( Am I alone in my fervent desire that OT discussions should go 'OL' after a sensible period? sigh mt .. who doesn't claim to be a professional photographer, and so submits his opinions meekly.. ;-)
Re: filmscanners: OT - Canon S800 was Dust removal software?
I have a Canon Australia supplied test print from the S800. The flesh tones in the sample (a girl swimming underwater) tend in a rather ugly way towards orange*, and dark areas show noticable striping when viewed closely (just like my Epson when a jet is clogged!). I checked a number of samples, and they were all identical.. Now maybe it's just a bad run of samples, but if so, Canon Oz should try to get their act together if they really want to sell it - it is quite expensive over here so buyers are likely to be fussy. Overall I was somewhat unimpressed, but I have asked the supplier to call me in when he gets one... I know Tony was keen to try this printer, so I wait with baited breath for his comments.. mark t * And yes I checked with a number of 'un-protanopic' friends! At 10:37 PM 6/09/01 +1200, Colin wrote: Tony wrote: Printing them well is another matter however, best discussed elsewhere. Not even a wee discussion? Have you seen prints off the Canon S800 yet?
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Vuescan Image or Slide film
At 10:56 AM 3/09/01 -0400, Mike wrote: Maris wrote: The developer Ed Hamrick also suggests using Image for slide film. Under what circumstances should Image be used? If you want deep shadow detail. And I find the Slide setting also may result in burnt highlights.. mark t
RE: filmscanners: OT response - New auto adjust software on it's way
(please do not read on if offended by weak humour) At 01:35 PM 30/08/01 -0700, Dean, then Jawed wrote: Some of the problems include dividing by zero So this *doesn't* give an infinitely better image? :) It definitely isn't rocket science we're seeing here. ..And he said it without a chuckle..? I dare you to ring up NASA and tell them that.. Seriously though, I think the selective Gamma bit is quite impressive, but the sharpening destroys it for me. I'd love to have a play with it - wonder if there's a shareware version? :-) mt
Re: filmscanners: Too picky?
As an owner (yes I'm a cheap s-o-b) of two of the cheapest scanners on the market, the Olympus ES10 and the Acer 2720, I can report neither has/had a single dead or lazy pixel. Nor have any of the CCD's or LCD displays on video cameras I have owned (4 to date), and if any of the above did hav'em they would be taken straight back to the dealer. If there was a hassle with that, I'd be off to our Consumer Affairs bureau. I do have a low-end Canon flatbed with a slight 'stripe', but I haven't yet pulled it to bits to see if it is just something stuck on the calibration area. If it is a dead'un, back it goes. I'm happy to clone dust away, but I draw the line at lines... So if you are over fussy, you are nevertheless not alone :) mark t At 03:04 AM 30/08/01 -0700, Art wrote: My second unit also suffers from duff or lazy pixel sensors on the CCD. Some have implied I am being too picky. For people who do NOT have Minolta Dual Dimage II scanners, do you have one or more lazy or bad sensors in your CCD array, and if so, do you consider that an acceptable defect and have you decided not to exchange it?
Re: filmscanners: Comparing scanners
offlist G'day rob. Being in your neck of the woods (well, at least the same hemisphere!), I would be happy to share a slide or negative or two, and produce some raw scans on my Acer 2720S. Let me know if you get any other responses, and I'll give you a postal address. I think it would be an interesting exercise - I'd also be happy to help dig up a challenging image or two, although I reckon any of us could do that pretty easily!.. I don't have many Velvias, but do have a fair bit of K25 and 64. (I also don't do all that much portraiture, so my collection wouldn't be a great choice if you want to compare other stuff, eg fleshtones.) Regards, Mark T. At 03:30 PM 28/08/01 +1000, you wrote: Just a thought - I don't know the guts of how Photoshop produces histograms, so this may not work as well as I think it could... Would it be a useful comparison of scanners to scan the same slide with Vuescan to raw files and compare the histograms? It seemed to me that this might give some sort of a meaningful comparison of where the data might be getting clipped. I'm not sure how it could work with negs, but a comparison of slides would make more sense anyway with the greater range of density. Comments? Obviously this is only good for scanners supported by Vuescan and not very scientific. I've scanned a few slides on the SS4000 and I'll take them home to try some comparisons with the output from the LS30. One thing is already clear - the brightness settings in Vuescan aren't consistent across all scanners. Where a brightness of 1.5 is too bright on the LS30, the data from the Polaroid seemed to need pushing to a brightness setting of 2.0 or even more. This was not something I expected. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Comparing scanners
Ooops. Apologies to list members for more clutter. It was *meant* to be offlist.. ..old age approacheth!.. mark t At 07:51 PM 28/08/01 +0930, Mark T slipped up and wrote: offlist G'day rob. etc..
Re: filmscanners: Change the flamin' subject line!
Jeez, guys. If you put half the effort into upgrading that you put into arguing philosophical minutiae, all of your systems could be updated and put through a rigorous crash testing program by now. :) And when things drift off-topic, howz about remembering to change the subject line? Then those who are completely disinterested (or is it just me?) can trash the messages with nary a glance... mark t At 11:46 AM 27/08/01 +0200, you wrote: Can you guarantee that every one of my applications will run on it without change? How do I support my 1800 Type 1 fonts, for example? How does it handle dongles? How well does it work with PPTP and DSL? ad infinitum
Re: Acer ScanWit Slides Was: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
I'm not Lynn, but hopefully he won't mind me rudely jumping in.. What problem are you having? About the only difficulty I have is with cardboard mount slides which can catch on the rounded corner at top right of each slide position.. You can carefully remove that corner with a sharp blade if it really annoys you. If it is just the general loading process, my method is.. Lie the holder, fully open, on the desk, so that the large 'SLIDE' picture is at the left, and the 4 openings are to the right. Position the first slide so that the left and bottom sides are just resting against the spring clips. Using the index fingers or thumbs of both hands, move the slide downwards until it slips under the top rail, and then slide to the left until the top right corner clicks under the rounded edge. And so on. One of the *lower* clips broke off on mine (a common occurrence I gather), but I discovered it was then easier to load the slides, and the side clips hold it quite adequately. ..so I broke the other 3 off.. mark t At 09:55 PM 16/08/01 -0400, Johnny wrote: Hi Lynn, Do you have problems loading slides into your ScanWit or is it just me? I'd been using mine just for negatives for a few weeks and was thinking that it was the best thing since sliced bread. Well, maybe not really that good but I was pretty well satisfied after I tried some 100 ASA film instead of Portra 400VC. Well, yesterday I got back some mounted Velvia slides and I really like the quality of the scans but loading the holder is driving me crazy. I've tried turning the thing in forty eleven different directions but I haven't found a method that works well. Are there any secrets that might help with slides other than getting them cut and sleeved instead of mounted? Thanks,
Re: filmscanners: Good neg stck on Scanwit
No, what I meant was - I can *easily* slap a good transparency in and then print off a pin-sharp, grainless 11 x 8 at 300 dpi. But with a negative, I would normally spend time ensuring the print was free of grain, by the usual blurring of layers, etc etc. I agree that you can get very good 11 x 8's, and larger, off negatives with a 2700dpi scanner. But for me anyway, it requires more work and care. I was also taking into account that the enquiry seemed to be coming from a publishing point of view, so I imagine his standards for output are going to be high.. So, I do agree with you, and I'm sure your prints are great! mark t At 09:25 PM 7/08/01 +1000, you wrote: Mark T. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you have a 4000dpi scanner, probably. But I find with 2700 dpi, the grain-aliasing makes it harder to get good enlargements (8x10 and up) off negs. Really Mark? You can't get a good enlargement to A4 at 2700dpi? That really surprises me - larger prints less so, although I've printed A3 from a neg scan out of the LS30 on my Epson 1160 and it looked OK. :-7 I'm not boasting. Far from it. I'm just surprised that you say you can't get good prints to A4 off negs. Rob
