Re: filmscanners: Nikon LS40ED - first impressions
Well, I finally got around to picking up my Nikon Coolscan LS40ED this afternoon, and I'm very pleased with it. 1. For some reason the batch scanning facility defaults to assuming that each strip has 6 pictures on it. That's fine, except that some of mine don't - and it generates an error for the 'missing' pics. A minor annoyance, but not the end of the world. I don't have that problem with my LS40ED. I upgraded to NS 3.1 (free upgrade) and I use Mac OS. Mike Duncan
Re: filmscanners: scanner for contact sheets
I have a portable light table (light box?) that I use for viewing slides. This is a Just-Normlicht Mini, with 5 x 8 illuminated area and a 5000K tube. Suppose I lay a bunch of slides or negs on a flatbed scanner and put the light box (inverted) on top. Wouldn't this be sufficient to make a scanned contact sheet? I tried a flashlight on top of slides, but you need to disable the internal scanner light. You can get very contrasty results by covering the slides with white paper of white scanner lid. Mike Duncan
Re: filmscanners: Re: Nikon LS4000ED inquiry + Mac OS 9.x
You can turn these off in extension manager. Name two settings (1 with and 1 without NS extensions). Assuming you're using Mac OS 8.x to 9.x, remove the following files from the Extensions folder that's in your System folder, then restart your Mac: Nikon LS4K Family Nikon LS4K Expert Nikon LS4K Driver Nikon Common Driver If you later want to use NikonScan (either standalone or as a Photoshop plug-in) you have to copy these files back into the Extensions folder and restart your Mac again. --Bill Mike Duncan
RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000ED w/Macs???
I use the same software, Nikon Scan 3.1, on my G4 Mac for a Nikon 4000 and it works just fine. Ditto on my G3 Mac with OS 9.04 for a Nikon IV ED. Mike Duncan
Re: filmscanners: Minolta Scan Multi Pro REVIEW???
By the way, does anyone know how to email Minolta? I spent too much time trying to figure out how to send a simple email on their website. Finally, I just gave up. Try [EMAIL PROTECTED] which was a tech support person 3 years ago. Mike Duncan
RE: filmscanners: Nikon film flatness (was Glass slide mounts)
I really would love to see a crop from Polaroid scan of the same chrome side by side with one from a LS4000. Would be interesting.. 'ave a good one, Neil Try http://www.imaging-resource.com/. Mike Duncan
Re: filmscanners: best film scanner for bw negs
That was me who asked this question first about Dmax for bw film with this scanner. I haven't received any answer but I carried a simple test myself. I don't have the scanner yet but I measured the Dmax of my negs with a professional densitometer. You might be interested in the measurements I made on my Nikon IV ED with the Stouffer BW target. Different curves are obtained with different media settings in NikonScan and Vuescan. 0 is the lowest density step on the Stouffer which I estimate to be about 0.15 OD. The LS4000 should have better results. Abbreviations: KR= Kodachrome, VS=Vuescan, NS=NikonScan, Im=Image Nikon_IV_OD.png Mike Duncan
RE: filmscanners: best film scanner for bw negs
You might be interested in the measurements I made on my Nikon IV ED with the Stouffer BW target. Different curves are obtained with different media settings in NikonScan and Vuescan. 0 is the lowest density step on the Stouffer which I estimate to be about 0.15 OD. The LS4000 should have better results. Very nice. I particularly like your converting from 0-255 to scanner density. I plan to do the same type of plot with my scanners, but I would like to add a) plot each color and b) error bars representing the noise. I was going to calculate the noise in Photoshop by drawing a box slightly smaller than each patch and reading off the standard deviation from the histogram window. The rest was going to be done in Excel. Biggest problem is the time it will take to manually read off all the values. This would seem to be an ideal way to compare different scanners and software packages - at least as far as their dynamic range and maximum useable optical density. If I have time this weekend... I have standard deviation data. The problem is it's hard to tell how much of the standard deviation is film grain and how much is scanner noise. Most of the IV ED deviation is film grain. The Stouffer target has large grain. Mike Duncan
RE: filmscanners: best film scanner for bw negs
I've became aware of this when I was doing similar analysis recently; that much of the apparent scanner noise was in fact film grain. So now that I'm aware of this I factor it into my testing. --Bill Suggestion: Using multiscan (16 average) to eliminate scanner noise. The standard deviation will be grain. Assuming noise and grain are not correlated, noise=sqrt((single scan standard deviation)^2 -(multiscan standard deviation)^2) At 6:55 PM -0400 22-10-01, Mike Duncan wrote: I have standard deviation data. The problem is it's hard to tell how much of the standard deviation is film grain and how much is scanner noise. Most of the IV ED deviation is film grain. The Stouffer target has large grain. Mike Duncan
RE: filmscanners: Buying a scanner - from the US
Why not the Polaroid SS4000 at approx US$600? Better scanner, cheaper price. Is it really? Haven't heard of that one. Does it have batch scanning capabilities? That includes US rebate which may not be available in UK. Check reviews at http://www.imaging-resource.com/ on Nikon IV, SS4000, etc. and decide for yourself. The IV does batch scan on cut strips (up to 6 frames) and an APS adapter is optional. To get the auto slide loader or roll film loader, you have to buy the L4000. Mike Duncan
Re: filmscanners: Curved film and Nikon scannersfilm
Its not only old slides as mention below, all negative or positive film who are litle bit curved show the same problem with overall sharpness regarding LS2000 and LS 4000. The problem is lack of depth of field in the lens construction . Mikael Risedal But my focus free Minolta Dual (2400 dp, SCSI version) is half as sharp as my Nikon IV (2900 dpi). So typically, the overall sharpness of the Nikon is better. I choose a focus point half way between center and corner of slides and get very sharp scans. Mike Duncan
filmscanners: Re: nikonscan white clipping
To extend highlight detail in negatives with NikonScan, use curves. Leave the 255 point alone. You need to bend the curve downward a little at 230 input to approx. 215 output and optionally raise 128 input near to the straight line level (~114). With a gray scale color negative this greatly enhances highlight detail. When you get the curve you like, save it. Mike Duncan
RE: filmscanners: Bruce Fraser Reviews Nikon 4000ED
As for the color profile being out of wack, now *that* is a major issue in my opinion. I have just discovered how much better profiled Vuescan's results are than Nikonscans for Nikon scanners. (though there is an annoying VS bug with the 8000 that I've reported to Ed) Nikon seems to have pumped up the contrast and clipped the ends to give the casual user funkier results, rather than accurate ones. Vuescan doesnt do that. the problem is I have 100GB of scans sitting on my raid that I may now have to re-do having found this out. Before you rescan, try the curve tool. The white clip in NS on negatives is easily correctible with the curve tool. I find VS slide media setting clips shadows. Image media doesn't clip but gives awful color on Kodachrome. NS Kodachrome color is also off so I have to use curve tool to color balance. Mike Duncan
