RE: filmscanners: Too picky?

[Oostrom, Jerry]

I have many lazy or perhaps overactive sensors on my Scanwit 2720S (the
infamous yellow stain with negatives or reddish stain and tram lines with
positive film) and I don't find it acceptable, but the warranty period is
over and the people from Acer that did the repair suggested there was no
problem, others from Acer acted as if there was no solution. So I live with
the problem (don't have money for some quality scanner). I wouldn't buy the
Scanwit again and I would buy something wit dust removal, since even though
I use the same antistatic cloth used by film processors to remove dust from
negatives I still get 3 to 30 dustspots on every scan. Perhaps our
living-room is too dust for filmscanning and the scanwit has acquired a fair
amount of dust internally.

BTW. Its not 2 and 2 and 4 pixels, but a lot more with my scanner.

Jerry



> -Original Message-
> From: Arthur Entlich [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 12:05 PM
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  filmscanners: Too picky?
> 
> This posting is being repeated in both this and the Scan@leben group.
> 
> 
> As those who have been following my threads know, I'm currently using a
> Minolta Dual Dimage II scanner, and I'm in discussions with Minolta
> after my first unit was defective.
> 
> My second unit also suffers from duff or lazy pixel sensors on the CCD. 
> >From what I can see 2 in the green, 2 in the red, and 4 in the blue. 
> These produce light lines across the scan on slides (or dark ones in
> negative scans.
> 
> Some have implied I am being "too picky".  Before I had the Minolta, I
> had a HP S-20.  Although the Minolta is definitely superior in
> sharpness, resolution and OD,  the HP did not have any lazy sensors that
> I saw.  And I'm of the opinion even one in any channel is too many, as
> they are visible in enlargement 
> 
> But, my question is this...
> 
> 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?
> 
> Has anyone noted this problem of bad sensors in other than Minolta
> scanners?  What about with 4000 dpi models?
> 
> Art
> 

RE: filmscanners: Re: Do I need Digital ICE? & Scanner selection Advice

[Oostrom, Jerry]

I myself own an Acer Scanwit 2720S and am not pleased with it. I believe my
scanner is more faulty than normal, but when I sent it in for repairs they
said there wasn't a problem and when I received it back the problem was
still there. I've discussed my problem on this list before and as it turns
out there are other scanwit 2720S owners who also have this problem, but to
a lesser extent. We call it yellow stain or yellow banding. That is how it
shows up when you scan negatives. 

I've just scanned a few shots and you can see for yourselves why I have
problems with this scanner. These shots are not particularly beautiful in
themselves, but they show that I cannot make color scans of light objects on
high contrast negative film, because the result is far worse than the print
from e.g. a one-hour shop.

Here.
Planes & Clouds
http://community.webshots.com/photo/19905771/19906323WBQXKxvJcy
(for an example look at the yellow-brownish cast to the clouds at the left
and right sides. The problems with slides are less severe, example album
Burger's Zoo (Fuji Provia 100F pushed 2 stops), the only scan that is really
really messed up in my very amateur opinion is 'Bamboo' (you can get to the
album from the above page). It is a dark underexposed slide, but the slide
itself still looks rather nice, but not the scan. )

So I suggest you refrain from buying a 2720S, if not for the chance of a
buggy scanner, then for the spotting that you have to do with negatives:
scans are sharp, especially the spots, so you will have work to do.

Jerry

BTW. The 2740S may have a completely different type of CCD with much better
quality. My suggestion however is to test whatever scanner you buy with a
high-contrast negative film with a shot of large highlights and with a high
contrast slide with a big shadow-part and see if your particular specimen
does not have any flaws you can't live with. 

> -Original Message-
> From: dbdors [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 8:11 PM
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  filmscanners: Re: Do I need Digital ICE? & Scanner selection
> Advice
> 
> 
> 
>  
>

RE: filmscanners: Photoshop 5 LE files darker than they look

[Oostrom, Jerry]

> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Klein [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 5:40 AM
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  Re: filmscanners: Photoshop 5 LE files darker than they look
> 
> Or use a non-Adobe product.  It's tempting.  Anybody out there use other 
> programs.  Paint Shop Pro looks good, but doesn't handle 16-bit data. What
> 
> about Ulead PhotoImpact, Corel Photo-Paint, Micrographix Picture
> Publisher, 
> etc. ?
> 
[Oostrom, Jerry]  I use Picture Window Pro which has windows color
management support (so you need Windows 98SE or 'higher'), does all(!!!)
edits in 16-bits etc. But its unsharp masking uses a minimum granularity of
at least 1 pixel (i.e. 1, 2, 3, etc.), which I sometimes find too coarse (In
PS I've seen the use of USM 0.3 pixel at 300% which for that image did
wonders). It has some other functions that I use too, like e.g. warping to
remove the effect of converging lines in architecture if you use a
wide-angle lense, lense barrel/pincushion distortion, lense focus-length
distortion correction, chromatic aberration correction (I have consumer
grade lenses), an easy gamma correction (if compared to PS). It also has a
lot of effects that I don't (know how to) use, but I really miss the magic
wand selection tool and 'select similar' function. It actually misses all
selection tools, or I don't know where to find them. It also misses or in my
version missed a way of saving the color profile in .png files, so I save
images with profile in either .tif or .jpg (100%quality at 4:4:4 sampling)
format. 