Re: filmscanners: Good neg stck on Scanwit
At 12:42 PM 7/08/01 +0700, Geoffrey wrote: I normally use trani stock but need to do some photography using neg film [35mm] and seek your opinion as to which neg films to use through an Acer Scanwit 2720s. I have a number of locations to film and will be shooting available light interiors under fluoro and fill flash, daylight and daylight overcast. For available light interiors is 800 iso [Kodak Fuji Konica Agfa] OK these days for grain size and colour reproduction or do I need a lower ISO stock? (non-professional opinions follow!) 800's are a lot better than they used to be, but you will have problems with grain-aliasing on the Acer (and that may become an issue if printing to high-quality 10 x 8's). And they still have a bit of that fast-film 'look'.. I think Fuji Reala 100 runs rings around everything, although Superia 100 is pretty close.. Superia 400 is very good for a fast film, and if you really need 800, the pro's recommend Fuji NHG II 800 Pro. If film cost is an issue, Konica Centuria 400 is very close to Superia 400. (And I have heard the new Agfa Color Vista 800 is very good - anyone tried it?) Whichever, I would strongly recommend you try a couple out to see if they will make the grade. The stock needs good colour reproduction and [reasonabely] little grain evident when scanned on the Scanwit. I have both Vuescan 7.1.7 and Miraphoto v2 [Vuescan is a mile in front IMHO]. My experience is that grain-aliasing becomes an issue with anything over 100ASA on the Acer (and even some 100's, esp. older emulsions) Also which neg films in the 200, 100 or 50 iso range give good reproduction under fluoro, daylight, overcast and flash [would I like a dishwasher as well;]. Pretty well all of them, but I think the Fuji 4-layer emulsions cope much better with mixed lighting. Others on the list will tell you any colour cast can be corrected, but I find it is MUCH easier with the Fuji's. Having said that, I don't find fluoro's as hard to balance as tungsten - but then I'm partly colourblind (grin). The new Agfa's are also supposedly strong in this area. One bottom line question is - Are the current generation of neg stocks so good as to rival trani for repro work? If you have a 4000dpi scanner, probably. But I find with 2700 dpi, the grain-aliasing makes it harder to get good enlargements (8x10 and up) off negs. mark t.
Re: filmscanners: Shadows and Scanwit 2720s
At 12:37 PM 7/08/01 +0700, you wrote: I'm doing some trani scans which are underexposed [how dare I!] and having a hell of a time digging out the detail in the shadows. This detail is also somewhat brown. I have tried doing multiple passes -8 infact at 2700 dpi. I also have a tramline problem in these deep shadow areas. Are the censors damaged? Sounds like dark noise from the CCD's, but could also be electronic interference. It would be worth repositioning your scanner and its cables, maybe even try a conditioned power supply, in case the noise is coming from an external source, eg the monitor, cards in the PC, other devices... Also, make sure the lamp opening (referred to below) is clear and smoothly edged, ie no hairs or ragged bits of plastic forming. Software is Vuescan 7.1.7. Can you advice a tried and true method to rake out the goodies in the shadows please. One thing you can try (but if you are down to dark noise it is unlikely to help) - at the handle end of the slide holder, there is a rectangular notched opening through which the Acer reads the lamp brightness colour before the scan. If you reduce the amount of light that gets through (eg cut up a bit of neutral density gel) you may be able to tweak some more exposure.. Also, experiment with Vuescans Image Type setting - Image and Slide give quite different results.. An aside... Did a sharpness test on the Scanwit / 7.1.7 using Vuescans sharpening tool...and another test without sharpening. Without wins hands down. Sharpening is definitely softer than without. Strange Very strange! I'm using 7.1.7/Scanwit also, but it works as advertised. Are you using the grain reduction at the same time perhaps? mark t
Re: filmscanners: Colorblindness, was IT8 Calibration..etc
At 02:29 AM 7/08/01 -0700, you wrote: I am very intrigued by the number of people on this list how have color deficiency. Does anyone know how common this is in the general population (or even just the male population)? Quite a few of us, I'll wager.. About 10% of the male population have 'colour impairment', most commonly in the red-green area, like me. Very few are truly blind to colour and actually see in bw, so the world is still very colourful to most of us. Have a look here for an interesting discussion with Dan Margulis (just click on the yellow link..): http://web1.ledet.com/margulis/ACT_postings/ACT-Colorblindness-Web.html I also find it interesting that a very color demanding field (Photography with interest in digital scanning) would attract so many people who have to deal with color perception disabilities. Me too! I've always wondered why on earth I am so fascinated by colour and want to work with it despite the difficulty - perhaps it is exactly *because* of the added attention one has to pay to colour early in life. I remember a teacher in about 2nd grade making unkind comments about the lime green lion I had painted. I figured they were green so they could hide in what I presumed was the green grass of Africa. :) Before that I had no idea I had a problem.. Maybe if enough people with this condition demand more objective color control we'll all benefit from easier to use color management. And wouldn't life be wonderful sigh. But from what I see, I'll be dead and gone before it is easy. :( My approach (currently being implemented..) is to carry a colour test target with me, include it as one frame in the shoot, and then try and get the numbers to match as best I can. (And get someone normal to check on me now and then..) mark t
Re: filmscanners: LS40 DMax and Multiscanning
Hi, Jawed - interesting pages, thanks for the effort. Have you looked at the slides through a loupe or projector to see how much detail was actually lost? I know this is all a bit subjective, but am curious whether there was much more to be resolved - some of the images did indeed look as though they had a fair bit more to offer in the shadows.. MT At 09:20 PM 5/08/01 +0100, you wrote: http://www.cupidity.force9.co.uk/Scanners/LS40/tests.htm Mike Duncan asked me, a few days ago, to provide some examples of multi-scanned versus single-scanned images from Vuescan using the LS40. Jawed
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan Image vs Slide setting
A small cautionary tale. It appears Vuescan's 'Slide' setting may result in blown out highlights, at least for my Acer (perhaps it is related to the lack of exposure control..?). I would be interested to hear if anyone else has experienced the following. A challenging (!) Ektachrome I scanned this morning was showing burnt out highlights in a small area. I tried adjusting white and black points, image brightness and gamma, and could not improve it. I had just about given up and assumed the area was in fact burned out on the slide, or that maybe the Acer wasn't resolving it. But then I tried Miraphoto, and it did a better job.. So I went back to Vuescan, and puzzled over what the problem was. I changed the Media Type to IMAGE rather than SLIDE, and sure enough, there was my lost data.. Moral - if your highlights are blown, check that setting! If you're interested, I've posted samples here.. http://members.ozemail.com.au/~markthomasz/burnt.htm Mark T.
Re: Scanning multiple times (was Re: filmscanners: Vuescan gripes)
Thanks for that, Ed. I figured I must be the only one who thought that was the case.. To be honest I've never used it to help with overexposed negs/ undexposed slides because my Acer has no trouble with these - from conversations with other Acer users, I suspect either my lamp is particularly bright :) or the unit is calibrated differently to most. I only have real trouble with noise and g-a in the light areas of film, so it doesn't help me much. Mark T. At 12:22 PM 21/07/01 -0400, Ed wrote: My experience has been that multiscanning doesn't help underexposed negatives at all, but instead is only marginally useful for overexposed negatives and underexposed slides. It primarily helps get detail from dark areas on the film.