Re: filmscanners: Cannot open scanned TIFF in Photoshop
Well, the files do have the tif extension. Even renaming to TIF does not help. The 'magic' size for opening is somewhere between 42,457 (opens) and 43,393 (does not open) KB. Do you have enough RAM allocated to PS? It probably needs 130MB to open a file that expands to 110MB. This means your computer should have at least 140MB of RAM. Mike Duncan
Re: LS4000 comments, was RE: filmscanners: Best scanner software
At 8:38 PM +0200 30-9-01, Alex Z wrote: Currently I see several choices: Nikon CoolScan IV ED, Minolta Elite (or Elite II being released now) for 2900 and 2820 dpi resolutions respectively or Polaroid 4000 and Nikon CoolScan 4000ED (which is actually out of my budget even for the future :-( ). BF: The CoolScan IV uses the same software as the CoolScan 4000 ED. It's very slow on my 500MHz G3 PowerMac, but generally I like it's features. I have a 233MHz G3 with 640 MB. My CoolScan IV is fast. I turn off GEM ICE during preview which dramatically speeds up previews, exposure (Master Gain) and curve redraws. I especially love the batch scan feature which allows optimizing each frame before starting final scan. . BF: The good thing about the CoolScan 4000 ED is that it has GEM to remove grain. The bad thing is that you really need it! Grain isn't too bad on Kodachrome 64 scans, but very bad on Kodak Gold 200 scans. Don't know if the Coolscan IV is as bad at bringing out the grain. Same for Kodak Max 400 on the IV (fixed with GEM /or ICE). Ektachrome (200 or 400?) and Kodachrome 64 have low grain . BF: I have one image (Kodak Gold 200) where ICE and GEM did an incredible job of removing scratches and grain with no visible reduction in sharpness. I have another image (Kodachrome 64) where ICE and GEM made the entire image VERY soft. So apparently they can work for you or against you depending on the image and/or film. I've had excellent results with GEM on Kodachrome 64, but results with ICE vary from batch to batch. Mike Duncan
RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000/ digital ICE, was: Scanner Buying Di lemma
To Jack Phipps, The real application for Digital ROC is for faded images. Check out: http://www.asf.com/products/roc/filmROC.shtml where there is a picture of an old car before and after Digital ROC. It is also helpful when you have unusual lighting (tungsten or fluorescent). I'd appreciate a weaker setting on my Nikon IV too. When I used ROC on a tungsten exposed Kodak Max400 negative, I got too much blue noise. The color was much better, but with a little too much blue. I would like the default setting of ROC to be off. I use GEM a lot, but I have to turn ROC off for nearly all my scans. Mike Duncan
Re: filmscanners: Nikon Bulk slide Feeder
If some one is familiar with the Nikon slide feeder I would like to understand some of it's mechanical functionality. * Is there any limitation on slide thickness? * Can slides of various thickness' be scanned in one batch? * Can you Raw Scan all slides? * Can you apply individual corrections to each slide? * Can you preview all slides before scanning? * Can you use it like a bulk holder and individually preview, scan and correct each slide. Some have mentioned using a conventional Kodak carousel as a holder. We will not be doing this as the added mechanics would make it far to pricey. Thanks David There is a bulk slide adapter for Kodak Carousel projectoers that works well. The adapter is made by Kodak. I don't have the part number handy. Mike Duncan
Re: filmscanners: Genuine Fractals Help?
If you are outside the United States, and you have purchased the Nikon 4000, can you please tell me if your scanner came bundled with Genuine Fractals? I can tell you that the Nikon scanners sold in Canada do not come with Genuine Fractals. I believe it is a Nikon USA only bundle. I received Genuine Fractals with my Nikon IV, but I haven't figured out how to use it. The only thing that shows up in PS LE5 is the Fractile export which seems to save a cruddy looking image. Any tips? Mike Duncan
filmscanners: New review of Nikon IVED
New review of Nikon IVED scanner. http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN/CSIV/C4A.HTM Mike Duncan
Re: filmscanners: MacWorld Film Scanner Review
Winsor Crosby wrote: The MacWorld review of film scanners can be found at http://www.macworld.com/2001/10/reviews/filmscanners.html -- Winsor Crosby Long Beach, California Also see URL for some questionable results of the test. http://www.macworld.com/ubb/Forum25/HTML/000154.html They also used Nikon Scan 3.0 which maps deep shadows very darkly; i.e., it has inferior dark shadow detail to 3.1. Mike Duncan To be completely fair magazines have about a 3 month lead time between finished articles and publication. Was v.3.1 out then? V 3.1 was finished on May 5, 2001. My new Nikon IV came with v3.0, so I had to down load v 3.1. It would have been enlightening to compare these scanners with Vuescan. Mike Duncan
Re: filmscanners: MacWorld Film Scanner Review
There is a factual error in the review. The reason they couldn't see any difference in resolution between the Minolta Dual Dimage II (which they indicate has a resolution of 2438 dpi), and the Nikon rated at 2900 dpi, (as they mention in the body of the article) is because the Minolta Dual Dimage II has a resolution of 2820 dpi. The older version one (SCSI) had the 2438 dpi resolution. The newer Dual II is USB interfaced, as mentioned in the chart. Art Winsor Crosby wrote: The MacWorld review of film scanners can be found at http://www.macworld.com/2001/10/reviews/filmscanners.html -- Winsor Crosby Long Beach, California Also see URL for some questionable results of the test. http://www.macworld.com/ubb/Forum25/HTML/000154.html They also used Nikon Scan 3.0 which maps deep shadows very darkly; i.e., it has inferior dark shadow detail to 3.1. Mike Duncan
Re: filmscanners: MacWorld Film Scanner Review
The MacWorld review of film scanners can be found at http://www.macworld.com/2001/10/reviews/filmscanners.html -- Winsor Crosby Long Beach, California Too bad they use NikonScan 3.0. NikonScan 3.1 gets more shadow detail at default settings. Mike Duncan
RE: filmscanners: Nikon Scan VS Negative dynamic range
linearity is the keyword, that is, the scanner's driver cannot map the CCD to RGB data non-linearily without losing information. Do you think slide film is linear? Definitely not. The trick is to compress the data in a way that artifacts aren't noticable;,i.e., so that the desired input OD range is visible on the monitor, etc. Nikon Scan and VueScan apply different mappings depending on settings (slide, negative, plus any curve and color corrections the user makes. To make matters more complex, the monitor has a gamma of about 2.5, and different computer OS's handle these differently. The standard computer video is only 8-bits per RGB. See http://www.inforamp.net/~poynton/Poynton-colour.html I have some of these mapping curves for the Nikon IV in a png format. Mike Duncan
RE: filmscanners: Nikon Scan VS Negative dynamic range
Jawed, You using a Mac? You really using 3.1? It doesn't appear in the manual - dare I say it! Care to send a screen dump? Maybe it understands older scanners - maybe older scanners don't have Analog Gain so the contrast thingie is exclusively for them. Maybe Nikon thought that the Analog Gain palette provided enough control for the LS40/4000 - how funny that is! I've just, as a test, set the Master Gain to -2 and then the R, G and B gains to -1 (i.e. -3 total) for a frame that features the moon (late 80s Kodak Gold 200). Yep, the moon's detail appears - but of course nothing else does. In the Edit menu (Mac), select Preferences, Advanced Color. There, you will find black and white point settings. I guess I'll have to scan the grayscale target again. :-) Color Balance Tool has contrast setting just below brightness. BTW, I scanned a severely underexposed Kodachrome (max white = 80/255). The desired image was hard to see by eye. I tried VS w wo multiscan in Image media and NS3.1 w Master Gain=2 and w wo GEM. The GEM results had the least grain with the best color shadow detail. VS required a lot of tweaking to get good color. I haven't tried VS's grain reduction yet. . Mike Duncan
Re: filmscanners: That's some overclocking
O.T., but darn interesting: Maybe I'm dreaming, but if I heard what I think I did, the whole computer industry is about to start a new ball game. I believe I heard that Motorola just developed a CPU that runs at, not 7 gigahertz but SEVENTY gigahertz. If that's true, and it can be produced in quantity and run without a liquid nitrogen bath, I'd say we just turned a big corner. I guess that's the end of encryption protection and the beginning of AI robots... Might also mean some big changes at Intel? But you have to wear lead shorts. :-) Mike Duncan
filmscanners: Nikon Scan VS Negative dynamic range
I just scanned the Stouffer and a Max400 dupe of the Stouffer. There was a light leak in my homemade film holder so the results won't be 100% accurate. If I could only find my film duplicator. Direct BW scans of the Stouffer target were made in BW negative mode. Note that VS kept changing to Slide media and the restricted range is evident. A Kodak Max 400 dupe of the Stouffer was also scanned. Both Nikon Scan and ViewScan capture the full OD of the Max dupe. In fact, I can see all the Stouffer levels on the screen, which is a first! VS appears to be able to capture even more OD range. Comparing NS3.1 with the Kodak print of the Max400 Stouffer dupe, NS3.1 has more dynamic range by at least two stops. The print compresses the brightest 2 stops and the darkest step is compressed. Mike Duncan
RE: filmscanners: That's some overclocking
I think something is a little overclocked. BG The speed of light is 2.99 times 10E10 (that is 3 followed by 10 zeros) cm per second. One of the outcomes of Einstein's theory of relativity is nothing can travel faster then the speed of light. I don't know the size of the actual chip, but if the chip was 1 cm long and presumably an electrical signal would have to travel the length of the chip sometime, then in a single cycle that fast electron would travel 1 cm. That would be an average speed of 7 times E10 cm per second or more then twice the speed of light. Note I said average speed. Since the electron must start and stop the actual top speed would need to be even faster. In fairness I beleive chips are smaller then 1 cm (but larger then 0.1 cm), so my little argement is not valid; however, today distances and the time to travel those distances are a significant part of the limitation for chips. So I feel with some confidence the 70 gHZ number is not possible. I would personally be amazed at a number of 7 gHZ with the currently available chip manufacturing processes -- using Xrays to layout the grid might make that possible. You are correct, propagations are one limit to clock rates. Some CPU's actually divide the clock frequency to lower rates internally. Mike Duncan
RE: filmscanners: Nikon Scan VS Negative dynamic range
Comparing NS3.1 with the Kodak print of the Max400 Stouffer dupe, NS3.1 has more dynamic range by at least two stops. The print compresses the brightest 2 stops and the darkest step is compressed. Mike Duncan What does the scanning software have to do with the dynamic range of the scanner? Are you letting the software set your setpoints? The software maps the input range into the 8-bit video. Different settings in VS give different OD ranges. Nikon negative setting is mapped to give a higher contrast than VS normal negative setting. Of course you can adjust this with brightness and curve adjustment. NS3.0 has a different mapping for Positives than NS3.1, the latter giving wider OD range. Mike Duncan
Re: filmscanners: Dust removal software?
But did it come with a plastic dust cover? ;-) Considering your extensive abilities and interests I'm disappointed you didn't make one yourself for the SS4000. I'm sure Genevieve has done so! I use a plastic bag for a dust cover. Mike Duncan
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Vuescan Image or Slide film
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. Mike Duncan
Re: filmscanners: ICE GEM Resolution Test on Nikon IV
Ed, I just ran a Kodachrome Resolution target on the Nikon IV. First, VS7.17 shows no horizontal loss of sharpness (50% at about 500 cpi with sinewaves) or resolution. But there is some vertical loss. I can see lines up to 1200 cpi in vertical and horizontal directions with VS and no filter, but with IR filter there is a null at 800 cpi in the vertical direction with 900 and 1000 cpi visible (50% at about 350 cpi with sinewaves). Horizontal resolution is not degraded. With NS3.1 ICE, the vertical resolution is only visible up to 700 cpi (50% at about 350 cpi with sinewaves), and lines look much blurrier than with VS. 1200 cpi is visible in the horizontal direction with ICE (50% at about 450 cpi with sinewaves), but there are halos around the lines with ICE. There are no halos with VS IR. Is it normal for ICE IR clean filters to perform worse in the vertical direction (landscape) with Kodachrome 64? The slide mounts are bowed in the vertical direction (convex facing the emulsion side). I rotated the slide 90 degrees and now the resolution is worse in the horizontal direction (landscape), so apparently the bow is not causing the problem. The test target has black lines and gray sinewaves (20% to 80%) on a white background. In a message dated 9/2/2001 5:52:43 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: To answer the burning question, ICE degrades sharpness while VS IR filter does not, at least on Kodak Max400. Yes, this is how I designed VueScan's Infrared clean filter. It only smooths the image in the neighborhood of dust spots. However, I suspect you'll find that NikonScan 3.1 filters the image a lot less than older versions of NikonScan on the LS-30 and LS-2000. Both ICE and VS IR filter blur Kodachrome, but VS blurs less. VueScan occasionally sees image detail as small bits of dust with Kodachrome. It's usually in the darkest parts of the image, where there's already little image detail. Regards, Ed Hamrick Mike Duncan
Re: filmscanners: My 8000 does NOT band using Vuescan!