Re: filmscanners: image samples of digital artifacts
At 10:48 AM 20/07/01 +, Lynn wrote: OK, I'm not exactly sure what's going on here, that one display set to factory specs (mine) shows posterization in an Internet JPEG, and two others (Rafe's and Bob's) do not. Should Internet picture postings come with the caveat, Warning, This Picture Must Be Viewed At 48-Bits!? That doesn't sound altogether realistic, to me. :-) I also see a 'clean' sky in 32-bit but posterisation in 16-. Could it be that your browser is working in 16-bit mode..? I've seen some older browsers do this - check the options for any funny switches, or perhaps you should bravely upgrade from Netscape v1.0, Lynn? ;) I'm assuming you've checked all the obvious stuff, like your kids sneakily putting your video card into 16bit mode for a game. I've also noticed that flicking from one res/color depth to another can sometimes results in odd effects when you go back to the higher settings, so maybe it just needs a boot.. Failing all that, take your monitor/video card back to the supplier (at last, a non-Nikon fault!) MarkT.
RE: filmscanners: image samples of digital artifacts
I hate to admit this and invite pressure :), but I have been collecting some bits and pieces for exactly this purpose.. My initial plan was to use microphotographs as well as scan samples to show how the grain-aliasing on my Acer is indeed 'set off' by real grain, and also to show how grain patterns vary in different colours/densities on negs. I once found a web-site with some of this, but do you reckon I can find it now..? I still plan to do that, but may as well toss in other defects as well.. (Although I don't have a Nikon ;), so I'll need to get permission from some kind soul to add some banding/jaggie samples.) If anyone else wants to contribute or make suggestions on other defects I should try to document, feel free. In the meantime, Pete's site at http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Grain.htm has some good g-a samples and explanations. Mark T. At 02:29 PM 19/07/01 -0600, you wrote: Lynn, I would be glad to contribute the web space and storage for this - I would love to see examples of the terms used by everyone! /fn (email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Lynn Allen Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 10:11 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: image samples of digital artifacts Dan wrote: Is there an online tutorial/FAQ/glossary somewhere that shows image samples of various digital artifacts (e.g., banding, grain-aliasing, jaggies, etc.)? I'm a newbie to all this, and Tony's glossary at halftone is a help but doesn't show pics. Here, I think, sample images would be worth a thousand words. Hoo, boy, that *would* be useful! Presently, every definition is about a half-click away from the next guy's definition. If I had a website, I'd give it a go (I've got *plenty* of examples!)--maybe some kind-sprited, web-savvy member will do it? Best regards--LRA _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
filmscanners: RE: filmscanners - Off Topic! Support for Dan - was Unsharp mask..
Methinks someone may have missed the point of Dan Margulis' style.. As a 'disabled' person myself (perhaps not moronic, but pretty close), I find Dan a breath of fresh air, and what's more, he actually deals with my problem... Yes, I am R/G colorblind. :( A nasty affliction if you enjoy this hobby..! But some of Margulis' articles have been quite a revelation to me, and I enjoy his somewhat over the top writings. I think the line quoted is quite inoffensive in its context. If anyone is interested in the 'offending' article (which is about resolution, not sharpening), it's here: http://www.ledet.com/margulis/PP6_Chapter14.pdf MarkT original message I haven't read enough to know if this guy Margulis knows what he's talking about or not, but to quote from one of his articles: Anyone who thinks that if a fine screen is good, than a finer one must be better is a moron. Right or wrong, I really have no interest in reading anything from someone who is so disrespectful of his readers and feels he needs to call them names, no matter how much of a genius he may be.
RE: filmscanners: Scanwit: Seeing through mount?
At 09:36 PM 13/07/01 -0600, Frank wrote: ..you are just seeing a shadow effect where the slide mount is blocking only some of the light path along the edge. Yup, I took a couple and looked at them under a microscope at low power and what you describe is definitely what is happening - one side has a slightly smaller aperture. However, this still says the Scanwit is able to see though that one smaller side's edge. I would rephrase that - I think you are still only seeing through the film. My guess is the wider aperture is on the side of the ccd? So at the edge the ccd sees the film very darkly illuminated from the light leaking around the inner edge of the mount. Ie (forgive ASCII art - done in arial, probably won't line up very well in other fonts.. :) | | | | light source | | | | | | | | = slide mount (smaller aperture) | | | \ \ \ leaking light! = film === slide mount (wider aperture) ccd sensor aa bbb ccc (I've left out lenses and other unnecessary items!) So at aa you see your normal image, at bbb you see a weakly illuminated bit of image, and at ccc it should be black (probably cropped out of your sample). To check this theory, just turn the slide around - I reckon the edges will be black. And what the result seems to be is that area has higher contrast with no more noise than the film area next to it. But do you *want* higher contrast? I played with your image, and by selectively fiddling with the different areas, couldn't see any real advantage to the darker area - in fact if anything, the reverse. Is this a Provia slide by the way? If it is, then it looks like your scanner is like mine - I find the noise is just far enough below the max density of most slides to not be a problem, but some Provia's, Velvias and K-Chromes start to push the envelope.. I think the bottom line is that my next scanner will definitely have a manual exposure mode! Agreed. But for the market the Scanwit is aimed at, I can understand their thinking... MarkT.
Re: filmscanners: Getting started question
At 02:20 PM 13/07/01 -0600, Frank wrote: Questions: (from a scanning perspective) 1. Should I be using cheap film/processing during this learning phase or is this a bad thing which will cause me to develop bad habits? I think your approach is fine. The only drawback is that if you're like me, occasionally you'll encounter a potentially great shot and have to capture it on average film.. I've got more than a few shots where I now think - if only that was on Reala, or Provia.. :( And if you are using a pro-ish lab, you will be able to make your own judgements about whether they are worth it.. I use cheap processing for most of my stuff, and only scream out in dismay occasionally. I've found even the cheaper labs do respond to complaints, at least about things like 'why are there fingerprints on my neg's' They now recognise me - 'psst here's that fussy guy, get your gloves on..') :) I know you said your budget was limited, but why not keep an eye out for a secondhand camera body (with the same lens mount), and keep the best camera loaded with better film? 2.Should I be sticking to a single film and learning how to use it and then moving on to other etc.? It usually takes me 2 rolls to discover whether I like a film or not. Do experiment with lots of settings before dumping a film, however. I *used* to hate Agfa HDC, but have now decided it isn't so bad after all for a cheap film - the problem was my lack of experience in setting up the scan. PS - for a newbie, your contributions to the list have been pretty insightful! MarkT
Re: filmscanners: Scanwit: Seeing through mount?
Unless your Pakons are a lot more transparent than mine, I doubt it, but I would await some more knowledgable responses. IMHO, I think that you are just seeing a shadow effect where the slide mount is blocking only some of the light path along the edge. The Pakon mount I am currently looking at has a slightly larger aperture on one side - if you study the slide closely from both sides I think you will see the effect I mean. I have a high (but still humble!) opinion of the Acer's ability to extract shadow detail from slides, and have found that fooling the autoexposure into higher levels only results in noise, like on your sample - anything it doesn't see isn't normally visible when I project the slide anyway.. My Acer has more trouble in transparent areas, eg deep shadows in negatives are more problematic! You're right about Provia - now try Reala for your negatives and you might want to be a polygamist.. :) MarkT At 04:46 PM 13/07/01 -0600, Frank wrote: .. What I found surprised me, it appears the scanner can see though the slide mount! .. The film is Fugi Provia 100F and the mounts are a white plastic (Pakon is embossed on them). (side note - my wife is in trouble, I have fallen in love again, this time with a film the Provia scans are incredible!) Anyway, take a look and let me know what you think. It appears to me that it might be possible to put a neutral density filter over a slide or negative to fool the autoexposure system and increase the detail in low levels even more... or am I misunderstanding what I am seeing?