All, For those of you who have been following my ongoing saga with banding issues with my Coolscan 8000 here is an interesting update. I have tried the latest version of vuescan and guess what? It appears after doing a few test that the banding does not occur when using that software. Thanks Ed for getting vuescan up and humming for us 8000 users :-) Although i prefer Nikon Scan for slides, it still proves that the hardware most likely is not the problem Lawrence Smith Try VS with Image Media Setting for Slides. This gives better deep shadow detail less noise. Mike Duncan
filmscanners: ICE GEM Resolution Test on Nikon IV
Now I wonder if Mike Duncan's gonna post SFR data for ICE Normal and ICE Fine on film in the FH3 or slides in the MA20... Jawed The frequencies (cycles/in) at which SFR are 50% 10% with Kodak Max400 are: 50% 10% ___ NS3.1 no ICE295 690 NS3.1 ICE normal272 630 NS3.1 ICE fine 216 520 NS3.1 ICE Normal GEM 3 238 540 VS7.17 Bright 0.5 no IR 250 550 VS7.17 Bright 1 no IR 183 470 VS7.17 Bright 1 IR filter 182 470 The gray mapping of intensities effects the measured SFR. NS3.1 has a more contrasty mapping than VS. Contrasty images appear sharper and measure sharper unless the gray mapping is calibrated. Note that a VS brightness of 0.5 gives a higher SFR frequency than the default 1. To answer the burning question, ICE degrades sharpness while VS IR filter does not, at least on Kodak Max400. Both ICE and VS IR filter blur Kodachrome, but VS blurs less. Also note these numbers include the response of Kodak Max400 and my Canon FD 50mm F3.5 macro lens stopped down to F9.5 and tripod mounted. The 50% SFR indicates sharpness, while the 10% SFR indicate resolution. Note that SFR is the spectrum of a slanted edge and gives a more conservative number than MTF using sinewaves. For comparison, the 50% response with no ICE is 500 cycles/in using MTF and 300 cycles/in using SFR. Mike Duncan
Re: filmscanners: Nikon IV background RGB
I've recently installed a Nikon IV scanner. After some fiddling, it seems to be working OK, and I'm happy with it so far. Except that when I run the cursor over the image and into the area of the scan that is outside of the image (presumably the unexposed film base), the Nikonscan software shows an RGB reading of 0,0,6. It seems to me that this part of the scan should be 0,0,0. I've found this on a number of images that have been taken at different times in different situations. I believe that all the images I've looked at have been Provia 100F. Use the black eye dropper on the part of the scan should be 0,0,0. Mike Duncan
RE: filmscanners: Sharpness of color chrome vs color negative.
Fuji does provide MTF for both their positive and negative film, Provia 100 and Superia 100. There is also additional information besides the MTF provided, like resolving power and diffuse RMS granularity value. The problem I am having with the numbers provided, is I must not be understanding them completely. I know that the RMS granularity for chrome film has to be divided by 2.5...that would make them equal (Provia is 10, divided by 2.5 = 4, and Superia is 4. OK, so that's a wash... Then, the resolution shows that at 1000:1, Provia resolves 140 lines/mm and Superia 125. That would mean that Provia (positive film) has a HIGHER resolving power than Superia (negative film)...BUT, wait...there's more. The MTF for Provia falls off at around 60, and the MTF for Superia falls off at ~130. That, to me, means Superia is FAR superior at resolution than Provia OK, so why the discrepancy? Sharpness is determined by the 50% point and resolution is determined by just visible lines (typically 5% to 10%). If the 50% frequency (fc) is 60cycles/mm, the the 10% to 90% transition width of a white-black step will be 2.2/(2*pi*fc)=0.0058 mm. Mike Duncan
Re: filmscanners: OT: LCD monitors for photo editing
I think this deserves to be addressed on list as an on topic subject. LCDs have yet to equal the tube monitors for representing the full range of colors in an image. They do offer superior sharpness in the higher end models. How do some of the professionals on the list who have looked personally at the LCDs feel? The only problem I have with my older Apple Studio monitor (15) with analog inputs is that the vertical viewing angle is too small. This makes the top of the screen have more contrast than the bottom. The newer Apple models have improved the vertical viewing angle. Color looks beautiful. Mike Duncan
RE: filmscanners: Sharpness of color chrome vs color negative.
Not totally (which should not surprise you); but we are getting there. :-) If I understand your requirements, each film should contain the same photograph of the same subject taken at the same time (so to speak) under the exact same lighting with the same or equivalent equipment. In addition; each film should be scanned by the same scanner in the same way under the same conditions and with the exact same settings; and each should be output to the same exact monitor for display and viewing upon which the evaluation will be based. Identical images, shot at the same time from the same angles etc. Kodak and Fuji publish MTF specs on their films. Check their web sites. Mike Duncan
Re: filmscanners: Comparing scanners
Mike Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I suggest Stouffer gray target from www.darkroom-innovations.com. You'll find media settings in VS make big difference in OD range. A gray target would be nice but I don't think I could afford the import at the moment. You might try your photo dealers in uk. In the US, the Stouffer costs ~$20 to 25 plus shipping. Mike Duncan
filmscanners: Nikon IV Depth of Field Test
Using the film strip adapter SA-21 with the Nikon IV and NS3.1, I obtained the following focus Nos. on a relatively flat Max400 negative (Landscape): End Frame: L Mid Right Top 221 228 219 Mid Top 217 225 217 Mid 213 217 212 Low 212 221 214 Bottom 214 223 220 Center Frame: L Mid Right Top 219 226 224 Mid 206 216 218 Bottom 211 222 223 Right faces the scanner front. Next the focus was changed at the center of the negative and the SFR was measured at 50% response and 10% response. Note that SFR is the spectrum of a slanted edge and gives a more conservative number than MTF using sinewaves. For comparison the 50% response is 500 cycles/in using MTF and 290 cycles/in using SFR. Also note these numbers include the response of Kodak Max400 and my Canon FD 50mm F3.5 macro lens stopped down to F9.5 and tripod mounted. The 50% SFR indicates sharpness, while the 10% SFR indicate resolution. Nikon Focus 50% SFR 10% SFR 214 283.6 690 226 238.5 580 238 158.6 450 For comparison, my Minolta Dual (SCSI, fixed focus) has 50% SFR in the center of the negative at 170 cycles/in and 10% SFR at 570 cycles/in. So the depth of field to equal the Minolta best SFR is just under +/- 24. Grain is soft at this limit. Mike Duncan
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
on 8/27/01 5:39 AM, Anthony Atkielski at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've consistently heard that it isn't as good as the LS-2000, and some sample scans I've seen appear to support this. Specifically, it appears to have a smaller dynamic range. I don't know where you've heard that, Anthony, but I'd say the optical image quality of the two scanners is nearly identical, and neither is clearly better than the other EXCEPT when it comes to pixels, and here the SS4K wins hands down As for dynamic range, I ran side by side comparisons of them at my local pro dealer before I bought mine, concentrating particularly on the Dmax on a particularly dense slide. To my and the sales guy's total surprise the SS4K did marginally *better* than the Nikon. To complicate matters, the software you use can have a dramatic difference in the dynamic range. Nikon Scan 3.1 does a much better job mapping a wide dynamic range into 8-bit computer graphics than Nikon Scan 3.0. Ditto Vuescan Image versus Slide media setting. Mike Duncan
Re: filmscanners: Best filmscanner, period!!! (strange title!)
By the way, the polaroid SS4000 is very good - and cheap too. Why don't you do a couple of test scans to compare it with Nikon. How can I test it without buying it? Polariod was offering a 30-day money-back guarantee? Is this still in effect, David? Mike Duncan
Re: filmscanners: Comparing scanners
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? I suggest Stouffer gray target from www.darkroom-innovations.com. You'll find media settings in VS make big difference in OD range. Mike Duncan
filmscanners: Measuring scanner film OD range
Austin writes: Have you measured your transparencies to see exactly what you are achieving for density ratio numbers? No. How would I measure it? Don't I need fancy equipment for that? Pretty simply actually. Take a particular type of film you are using. Unroll a part of it and expose it to full light. Then have it developed, and have the film density read. The exposed part will be one end of the scale, and the unexposed part the other. If you want, put the clips in an envelope and send them to me and I'll measure them for you. You can to it at the beginning of a roll, simply by pulling out N frames...then rolling them back in, and advancing the camera N+ frames, so you have some exposed and unexposed section. That will only give you the end points. If you have a slide copy attachment (macro lens and film holder), you can dupe a grayscale slide like the Stouffer. Or photograph a gray or white card and vary the exposure in half stops. When you scan this gray test film, turn off scanner auto exposure. Mike Duncan
Re: filmscanners: focusing-scan elite
Yes, indeed lack of focusing on some scanners can lead to unacceptably soft scans. It is important to thoroughly read your instruction manual as to how and during what point in the scanning process, the focusing is accomplished. Also, it's important to insert the slide or negative the correct way for your scanner. With my Minolta Dual I, is was often difficult to discern. Mike Duncan
Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners:Best film scanner, period!!!
The machine I have requires special 128 MB DIMM modules or something. Last time I bought a pair, it cost me around $500, although that was a couple of years ago. I'd have to buy two pairs to bring the machine up to the maximum configurable RAM of 512 MB. Last DIMM's I bought were US$55 for 256MB. Prices have really dropped on DIMM's since 2 yrs ago. Mike Duncan
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Not been keeping up with RAM prices have you? £512M of RAM is $60ish. A small 10/100 switch costs $90ish. Ethernet cables $10 each for two. No need for Photoshop - $35 copy of ACDSee will let you scan stuff in. A small PC $500. A small monitor $50. Firewire card $100. Well it's rather less than thousands of dollars... The LS4000 includes the Firewire card. A PCI OrangeLink card /w 2 USB and 3 Firewire ports costs ~$100. Mike Duncan
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
What about the Polaroid SS4000, a bargain at $700 with rebate. No ICE. The dynamic range is too low. Is this true? I was under the impression from reviews the dynamic range of the SS4000 was almost the same as the LS4000 and IV. Mike Duncan
Re: filmscanners: Review on Canon FS4000/film is dead
From http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/Canoscan4000.html The CanoScan FS4000US will be my last 35mm scanner. It's more than adequate to capture the detail in my images going back to the 1960's. Digital cameras are improving so fast that I doubt I'll be using 35mm after 2002. Current digital cameras approach 35mm in quality. There's plenty of debate on whether they've surpassed 35mm already, but they certainly will by 2002. Any digital camera you buy today will be obsolete in a year or two, but you have to weigh the cost of the camera against the savings in film and processing. The scale is tipping ever more strongly towards digital. Film sales will soon start dropping like a rock; prices will go up and less popular films will disappear. It's over for film. I used a digital camera at work 2 yrs ago, and the biggest problems were: It ate batteries. It didn't focus close enough. It was awkward to use. It was slow viewing and transfering images. You've only got one effective sensor speed. It was very expensive. I believe it will take a few years before the quality and cost issues equal film. It costs $7 to develop negatives and get double 4x6 prints. How much does it cost to print digital prints? At least $1 each for 4x6. Film is much cheaper. The scale is still strongly tipping towards film. Mike Duncan
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
at 200 MHz isn't fast enough to run a new OS. It would take several months and thousands of dollars to do all this, during which I'd be without a PC for home or business use, which would cause my business to fail. Obviously, none of this is acceptable, so I won't be buying a LS-4000. The LS40 (IV ED) is close to the LS-4000 and requires USB and half the RAM of the LS-4000. Mike Duncan
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan
Steve Woolfenden wrote I just downloaded a trial version of vuescan and cant get it to work - presumably it should work without uninstalling nikonscan ? Your presumption is correct. I have had Nikonscan (various versions) and Vuescan (lots of versions) living happily together under Win 95, Win 98SE, Win 2000. Ditto for Mac OS. Mike Duncan
Re: filmscanners: Slightly OT -- Apple Studio Monitor Brightness
Folks on this list and elsewhere have stressed the importance of an accurate monitor profile, so on the advice of several reliable sources, including Ian Lyons, I've ordered ColorVision's Photocal Spyder.nbsp; Problem is (and this crops up in Adobe Gamma, too), the instructions tell you to adjust the monitor brightness.nbsp; Now I know I'm a Mac newbie, but the only monitor control I can find is a software contrast control.nbsp; Is there a brightness control hidden somewhere in Mac OS9 or has Apple simply deprived me of the ability to make stupid mistakes? On my monitors and sound control panel in the left bottom corner is brightness slider. A major problem is that there are no numbers to indicate setting. The optimum settings for viewing pictures is too bright for reading text. Mike Duncan
Re: filmscanners: MF scanner for 120 strips
Tomasz Zakrzewski wrote: I would be grateful is somebody helped me to find the way to get information from Minolta about the possibility to scan 120 strips with the Dimage Scan Multi Pro scanner. There's no contact e-mail addres on the Minolta/Dimage site. You might try [EMAIL PROTECTED] I used this 2 1/2 yrs, ago. Mike Duncan
RE: filmscanners: Canon FS4000 problems
I did some tests last night with a Stouffer 21-step wedge and found some interesting results! The Canon FS4000 managed a Dmax of 1.8 in auto exposure and 2.1 if I cranked up the exposure to max (but then the scan looked REALLY bad). My Epson 1640 Photo did much better, 2.7 - 3.0 depending on target (35mm, 120 4x5). What software are you using? There is a problem with the Slide media setting in Vuescan. Use Image instead. My Nikon IV reaches 3.0 in Image media setting, but drops off at 1.8 with Slide media setting. You will likely have to increase brightness to map the OD of 3 into 8-bit computer graphics. I have a 27-kB PNG picture of the curves for the Nikon IV scanner with NS3.0, NS3.1, and Vuescan (Raw, Image, Slide). Mike Duncan
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Nikon IV test results
Mike wrote: Early tests using the Stouffer gray scale obtained with Vuescan (Slide setting and BW=0.001) show exceptional linearity down to an OD of 2.11, then an abrupt flattening of the curve above that. Dumb question - are you using 48 bit output from vuescan? Yes. I'm going to mail my results to Ed so he can fix the problem. Mike Duncan
Re: filmscanners: Nikon Scan and USB card?