Re: filmscanners: OT - Printer Restest files from Jack, was Film Scanner Question Again
I didn't see anything attached to the post either.. As a 1270 owner who hasn't really done much experimenting yet to see if it has a sweet spot, I wouldn't mind trying them out, if Jack wants to try again or give a web-reference..? MT At 09:05 PM 10/07/01 -0700, you wrote: Jack Phipps wrote: . The attached file has several very fine lines at certain angles. Jack Phipps Applied Science Fiction I didn't find the attachment with your post, am I the only one? Art
Re: filmscanners: Figuring out size resolution
I agree with Roger's advice, but bravely add the following.. 1. I have always seen many beginners, me included, get very confused about the (non-existent?!) link between image resolution (ppi) and 'printer resolution' (eg the 1440/720 dpi setting). As a starting point, I just recommend that you always set the printer to the highest quality setting for the paper being used. And then deal with the resolution of your image as a separate issue, using the approach outlined by Roger. On many printers (admittedly not so much on a 1270..) using low quality settings like 720 or 360 dpi just results in more noticeable dithering in pale areas - *no matter what the resolution of your image might be*. 2. If you are printing directly from an imaging program and/or working on a high-spec PC, extra resolution (and therefore size) of your image might not be an issue. But if the image is to be incorporated into a dtp document (in Publisher for example, which doesn't cope very well with large images), you may *need* to resize the image first. And if you are sharing a network drive in an office/education/.. environment, your network supervisor will appreciate smaller files, it will be quicker to send via the internet, ..etc. So there are many circumstances in which it pays to resize to suit the required output quality. My personal (amateurish) experience on my 1270 is that 300 ppi gives 'pro' quality, 200 ppi is adequate for 'normal' photo-quality (and the difference is quite difficult to spot on most images), 100 ppi is adequate for a poster size print not likely to be viewed close up, or a document that will only be seen in photocopied form. Lastly, the image content can also be a criteria - some shots, eg soft-focus, would probably not benefit from going over 75 ppi..!! :)(Hey, try it before you disagree!) Mark T, now ducking for cover..
RE: filmscanners: Canoscan 2400 UF
At 07:22 AM 6/07/01 +0100, Derek wrote: Er how do you know? Have you tried it? It's interesting, because this is a flatbed that's snuck onto the market with a built in proper transparency lid, 2400x4800dpi optical resolution and 48 bits colour depth. This is an incredible spec for a flatbed, especially at the price. About the only Achilles heel is lack of speed. Making it USB-only costs. While Jack may have a slight ulterior motive! .. there are *other* reasons why most flatbeds can't filmscan well.. F'rinstance, 'another' potential Achilles heel is the lack of dynamic range - will this one drag the details out of my Kodachrome shadows like the Acer can..? Hmm. Can you have 2 Achilles heels? I do - should know as I've broken both of 'em.. But I think in this case I am guilty of metaphor abuse... :) MT [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jack Phipps) wrote: I think you'd be a lot happier with the Acer 2740 at a similar price. Jack Phipps Applied Science Fiction -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 12:58 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: Canoscan 2400 UF Has anyone tried or heard any reports about the Canoscan 2400 UF? They claim 2400 dpi, and it is going for about $450. Sounds like buying the Brooklyn Bridge or swampland in Florida, but thought I would ask. Jim Sillars (old, but not COMPLETELY senile)
Re: filmscanners: Film grain vs 2700 Stains Grains..
Tony Sleep wrote: ..No, IME you are unlikely to see genuine grain off ISO200 Fuji using 2700ppi. You are likely to get some aliasing which looks like grain. A way to check this would be to have a reasonably large C41 print made (say 12x8). I'll bet. There's a cheaper way for those who don't home process, but have a decent slide projector. Just stick your negative into a slide mount and project it. I found this *very* enlightening as I grapple with grain-aliasing (or whatever it really is) on my Acer. Tony's description of scattered dye clouds seems to perfectly describe the awful stuff that really does exist in the 'shadows' of most of my negatives, even Reala (although it's by far the best - thank you Fuji!). Naturally it is worse on fast films - but it also seems to vary within film stock eg some Kodak 100-6's seem particularly bad, which suggests the importance of good processing. Although I s'pose it could be poor storage/film batch variation, or maybe just not many underexposed negatives in that roll.. :) And to Frank N - visited your Stains Grains site, and read your comment 'I would expect there is no emulsion grain to create an aliasing effect' (in clear areas of negs). I thought exactly that 6 months ago, and to test it, I did a second scan of a woefully underexposed neg *upside down* and compared the 2 noise patterns. To my surprise, it was a very close match. So I projected the negative on my wall and sure enough, I could see a close correlation with the 'stuff' in the negative to what the scanner 'saw' (and unfortunately emphasised in glorious/spurious colour). Lastly, for the record, my Acer gives very even illumination - I can just detect a slight fall off to the long edges when I do ridiculous things to the contrast, but it has absolutely no detectable effect on my images. Like you said, if it isn't causing a problem on real images, I wouldn't fret too much :) I suspect scanning blank frames and winding up/down the levels would reveal terrifying looking faults in a lot of scanners.. Mark T.
RE: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dimage 7 camera
Interesting, but couldn't *also* help but notice the page on the Minolta Dimage 7 digital camera. 5.2 Mp, lens equivalent to a 28-200, and US$1499. Those specs numbers are beginning to sound almost interesting, even to a skinflint like me... MarkT From: Shough, Dean Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 11:00 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: filmscanners: New: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Multi PRO Film Scanner See http://www.steves-digicams.com/diginews.html Medium format, 4800 dpi, 16 bit A/D, ICE^3, SCSI and FireWire. (zero deleted to avoid further comment..!)