Mike Duncan wrote: appears the sensor or the A/D has a negative offset. Similar results are obtained with Vuescan and NikonScan 3.0. Mike Duncan Thought Nikon Scan 3.0 to be buggy? I went and downloaded 3.1. rob I downloaded 3.1, but the installer won't work. Mike Duncan
filmscanners: Nikon IV test results
Early tests using the Stouffer gray scale obtained with Vuescan (Slide setting and BW=0.001) show exceptional linearity down to an OD of 2.11, then an abrupt flattening of the curve above that. Using OD axis, the sensitivity is actually highest between 1.6 and 2.11. It appears the sensor or the A/D has a negative offset. Using intensity axis, the plot is straight down to the interception at 2.11 OD (0.78% intensity), with a little response at 0.5% intensity (2.26 OD). Note that 0.78% is equivalent to step 22 on the Q60 slide, so this black clipping would be difficult to discover with the Q60. NikonScan 3.0 yeilded results similar to Vuescan, but NikonScan 3.1 dramatically improved shadow detail. Using the image setting gives good linearity to 2.56 OD, rounding off above 2.7 OD. Using the Kodachrome setting in NikonScan 3.1 resulted in slightly lower slope to 2.4 OD, and OD slope of 0.4 from 2.4 to 3 OD. Depth of field is manageable with the IV. Cardboard mounted Kodachrome slides show grain to the edges. At the center, 1.4 klp/i can be seen, while at the left corners 1.4 and 1.2 klp/i can be seen vertically and horizontally, respectively. At the right corners, 1.2 and 0.9 klp/i can be seen vertically and horizontally, respectively. At the center, the MTF is 50% at 450 lp/i. Using a focus point midway between center and corners give 1.4 klp/i at the center and 1.4 and 1.2 klp/i vertically and horizontally, respectively, at the right corners. A 400 ASA Kodak Max negative used with the SA-21 strip adapter, showed a loss of resolution (1.35 klp/i to 1 klp/i at the edges) instead of 1.35 klp/i at the center). The FH-3 holder showed essentially no loss in resolution at edges. There was some faint aliasing noticed at 1.6 klp/i. My focus-free Minolta Dual (SCSI) showed some loss at the edges and less overall resolution (1.15 klp/i). Mike Duncan Mike Duncan
filmscanners: Nikon Scan and USB card?
I just got the Nikon IV today. The shadow detail is markedly better than my Minolta Dual (SCSI) and noise is much lower. Vuescan works fine on my Mac G3 with OS9.04 and 640MB, but NikonScan doesn't seem to recognize the scanner. I'm using an OrangeLink Firewire/USB card. The OrangeLink driver uses Apple's USB software. Vuescan likes it. NS doesn't show the console. I've allocated 300MB to NikonScan, rebooted with NikonScan CD in drive and then turned scanner on. This didn't help. Mike Duncan
Re: filmscanners: Nikon Scan and USB card?
I just got the Nikon IV today. The shadow detail is markedly better than my Minolta Dual (SCSI) and noise is much lower. Vuescan works fine on my Mac G3 with OS9.04 and 640MB, but NikonScan doesn't seem to recognize the scanner. I'm using an OrangeLink Firewire/USB card. The OrangeLink driver uses Apple's USB software. Vuescan likes it. NS doesn't show the console. I've allocated 300MB to NikonScan, rebooted with NikonScan CD in drive and then turned scanner on. This didn't help. I turned on the firewire extensions and now NS works. Early tests using the Stouffer gray scale show exceptional linearity down to a OD of 2.25, then an abrupt flattening of the curve above that. Using OD axis, the sensitivity is actually highest between 1.6 and 2.25. It appears the sensor or the A/D has a negative offset. Similar results are obtained with Vuescan and NikonScan 3.0. Mike Duncan
Re: filmscanners: (no subject)
i am just about to order the LS-4000 nikon and the best price i could get was $1695. after all the information from this list and other sources i think this is the best scanner for both slides and negatives. i presently have an LS-1000 and think's time to upgrade and like nikon products. anyone have another suggestions? joanna Try www.etronics.com. They have a high rating and LS-4000 ~$1550. I have not ordered from them. Mike Duncan
Re: filmscanners: LS40 DMax and Multiscanning
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. Clarification: The paragraph below pertains to Kodachrome. The noise in the Nikon IV Vuescan is very low, and there is only a modest reduction with multisampling. With PS peak Level at 128 and mid Level at 2.00 the pants leg of the man in shadow looks smoother with multisampling. Interestingly, Nikon Scan yields more shadow detail and more noise. Perhaps the black clip in Vuescan was set too high. All of these results are much better than my Minolta Dual (SCSI). In Velvia, with PS levels set for nearly identical results (mid Level 1.77 for both Vuescan images and 1.4 for NS), the noise appeared lowest in Nikon Scan while noise was higher in both Vuescan images. Mike Duncan
Re: filmscanners: LS40 DMax and Multiscanning
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. Thanks alot, Jawed! The noise in the Nikon IV Vuescan is very low, and there is only a modest reduction with multisampling. With PS peak Level at 128 and mid Level at 2.00 the pants leg of the man in shadow looks smoother with multisampling. Interestingly, Nikon Scan yields more shadow detail and more noise. Perhaps the black clip in Vuescan was set too high. All of these results are much better than my Minolta Dual (SCSI). In Velvia, with PS levels set for nearly identical results (mid Level 1.77 for both Vuescan images and 1.4 for NS), the noise appeared lowest in Nikon Scan while noise was higher in both Vuescan images. I saw your caveat about high PS gamma. Thanks for the tip. Also thanks for the tip on Vuescan slide setting. I'll try my gray scale test again. Mike Duncan
Re: filmscanners: IT8 Calibration was Re: filmscanners: Ilove/hate Silve rFast
For the purchase price of Vuescan it might be worth trying with the SS4000 just to see how much difference calibration really makes? Try the free Vuescan demo. It occurs to me to wonder how much difference IT8 calibration on a film scanner makes? Presumably the IT8 target is an ektachrome slide, so you'd be calibrating for that type of film. What about negs? What about other brands of slide? Is the calibration just introducing colour shifts that will have to be corrected anyway? IT8 calibration with an Ektachrome slide for scanning Kodachrome is useless. Mike Duncan
Re: filmscanners: Q60 scanner gray scale tests