Re: filmscanners: ScanWit Yellow stain
Further to Art's comprehensive troubleshooting tips.. I hope I am wrong, but I have a sneaking suspicion that it's the lamp - therefore will be expensive to fix.. Best of luck - I presume you have spoken/pleaded with Honda Lo? (Tell him that the good karma you would give out, from receiving a replacement unit outside warranty, might bring MANY sales) :) Anyway, if you are unable to get it sorted..., may I also offer a quick, totally un-thought-out solution? Note that this is coming from a non-professional source, so is probably way off target.. If the stain is consistent, could you not scan a blank frame to get a 'profile' of it, then reverse that, maybe blur it a bit, and apply it to your image in Photoshop/whatever? Not a nice addition to your workflow (and ask someone *else* how to do it quickly!), but once you got the hang of it.. Mark T. ..who reckons all problems are easy to solve (provided they're not mine..) :) At 04:39 PM 25/06/01 -0700, Art wrote: Dear Jerry, I just took a look at your attachment in Photoshop. Of course, it is heavily artifacted due to the downsampling and Jpegging. The first thing.. (snipped) Oostrom, Jerry wrote: Hi Alan, I recently received my scanner back from Acer, but it still showed the same problems. Here I have an example of an overexposed negative.. (snipped again)
Re: filmscanners: Filmscanner for 8x10 prints
Someone else will have to comment on the Minolta, but my experience with the Acer Scanwit is that it is perfectly capable of pin-sharp 8x10 prints from slides. I have printed some of my slides to A3 (16x11) with excellent results also. The Acer suffers from grain-aliasing on negative film, but I don't think any 2700 dpi scanner escapes this. I also don't think Minolta is alone in producing some dud scanners - I have had heard nasty tales from some Acer owners also, but they seem to be willing to replace poor performers. My Acer however has always performed very well. It has excellent shadow detail and effectively zero noise in slide scans, except for some slight noise in blue/cyan areas (again, a common fault, but not particularly troublesome). It doesn't handle underexposed negatives all that well. At 09:17 AM 26/05/01 -0700, you wrote: I would like to get a $350-$450 scanner to make scans of slides to produce 8x10 prints on either an Epson 870 or Canon S800 inkjet printer. From reading over past posts, my impressions are that the Minolta Dual II gives slightly better scans than the Acer Scanwit 2720S (when using Vuescan) but that the Dual II has quality control problems--some people love it while others are frustrated by it if they get one that produces streaks across the scan. Is this an accurate and fair assessment? At a maximum enlargement of 8x10 from 35mm slides, would I be able to see differences between the Dual II vs the Scanwit in my prints? Any other recommendations? Thanks. __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/ == Mark Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.adelaide.net.au/~markthom
RE: filmscanners: Noise correction algorithms
At 09:16 AM 1/05/01 +0200, Jerry wrote: .. I noticed that the HP S20 software was able to paint e.g. in red all pixels that were being clipped by current histogram mapping settings. To me this seemed a handy feature, but no other software took over that idea. It seems that if you can show the user which data is being clipped or is being considered pixels-to-be-cleaned cq, IR-opaque-pixels, the user would be able to precisely control if the correct pixels are cleaned. This would be a good feature for any owner of a filmscanner without IR. It certainly would.. Small problem is that you have to do a full-resolution pre-view Why not a *tiny* full-resolution preview?!? Thumbs Plus has had this feature for years - when saving JPEGs, a small part of the full-res image appears in a scrollable preview window. You can flip from original image to compressed version instantly to see the effects of different compression levels, and of course you can also scroll it to view whatever area you want. A great feature that I don't see very often, but I would like to! ..I wonder: does anybody understand what I am trying to get at? I think I do, so there is at least one.. :) MT. P.S. Ed, if you're listening, when are you going to at least tell us you're *thinking about* separating the grain reduction and dust/scratch algorithms? :)
Re: filmscanners: FW: Dual Scan II - striping
At 01:42 AM 24/04/01 -0700, you wrote: I want to clarify if the striping I am seeing.. Yes, I see exactly the same effect in the same places, but quite subtle. If you run an eyedropper over the areas, you can see a small variation in the RGB numbers to back it up. So neither of you are hallucinating (or maybe it's spreading!). So my bet would be perhaps a slight variation in illumination evenness? That might be a hard one to fight as a warranty issue.. Or.. I have also encountered a similar, although much more well-defined, problem where another electronic item was interfering with the scanner - Have you tried relocating the scanner and its cables, perhaps even trying the SCSI card in another slot, if applicable.. Good luck. :)
Re: filmscanners: Acer Scanwit 2720s vs 2740s vs HP s20
At 04:44 PM 20/04/01 +0200, you wrote: am new to the filmscanner world.. We all are or were! :) I'm considering either the Acer Scanwit 2720s or the 2740s. My perception after reading the specs, is that the 2740s is 2720s+ICE. Did I miss anything? As Art has pointed out, the 2740 also uses a 14-bit A/D converter instead of a 12-bit. Without going into details (that I don't really understand anyway!), that may mean a slight increase in colour quality and/or contrast range.. Would like opinions/experiences of whether the ICE was worth the price. Otherwise, for the 2720s, how much effort did you take to touch up any negative defects (assuming minor blemishes). I have the 2720, and would spend 1-3 minutes touching up an 'average' image for 'average' quality :), for example if I wanted a good 6"x4" print or large on-screen display with no visible defects. If I am after 'high' quality (eg a razor sharp 11"x8" print), and it's very dusty or scratched, it could take 30 minutes or more - but that is rare. When I first started it could take a lot longer, but I think I have the hang of it now..! I often spend longer tweaking color/contrast than on dust removal.. ICE slows the 2740 down, as it has to do another pass over the film. I don't miss it, but if you have a lot of old dusty/damaged images it may be a worthwhile investment. The other unit I'm considering is HP's s20, but on features, stacks up with the 2720, and is much more expensive here. I think the s20 has slightly lower resolution, ie 2400 v. 2720, but my knowledge is rusty. I'm pretty sure there is a review of the HP on Tony's page (www.halftone.co.uk). I am very impressed with the Acer given it's price, and I think Art may be correct in saying that the s20 is a bit past its prime, particularly if you are planning to print at 7"x5" or more.. Regards, MT.
Re: filmscanners: Review of the Nikon CoolScan 4000
I guess you've probably got a few replies already, but here's another! Try here: http://www.imaging-resource.com/IRNEWS/archive/current.htm#Nikf Regards, Mark T. At 07:40 PM 8/04/01 -0700, you wrote: I just resubscribed to the list today after months of ISP problems. Would someone please forward (off list) to me the Coolscan 4000 review mentioned in this thread or point me to an archive where I can find it? Thanks, Pat - Original Message - From: "Dave King" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Review of the Nikon CoolScan 4000 _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com == Mark Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.adelaide.net.au/~markthom
Re: filmscanners: Review of the Nikon CoolScan 4000
At 04:11 PM 7/04/01 +, you wrote: Jeremy Please take a real sharp slide ( glassles) and select the auto focus in the middle of the picture and scan the slide ( standard mode) Move the auto focus setting out from the middle against the side of the picture and scan. Compare the information in the middle and corner of the 2 slides. Don't tell me that you not can se a big difference in the sharpness I have done this test on 2 different ED 4000 and same results. Best Regards Mikael Risedal Can I just add to this - *please* make sure that the test slide is a 'curved' one. Old Kodachromes in cardboard mounts are often like this - you may have to look harder to find a plastic-mounted one with a good bend.. Sorry if I am stating the obvious. :) Regards, Mark T.
Re: filmscanners: Film flatness Coolscan 4000
At 02:36 PM 8/04/01 -0700, Paul wrote: Please take a real sharp slide ( glassles).. .. Don't tell me that you not can se a big difference in the sharpness I have done this test on 2 different ED 4000 and same results... .. Can I just add to this - *please* make sure that the test slide is a 'curved' one. Old Kodachromes in cardboard mounts are often like this - you may have to look harder to find a plastic-mounted one with a good bend.. Sorry if I am stating the obvious. :) Oh and while you're at it, take the film pressure plate out of the back of your expensive pro-35mm camera before you take the picture. and then blame the camera manufacturer if your images are soft. jeez, you guys... what planet are you living on? pg Earth. For those following this thread, I apologise for repeating myself, but .. My collection of transparencies includes a LOT of K25s and K64s that I wish to scan. Almost without exception, they bow away from the emulsion side, on average by about .2mm, some up to .5mm. (No micrometer, just a wild guess.) My scanner just copes with them, and gives me good edge to edge sharpness. I gather the Nikon may not. I might be interested in upgrading to this scanner, but I am not prepared to demount all those slides, so to me this is a big issue. It also seems to affect Mikael, so that's 2 of us so far.. And YES, of course lack of film flatness is not 'directly' the fault of the scanner, but I would have thought that if you were designing a scanner, the depth of field would be an issue. Perhaps not many other people have bowed slides, and perhaps those that do are happy to remove them from their mounts. Fine. But *I'm* not. We live in a wide world and everyone is entitled to a different approach to their work, aren't they? If not, I am deeply sorry for wasting your time! :) And as for your simile/irony, in the same way that a pressure plate helps to keep film flat (anyone interested in this issue, see http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/flat.html ), depth of field helps to keep the image sharp, if the film plane is curved. If a scanner has so little depth of field that I have to add to my workload, well.. It's not so much that I am blaming the scanner manufacturer - I am just exercising my right to exclude that scanner from my next purchase decision. :) Regards, Mark T.
Re: filmscanners: Review of the Nikon CoolScan 4000
At 10:06 PM 6/04/01 -0400, you wrote: Review of the new Nikon CoolScan 4000 at the Imaging Resource Newsletter: http://www.imaging-resource.com/IRNEWS/ Interesting article, but I start to question it when I read: quote In all our prior film scanner reviews, the highest resolution we'd encountered was about 2800 dpi. Since film grain was fairly evident at that resolution, we felt there was little purpose in going to even higher resolutions, since we reasoned that would emphasize film grain even further. endquote Eeek. I thought grain-aliasing and film resolution was covered in either lesson 1 or 2 when you do Filmscanning 101..! :) And they haven't encountered 4000 dpi before... Maybe the full review will be better..
RE: filmscanners:Focusing film flatness
At 12:49 PM 4/04/01 EDT, Rich wrote: ...they ended up relenting and giving me a much better lens with sufficient depth of field This is an interesting statement. The only things that affects depth of field in a lens is its apeture or focal length. A 'much better lens' doesn't necessarily imply either. ... But ... a lens with a somewhat concave field is actually an advantage since it would give you a sharp image on a curved surface. In the projector business, it is likely that a 'better lens' has a slightly curved field to match the assumed curvature of a slide. Yep, they told me that the 'average' projector lens is just designed for a flat plane, as you suggest. But the new one they gave me, a Leitz Colorplan I think it is, was designed for a slightly curved plane, in the direction that most slides bow. I presume they designed it for a middle ground - it certainly does cope very well with flat slides as well as the typical cardboard job, and of course those slides that 'pop' as they heat up from the light. (Was the bowing deliberately done by Kodak to avoid that, I wonder?? Back in those days, I would imagine the vast majority of slides were destined for projection, rather than the enlarger or a film-scanner, where flatness is much more of a virtue!) Increasing a projector lens' depth of field by reducing it's apeture is impractical since it would result in a much dimmer image on the screen. I didn't take notice of any aperture restriction. (It's stored at the moment, and I'm too lazy to drag it out and look!) But I wonder just how much restriction you would need to gain the required result? This is heading off-topic, so no answer required! So the question is, are the lenses in film scanners flat field, or are they slightly dished to accomodate film curvature? Or are some small apeture, high depth of field lenses working with more sensitive ccds. Tony praises a fixed focus Minolta scanner which would have to fit the later category. How about some others? I know my Acer copes well in this area, so I just decided to push it and find out. I put 2 bowed slides in, one reversed, got it to focus on the first (which I presume it does towards the centre of frame) and scanned both at the same focus plane. Sure enough, first one was sharp, inc. corners, second one was blurred in centre, although the edges were OK.. That tells me that the depth of field is just about right, maybe 0.4mm (?) as a wild guess.. Regards, Mark T. == Mark Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.adelaide.net.au/~markthom
RE: filmscanners: AcerScanwit wishlist
At 07:46 AM 5/04/01 +, Tony wrote: ..I think you will find that most people here regard the Acer as good enough to stand comparison with much more expensive models, especially for slides. No arguments from me as a pretty happy Acer user.. if we can control grain-aliasing/noise on negatives, I'll be deliriously content! (almost) :) If you added individual RGB channel exposure control, you would improve the scanning of colour negatives - the main users' complaint is that the Acer's remove the orange mask in software. While I agree that manual exposure control is high on the wishlist, that's not why - if I just tell Miraphoto (v1.1) it's a slide I get a nice orange scan.. Is anyone else on the list having this problem? By the way, I'm currently liasing with some other Acer users to discuss a small(-ish!) wish list to give to Honda. If anyone else wants to join in, please say so (to me off-list) quickly! Regards, Mark T. == Mark Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.adelaide.net.au/~markthom
Re: filmscanners: AcerScanwit
At 01:48 PM 5/04/01 -0400, you wrote: What part and how big a part would resolution and reproduction size play in this scenario? Inquiring minds want to know. :-) ...misregistration of the separate IR pass is purely theoretical -- Ed Hamrick and Acer have confirmed that it *could* happen, but AFAIK nobody's seen it happen yet. So far I've done about 6 rolls and it's been spot on, every time. It would depend on how accurate the Scanwit can position the carrier. I'm sure someone here will be willing to speculate, though. :) And you were right! As I think I have mentioned on this list before, I would have thought it would be fairly easy for the scanner software to identify a few dark spots from the IR scan, and then look for a match in the 'real' scan. I mean, isn't that what it does (in a different way) for autofocus..? It's easy to do this sort of stuff if you're not the programmer..:) MT == Mark Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.adelaide.net.au/~markthom
RE: filmscanners: Acer Scanwit
May I say that it is WONDERFUL to have rep's of scanner makers, like David from Polaroid, and now you, Honda, on the list, so thanks for joining in. (OK, I admit it, it's *especially* good if it's the scanner you actually have!).. Rather than tangle up this forum, I'll be contacting other Acer users off-list to see if we agree on some issues that we think could be improved. If any other Acerer's are out there and wish to join in, give me a tingle, but off-list. Now, I wonder if a Nikon rep might appear.. :) Look forward to talking to you, Honda. Regards, Mark T. At 02:09 PM 3/04/01 +0800, Honda Lo wrote: List-Help: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 'help' as msg. text Dear Tony, in fact, 2740S compare to 2720S, we improved the A/D from 12bit to 14bit.. ... ... Honda Lo Product Manager / Sales of acer Film Scanner == Mark Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.adelaide.net.au/~markthom
Re: filmscanners: Printing A3 from a 2700dpi scan
At 09:43 AM 4/04/01 +1000, Rob wrote: OK, but as I mentioned earlier - we're talking about *negatives* where this problem is most evident, not transparencies, so the colour the CCD sees isn't blue at all. Does anyone know whether the grain sizes vary with the dye colour? Yes, they certainly do. And I am very cross with myself for not keeping a bookmark for a site that had extreme magnifications of cyan, magenta, and yellow areas on show for a number of reversal films. The site was just a work in progress, but do you think I can find it again (not even in history - sigh). If anyone knows of the site, or one similar, please let me know.. I might even have a go myself - I can get access to a good 'scope hooked up to a PC. But finding the time to do it all is the issue.. MT Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
RE: filmscanners:Focusing film flatness
And so it should! If the new (and I gather old) 4000 dpi Nikons can't handle a curved slide, there is no way I would consider them. I can just imagine ripping all of my (and my client's) Kodachromes out of their mounts before I scanned them. Oh what fun.. When I bought an expensive slide-projector about 10 years ago, I took it straight back when it gave out of focus edges on curved slides. After some argument, they ended up relenting and giving me a much better lens with sufficient depth of field. It copes easily with flat and curved slides, and so does my current scanner, a low end 2720 model. This is not rocket science.. I think it is a VERY fair criticism of the Nikon scanner. If Nikon has chosen a scanning method that doesn't work well for curved slides, I reckon they have just lost a significant portion of the market. Or can someone give me a really easy, quick and painless way of transferring a piece of film from a glued cardboard mount into a glass slide And, for that matter, a recommendation for glass slides that REALLY don't suffer from Newton's rings. My experience is that even those that are supposedly Newton-proof generally are not. Mark T At 07:01 PM 31/03/01 -0500, you wrote: Because of the light source the lens has significant depth of field. You need not be concerned. David -Original Message- From: Stan Schwartz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] As many of my cardboard mounted transparencies are bowed to various degrees, I have been curious whether this focusing scheme tracks the curvature of the film--or does it just focus on a single plane. snip == Mark Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.adelaide.net.au/~markthom
Re: filmscanners: Best value sure thing scanner...