Cliff wrote: You can get Stouffer step tablets from www.darkroom-innovations.com. I just got the 35mm step tablet with 21 steps, .15 density/step (uncalibrated), for $25.95 with ground shipping (only took a couple of days). This will give your scanner a good workout. My SS4000 bottoms-out around the 19th step. The Stouffer tablets are photographic silver, so they are pretty neutral. The Q60 gray scales are not truly gray - just look at the L*A*B* values in the data file to see how much your Q60 deviates. You can get Kodak brand step tablets from www.tiffen.com. Look in their Kodak Professional Accessories catalog. They have calibrated, but they're a lot more money. Thanks Cliff. I bought the Stouffer step tablet. Looking at the 35mm tablet, it's difficult to distinguish anything denser than step 19, so your SS4000 did as good as my eyes. Using Apple's DigitalColor Meter (which agrees with Photoshop), my Minolta Diamage Dual (SCSI) with Vuescan with black and white clip at 0.001 and brightness at 1, it bottomed out at step 17. RGB tracking was good from step 1 to 11, but began to diverge at step 12 and above. Linearity was good up to step 14 and the slope began decreasing above that. From 17 to 19, the slope is nearly 0, and above 19 the slope is 0. On the monitor, it was difficult to discern any difference beyond step 15. From this test, one can assume that Adobe's RGB and Brightness numbers (PS 4) are proportional to intensity, using the default color space on a Mac. Mike Duncan
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan for Mac Resurrected, WAS: VueScan 7.1.7Available
It worked! He's back. From Ed Hamrick- If you're a Mac OS user, please stop e-mailing me about this. You win, I give up. I'll continue releasing VueScan for Mac OS 8/9/X, and in return, please stop clogging my e-mail . http://www.hamrick.com/mac.html To resurrect support for the Mac OS, we Vuescanners need to send Ed positive feedback and gratitude for his hard work and excellent product. David Corwin Yippe! I was about to write a letter to Apple complaining about poor treatment of Ed (I'm a Apple shareholder). Glad your back. Mike Duncan
Re: filmscanners: VueScan 7.1.7 Available
At 22:37 31/07/01 +1000, you wrote: Hi Flo, That's odd, I just checked Ed's site and the Mac OS file was downloadable for me... Geoff Well it certainly says Mac OS no longer suported Stuart Where are the older versions. I'd like to try 7.16 since 7.15 bombs when scanning with my Minolta Dimage Dual I. It goes into a busy mode. I do hope Ed changes his mind. I'm counting on using Vuescan to multiscan a Nikon IV, which will likely be my next purchase. If he quits supporting the Mac, I may have to write my own scanner driver. Mike Duncan
RE: filmscanners: 35mm filmscanner choice
A comparison of the LS4000 and some Imacon, a while back, seemed to indicate that the LS4000 has resolution roughly equal to the Imacon's 3200dpi (some parts of a test image were better, others worse). Does anyone have a thorough understanding of this? Have I got the wrong end of the stick? Can someone explain how to go from ppi to lpi? Jawed ppi is sampling rate. Under ideal conditions, the maximum lpi is half the ppi. In practice, lpi is 1/3 to 1/4 dpi or even less if the optics or focus are poor. For a theoretical discussion see http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF2.html. Mike Duncan
Re: filmscanners: 35mm filmscanner choice
I appreciate all the feedback to date. It seems that the SS4000 is the tried and true choice, a scanner with a track record. Roger's point about software being no substitute for resolution/dpi is well taken. Does the stated manufacturer's dpi spec. correlate exactly with how many lpi you get in the final scan? (I noted in a Pop Photo review the IV ED's optical resolution was 53.3 lpi while the nikon 4000 was 60 lpi, so despite having roughly 75% of the 4000's stated dpi it achieved roughly 90% of its optical resoving power...h, is this a meaningful test?) The SS4000, not being a recently released scanner was unfortunately not included in their testing. (http://popphoto.com/Film/ArticleDisplay.asp?ArticleID=33) lp/mm and MTF are the meaningful resolution tests. Note that 53.3 lp/mm=1534 lp/i. dp/i is not a meaningful resolution test. What would really be nice at this point would be a head to head comparison between the new Canon 4000 and the SS4000. http://www.imaging-resource.com/ compared new Canon 4000, LS4000, SS4000. Mike Duncan
Re: filmscanners: Nikon Coolscan IV ED vs 4000 ED
Apart from the test in Popular Photography, do you know any other comparisons of those two sanners? I'm highly interested in such a test as well as one of Canon's FS-4000. I don't expect Canon to have sufficient Dmax, so in fact I can considers purchase of one of Nikon scanners. How does the Nikon Coolscan IV ED compare with 4000ED and... LS-2000? I saw a comparison discussion on photo.net. Also check the reviews at http://www.imaging-resource.com/. There is little doubt the Nikon scanners have lower noise than the Canon FS-4000. Mike Duncan
Re: filmscanners: Canon FS4000 vs. Nikon LS4000
Thanks for the hint. Does that also bring the IV ED into the picture; in other words what's the difference between the LS-40 and the IV ED? They are the same model. Mike Duncan
Re: filmscanners: Q60 scanner gray scale tests
Mike Duncan wrote: Does anyone know of a target with lower gray level steps (eg. 5% and 3%) since the Polaroid Nikon scanners can't be fully tested with the Q60? You can get Stouffer step tablets from www.darkroom-innovations.com. I just got the 35mm step tablet with 21 steps, .15 density/step (uncalibrated), for $25.95 with ground shipping (only took a couple of days). This will give your scanner a good workout. My SS4000 bottoms-out around the 19th step. The Stouffer tablets are photographic silver, so they are pretty neutral. The Q60 gray scales are not truly gray - just look at the L*A*B* values in the data file to see how much your Q60 deviates. You can get Kodak brand step tablets from www.tiffen.com. Look in their Kodak Professional Accessories catalog. They have calibrated, but they're a lot more money. Thanks Cliff. Sounds like just what I need. I've been trying to create my own gray step scale that matches the Q60, but I ran into a snafu that Photoshop reports different L* values depending on the ambient light setting. Argh! Just what I need, a variable standard! Mike Duncan
Re: filmscanners: Canon FS4000 vs. Nikon LS4000