Well done, Art - an excellent summary, from what I've read/learnt! My small addition - I have heard from at least 2 sources (so it might be true!) that use of the dust-removal function on the Acer 2740S increases the normal 40 second full-res scan to a couple of minutes! I gather it uses a separate, slow IR pass. I would suggest this should probably rule it out for that user. I would also re-iterate that 2720 dpi is fine for slides, but grain aliasing can be a big issue with neg's, so I think 4000 dpi would be the way to go. PS - I actually own the Acer 2720S and really like it, but I don't have a major dust problem. (And I actually like 'cloning'. It's sort of like meditation...:) Regards, Mark T. At 10:19 PM 31/03/01 -0800, you wrote: The Acer 2740 with digital ICE is the cheapest option. It is an improvement over the HP both in shadow detail and resolution (CCD chip is 2700 dpi). But it has fixed exposure settings, which seem to not allow for the optimum scan result for images that aren't perfectly exposed. Hope this gives you something to go on, and other on the list please chime in with your own recommendations and experiences. Art == Mark Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.adelaide.net.au/~markthom
RE: filmscanners: OT now? - JPEG Loss - File format
At 07:00 PM 30/03/01 -0500, you wrote: I was the first to answer this question and now I question myself for letting this go on this long. And I too apologise for dragging it on, but hopefully it will end with this one. The only reason I quote the following is that I still see some folk under a false impression (even if they were only slightly wrong!). The quote below is taken from the JPEG FAQ, from the JPEG.ORG site.. I have edited it for brevity, but I don't think I have changed the context in any way.. All capitalisation is as per the original, but all asterisks except the last two are mine! QUOTE It would be nice if, having compressed an image with JPEG, you could decompress it, manipulate it (crop off a border, say), and recompress it without any further image degradation beyond what you lost initially. Unfortunately THIS IS NOT THE CASE. In general, recompressing an altered image loses more information. Hence it's important to minimize the number of generations of JPEG compression between initial and final versions of an image. There are a few specialized operations that can be done on a JPEG file without decompressing it, and thus without incurring the generational loss that you'd normally get from loading and re-saving the image in a regular image editor. In particular it is possible to do 90-degree rotations and flips losslessly...SNIP... *But you do need special software; rotating the image in a regular image editor won't be lossless.* It turns out that if you decompress and recompress an image at the same quality setting first used, *relatively* little further degradation occurs. This means that you can make local modifications to a JPEG image without *material* degradation of other areas of the image. (The areas you change will still degrade, however.) Counterintuitively, this works better the lower the quality setting. But you must use *exactly* the same setting, or all bets are off. ENDQUOTE I promise to shut up about jpg's now.. MT
Re: filmscanners: OT - Dicky returns to form..
So Dicky, let me get this quite straight. It's OK for you to post a completely worthless comment about Unix, because you're just testing the moderator.. But if someone else goes off-topic they get a public insult and a request to Tony. In my not-so-humble, but non-insulting (!) opinion, copyright issues are *much* more likely to be of interest to at least some of us, than, eg, your one-line throwaway Unix comment. 'Mr Moderator', for my 2c worth, I would express the EXACT opposite view. I do NOT mind occasional off-topic diversions, AS LONG AS they don't run off out of control. Three to five OT messages is a sensible limit I think - if others disagree, I'll happily retreat to my rock :) And I am now kill-filtering Dicky. I've had enough. First swearing, racism and insults, now just insults.. That's not what I am here to see. MT At 08:31 AM 30/03/01 +0100, you wrote: Mr Moderatorwould you please sort this berk out... Richard Corbett
Re: filmscanners: OT - Dicky removal
Thank you Tony. *Much* appreciated! And to Dicky's 'supporter', while I agree that sometimes a break in the routine of messages can be entertaining, we should ALL remember that this is a public forum. Anything you wouldn't say loudly in a public place (with a police occifer nearby! :), should not be said here either. I would like to be able to introduce someone, even a youngster, to this mailing list and invite them to read the messages without cringing at the thought of what might be there.. I wonder if he will re-subscribe under a new address..? (sorry!) At 11:46 PM 30/03/01 +, Tony wrote: ..since - from previous and subsequent messages - you seem incapable, I am unsubscribing you this blink. You are just out to cause trouble. == Mark Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.adelaide.net.au/~markthom
Re: filmscanners: AcerScanwit
Take a look at the Photoscientia site, www.photoscientia.co.uk. As for me..(amateur opinion follows!) I have the Acer 2720, and I like it very much. Neutral, slightly undersaturated colors (a very slight cyan/blue cast on mine, easy to correct). Good shadow detail and very little shadow noise in slide scans. Good optics, little or no flare or CCD 'bleeding'. Has autoexposure only - can be a problem for some high-end uses, but not for me. Has some problems with grain-aliasing in negatives, but I think most/all 2720 scanners do.. The 2740 is the same scanner, but with Infrared-based dust/scratch removal. (I understand this function slows the scans dramatically when turned on..) Have heard of folk using them on a Mac, but not me. Just my 2c worth.. MT At 01:04 PM 28/03/01 EST, you wrote: There are a bunch of Acer Scanwit 2740S scanners on Ebay. Is this a competent machine? Anyone using one on a Mac? Rich
Re: filmscanners: Re: Scanning dpi and epson papers
At 07:54 PM 27/03/01 +1200, Colin wrote: Rob, why aren't you using Celcast paper? We find it pretty good here, albeit more expensive than Epson. I've tried Celcast glossy *once* on an Epson 640, and it was useless - the inks 'beaded' on the surface. Maybe it's just the 640's inks, but I won't use the stuff. And Art wrote: Wilhelm does have some discussion of HP's wide carriage inks on his charts. Is there another Wilhelm? I've visited www.wilhelm-research.com many times recently (and again just then) and there is still no 'update'.. they just keep changing the date! Mark T.
Re: filmscanners: Neg film for scanning
The Konica VX-400 I have in my fridge says Made in Japan - but I'm in
Australia, so who knows.. (Before you ask I haven't tried it yet.)
We have a few supermarket brands down here, and it seems to be always 'Made
in Germany', so I had assumed it was Agfa..?
I didn't think 3M were still in the 35mm film business.
MT
At 08:00 AM 25/03/01 +0100, you wrote:
..
The Tesco pack says on it "Produced in the E.U. and packed
in the UK". I think this means it was made in one of a
handful of plants in the EU. Do I remember correctly that 3M
had a plant in Italy? Who owns it now? It is the 'Ferrania'
plant I remember from my youth? Then there are the E.German
plants ('Orwo' many years ago). Do they still exist? Has
Konica got a European manufacturing base?