I've just joined this maillist because I want to go electronic with my slides and negatives. Currently I'm trying to decide which scanner to buy. I was ready to purchase the LS4000 when I stumbled across a review of the new Canon which on paper seems to have almost the same specs, but only costs about half the money. Based on what I've read so far, the main differences seem to be: 1) LS4000 has better dynamic range and less noise 2) FS4000 has more depth of field, i.e. scans sharp in the center as well as in the corners 3) FS4000 has slightly better dust removal Don't forget the LS40: half the price of the LS4000 with nearly the same performance (Pop Photography says resolution is 53.5 and 60 lp/mm for the LS40 and LS4000, respectively.) With Vuescan, you can do multiscan noise reduction. For slides, low noise is important. Mike Duncan
Re: filmscanners: Re: Vuescan gripes
and how much more money it would cost.. count me among the vuescan satisfied users group.. I'm not much for snazzy user interfaces, I want results and quick!..what other program can you get updates every week or so?.. it just keeps getting better. I can say from experience that writing code for standard file open/save is very easy and would save users from having to move files to different folder. Mike Duncan
Re: filmscanners: My replacement 8000 is banding like the firstone :-(
The thing that totally amazes me is that scanner manufacturers like Acer (AGFA resells also) and Microtek (Polaroid resells also) haven't figured out that they can extend the product life of their scanners and make them more competitive by adding single-pass multi-scanning. I'll bet it wouldn't take more than a few hours to add this to the firmware of most scanner manufacturers. How about intelligent multi-scanning: The scanner checks for dark pixels and if there are none in an area, it doesn't do multi-scanning on that line of pixels, thereby speed up multi-scanning. Mike Duncan
Re: filmscanners: Q60 scanner gray scale tests
Dear Mike, Thanks for the most interesting revelations. One question... the Minolta DUal Dimage you ar currently using... is it the SCSI model (I) or the USB model (II)? It's the original SCSI model. Mike Duncan
filmscanners: Pop Photo Film scanner review URL
I finally locate the Popular Photography Film scanner review at http://www.popphoto.com/Camera/ArticleDisplay.asp?ArticleID=33. What is interesting is how close the LS-40 is to the LS-4000. Mike Duncan
filmscanners: Q60 scanner gray scale tests
I have made some measurements on 4 scanners (Canon FS-4000, Polaroid SS4000, Nikon LS4000, Minolta Diamage Dual) using the Q60 test image. After reading Tony's discussion of the Q60, I had assumed the steps were linear from 1 to 22. They are not. Steps 21 and 22 have half the step change (2% insstead of 4%). The following is taken from Kodak's Q60 specifications. The steps (assuming a perfect slide) are: Q60 Steps Theoretical (%) 0 100 1 87 2 83 3 79 4 75 5 71 6 67 7 63 8 59 9 55 10 51 11 47 12 43 13 39 14 35 15 31 16 27 17 23 18 19 19 15 20 11 21 9 22 7 23 0.0 I took the Q60 images for the Canon FS-4000, Polaroid SS4000, Nikon LS4000, Minolta Diamage Dual from http://www.imaging-resource.com/, and measured gray intensities in Photoshop with Kodak's DigitalColor Meter software (Mac OS 9.04). The Minolta Diamage Dual was included for comparison since this my current scanner. After adjusting the brightness setting in Vuescan (ranging 1.4 to 1.6), the Polaroid SS4000, Nikon LS4000 had nearly perfect linearity down to step 23. The Canon and Minolta had substantial nonlinearity at step 22. I've also noticed that a few steps are a little off on all 4 scanners at the same place, which leads me to beleve these steps on the Q60 are off. I'm planning on buying a Q60 and making a Kodachrome slide from it to test the Kodachrome - Scanner response Most of my slides are Kodachrome 64. I wonder which target would be the best (print or slide)? I had assumed the slide would be best due to the assumed higher black density. I also measured the standard deviation of step 23 (rms noise) and got this result: Minolta= 7.51, Polaroid= 1.78, Canon= 1.36, Nikon= 0.45, units are least significant bit (lsb) for 8-bit images. My measurement software (NIH Image) only handles grayscale images. All images were brightness adjusted for linearity. I'm amazed that the LS4000's noise is substantially lower than the other scanners. However, the Nikon's noise measurement may be inaccurate since it's noise is significantly 1-lsb. I really need a 16-bit image file to accurately measure the Nikon's noise. My interest in buying a new scanner is that the Minolta does a awful job scanning Kodachrome (noise, and green and red ghosts in high contrast scenes (offset by 6 and 15 pixels to the right, respectively, for landscape slides). I tried 2 Dimage Duals and both had the same ghosts. Does anyone know of a target with lower gray level steps (eg. 5% and 3%) since the Polaroid Nikon scanners can't be fully tested with the Q60? Also, does anyone have Q60 or similar gray step scans from Nikon's LS-40 and LS-4000 they could send me? I'd like to know if the LS-4000's shadow detail and noise is much better than the LS-40's.
filmscanners: Vuescan Firewire OS 9 or 8 support
According to Ed, I'm hoping to work on adding support for FireWire scanners on Mac OS X in the next week or so. I don't know when (or if) I'll add support for FireWire scanners on OS 9.1. This is one thing that is discouraging me from buying a LS4000. I don't plan on upgrading to Mac OSX. I'd really like to downgrade to OS 8.6 since MS Word 5.0a doesn't work on my G3 with Max OS9. I hope Ed will reconsider. Mike Duncan
Re: filmscanners: Scanning Kodak sleaved negatives?
At 9:49 PM -0700 1/10/01, Bud wrote: I just peel the plastic off while holding the neg on an edge with a forceps. I haven't had any problems doing this. If you ask Kodak not to sleeve the negs under "special instructions" on the envelope, they may - that's a big may - pay attention and not sleeve the negs. I asked them not to sleeve, but they ignored me. Seems like that plastic sleeve would effect the image quality when printing. Perhaps they sleeve the negatives after they print. Unfortunately, pulling sleeves off negatives aggravates my tendonitis. I was hoping that the glue they use might be water soluable. Mike Duncan
filmscanners: Scanning Kodak sleaved negatives?
Is there an easy way to remove the "slevaes" on Kodak Premium processed negatives so I can scan them? The sleaves are glued on the negatives. Pulling them off is difficult and may damage the negatives. Mike Duncan