Any info gratefully received.
Alan T
- Original Message -
From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2001 4:59 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Neg film for scanning
Mike is right. There are no "supermarket" brands.
3M/Scotch used to be
a main supplier of these no-brand films, but I think they
left that biz.
So most, if not all North American supermarket brands
are either
rebranded Fuji or Konica/Sakura, both of which are decent
films, and
even Kodak supplies some unbranded films now.
==
Mark Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.adelaide.net.au/~markthom
RE: filmscanners: analog gain
At 09:08 AM 14/03/01 +1000, Rob wrote: If you change the brightness, the best thing to do is rerun the preview scan. It's not horribly slow. Otherwise you're not seeing the result of the longer integration time. I imagine Ed could code Vuescan to estimate the change produced by the brightness control, but people would probably complain that it wasn't accurate. That's what my old scanner, an Olympus ES10, did, and that feature sucked. The difference between its estimation and the real result was so great that it made what would have been a really useful ability close to worthless. PS Do I get an award for worst grammar for that sentence? ;) Mark T. == Mark Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.adelaide.net.au/~markthom
RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
At 09:17 AM 14/03/01 +1000, Rob wrote: why would you want to seperate these? to allow the option of grain removal WITHOUT clean? Yes, or to allow varying intensities of clean without grain removal. They should be two separate drop down options, and with the interface changes in 7.0 there's plenty of space. I for one would like to be able to see the effect of grain removal on its own without having to combine it with cleaning. Then also, a frame might need only mild cleaning but heavy grain removal. At the moment, I don't have that as an option. Rob Are Rob and I alone in wanting this change from Ed? If anyone else on the list also thinks this is a good idea, please say so now! Mark T.
OT, in fact *way* off-topic Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about..
(Like most of the messages on this list aren't off-topic *anyway* at the moment!) Art said.. I'm waiting for the monitor salesmen to start calling, or at least leaving e-mail messages... "Being that you are still browsing the web with an antiquated 17" monitor, and missing the visual splendor of 1600 x 1200 pixel screen It had never occurred to me, but now that you mention it, I reckon that's what Frank is leading up to... ;-) http://www.size.does.matter.com I couldn't resist but to click on this, and hey, it's available (at a price)! Anyway, back to film-scanning, perhaps..?! Mark T. == Mark Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.adelaide.net.au/~markthom
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
At 10:32 PM 7/03/01 -0500, you wrote: Do you guys want to alienate all amateurs on this list? ;) Of course not. There *was* a smile there! My visitor stats say that 80% of my visitors are using less than or equal to 1024x768. How do you know that is their display resolution, and not what their browser is set to? I don't know how you do what you claim, so I have no idea how you get that info. If my display information is being sent to someone, that would tick me off, because it's none of their business what my display settings are. What else gets sent? Sorry to give you the bad news, but if you surf around with java/javascript on, site counters will gather the following information and report it back to the site owner: - Your browser and version no. - Your operating system - Your resolution and color depth - Your domain (ie your country of origin, and even the server from which your connection emanates) - The referring site, ie the site or search engine from which you came By the way, the site doesn't have to display a site counter for this to happen, so you can't know when it occurs. Naughtier sites can even use trickery to collect your email name and some other personal info, but it depends on how your PC is configured. And also whether you have the latest Microsoft security hole-fixes! I agree with your concerns, I think a lot of it sucks too. Which is why I use a firewall, and I don't use Java on my sites, so at least visitors aren't *forced* to throw their info around! I am only interested in collecting the browser/resolution/color depth info because I work with many web pages and I always test the pages on the most common platforms/setups. Regards, Mark T. == Mark Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.adelaide.net.au/~markthom
re: filmscanners: Kodak Color Input Targets
Lyn A wrote: Alan W wrote: On slides it's mostly a moot point unless they are underexposed. clip Also Kodachrome is a denser slide generally, which can drop shadows too low for many scanners to distinguish properly. I've found that my Scanwit 2720S does a really good job on well-exposed slides and negs, and is almost flawless with landscapes. But the biggest problem area in *both* media is where the dynamic range is wide SNIP and produces serious "noise" with slides and negs alike. Hi, Lyn. I'm a bit surprised that you have this problem with the Scanwit. Mine displays a distinct lack of noise in deep shadows, even in the old K25 and 64. Pete's Photoscientia site also refers to this - I wonder if there is much variation from scanner to scanner? The only time I begin to see noise in a slide is if I try to recover an absolute disaster (like 3+ stops underexposed) when the Acer puts its exposure up to very high levels. Then I can see some slight streaking in the lower third of the slide (interestingly my Acer sits on top of my PC - see below*). Even less of a problem with negs - I *do* get grain-aliasing which seems much worse on under-exed negs, but that is a little easier to deal with, or you can always claim it is a deliberate effect! :-( As a test, I dug up a badly underexposed K25 (the old type) slide that I had a photo lab make a print from about 5 years ago. The print wasn't *too* bad.. When I had a go, the Scanwit drew more shadow detail out, and I got a better print with no 'noise' detectable. Looking closely at the scan, it does show an effect that looks a bit like grain-aliasing in the darkest shadows, but the effect is very even, and not 'noise-like'. I guess it can't be g-a (I hope this thread doesn't start again!), because I can't see how 2720 dpi would come anywhere near resolving grain effects from K25..(?) * Is it possible that the noise is coming from elsewhere, eg a device or transformer near the Acer or it's cable? I encountered this problem with my old Olympus scanner.. I would be interested to see the sort of noise you are getting, perhaps you could even send a small crop to me off-list, or perhaps post it on a web-site? (On-list attachments are a bit annoying for digest users.) Regards, MT. == Mark Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.adelaide.net.au/~markthom
Re: filmscanners: restorating color
At 05:12 PM 7/03/01 -0500, John wrote: Read an interesting article about Applied Science Fiction's ROC technology of restoring color of old pictures, indicating that it makes its restoration on the basis of distinct patterns of grain-change for different film stocks. I assume that this doesn't use the IR channel; is this right? The example shown in the creativepro article (http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/11973.html) was pretty impressive. How does the ROC method relate to the method used in Vuescan (which I haven't experimented with but am interested in)? I'll be very interested in seeing reports about this as the new Nikons become available. Now *they* have a dust problem! The lower examples left me VERY puzzled - what on earth happened to the color of the grass?? Looking closely at the original there doesn't seem to be any reason for that dramatic gradation. MT
Re: filmscanners: Colors in Neutral Gray
Thanks Maris, that reference was exactly the sort of thing I was hoping to find. I knew that I needed to twist and bend the curves, but had no idea how to do it methodically, and sometimes just gave up in disgust.. Some of the examples are very similar to problem images I have abandoned in the past - now I can attack them with method rather than madness! Mark T. At 11:18 PM 26/02/01 -0600, you wrote: Read any of Dan Margulis's "Professional Photoshop x" books. You can read Chapter 2 - By the Numbers, which describes the procedure in detail and in a nutshell (though it's a hard nutshell), online at http://www.ledet.com/margulis/PP6_Chapter2.pdf You'll get the hang of it - I've been working at it about a month and I'm only starting to get some things right. It takes time and lots of practice. Maris snip | Experience will beat this problem and the darkroom most certainly does not | rule. | | Doug Herr | | | Is this really true? I have encountered images where playing with RGB | curves has just made me feel like I am drowning (perhaps just in my | personal pool of insufficient knowledge!) snip