As you can see this PWP program offers a lot but also restrains you
in other areas. So what I do is color correct saturation and b/w points with
curves in PWP in HSL or HSV mode (not in RGB mode)  and further remove color
casts with those pens that sample a number of pixels (don't know the name of
the pens, eye-sampler?) and then do the cloning / spotting in either PWP or
if I need the magic wand and fine unsharp mask I do it in a PSLE-like
application at 8 bits/color, then save again with profile in PWP (8
bits/color). (I.e. scan->PWP->PSLE->PWP, actually a bit too laborious,
because of little, but important things that I miss in PWP)

You can find PWP plus downloadable 30-day demo at www.dl-c.com. 

RE: filmscanners: Good neg stck on Scanwit

[Oostrom, Jerry]

> -Original Message-
> From: David Gordon [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, August 13, 2001 11:21 PM
> To:   Filmscanners
> Subject:  RE: filmscanners: Good neg stck on Scanwit
> 
> Oostrom, Jerry [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on Mon, 13 Aug
> 2001 15:48:10 +0200
> 
> >Kodak Supra negative stock seems to scan with less
> >grainy appearance than the Fuji Superia 400 film.
> 
> Maybe what Kodak claim is true then! The finest grained 400 neg film
> available...
[Oostrom, Jerry]  I don't know about that. Perhaps Kodak when they tried to
make this film better for scans didn't only do something about its toughness
to stand scratches, but also said: most filmscanners up-to-that-date are
around 2800ppi, let's make something that suffers less from grain-aliasing
in those kinds of scanners. That's what I like filmmakers to do if they say
they make a film optimised for scanning.

Jerry 

RE: filmscanners: Good neg stck on Scanwit

[Oostrom, Jerry]

What I have noticed with the scanwit 2720S and 400 ISO film may also be true
for 800 ISO film: the Kodak Supra negative stock seems to scan with less
grainy appearance than the Fuji Superia 400 film. This could however also be
the result of the slight overexposure I used for the Kodak film. Perhaps you
should just try it with the 800 film. Really, this is no joke: I once used
Kodak Ultra Zoom film ISO 800 and it scanned terribly grainy in the scanwit.
It may very well be too objectionably grainy to you. 
I think you will have to overexpose the film a little anyway, otherwise you
get terrible grain with the 800 ISO film (i.e. when scanning, the print may
be OK). Don't overexpose a lot as the scanwit does not handle dark film very
well.

With regard to tranny film: since the contrast is very large use a tranny
film that has low contrast. One of the PP magazines had a test on a number
tranny films lately and they mentioned which films were contrasty and which
were less contrasty. This will ensure that the Scanwit will be able to scan
the shadows. Also tranny film will scan very smoothly compared to the grainy
appearance of negative film.

Jerry

> -Original Message-
> From: GeoffreyJakarta [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 7:42 AM
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  filmscanners: Good neg stck on Scanwit
> 
> 
> Hello folks
> 
> 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? 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].
> 
> 

RE: filmscanners: PS 6.0 v. PS 5.0 LE v. Jasc Paintshop Pro 7.02

[Oostrom, Jerry]

I resend it again, the first time failed through problems at the mail
server. Sorry it arrives late.

> -Original Message-
> From: Rob Geraghty [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 4:25 PM
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  Re: filmscanners: PS 6.0 v. PS 5.0 LE v. Jasc Paintshop Pro
> 7.02
> 
> 
> Picture Window Pro is another cheap photo editing program which you might
> consider in addition to PSP because it *does* support 16 bit editing.
> 
> http://www.dl-c.com/
> 
[Oostrom, Jerry]  PWP uses the windows color management system,
which is probably not as good as that of Adobe. It also misses the selection
tools such as magic wand, freehand, rectangle etc. Actually, I think it
misses all those selection tools and as a result I miss them. Perhaps the
cheaper editing tools compared to the full version of Photoshop also miss
"magic wand select similar" etc. , which I noticed can be handy to select
white dust specks and subsequently blur these specks. However, you may never
have a need for that. PWP has a lot of things going for it besides the
price: (here a few that I use: ) All edits (= a lot) can be in 48 bit, you
have a warping tool which e.g.enables you to correct distorted lines in
architecture photography, you have a barrel distortion correction tool (I
have cheap lenses), you have a chromatic aberration correction tool (I have
cheap lenses) and with every valid remark that you have you get a new
version of the executable sent to your mail-address (at least thats what the
programmer tried to do), with a correction that works. But I read that
Photoshop Elements is only $99 and has (Adobe?) CM, whereas PWP almost costs
$80, ash Windows CM and has a more complicated user interface, for me
especially true with masks.

RE: filmscanners: Stains and Grains (was Yellow Stain)

[Oostrom, Jerry]

Sorry, I thought I had replied to him directly.

8-7

> -Original Message-
> From: Oostrom, Jerry [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 8:30 AM
> To:   '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject:  RE: filmscanners: Stains and Grains (was Yellow Stain)
> 
> Thanks for your extensive research Frank!
> 
> BTW. I received your mail twice.
> Could I ask you to try your photoshop correcting example with the BMW
> image
> if it is not too much trouble?
> 
> Thanks Jerry
> 
> 

RE: filmscanners: Stains and Grains (was Yellow Stain)

[Oostrom, Jerry]

> -Original Message-
> From: Alan Tyson [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 5:18 AM
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  Re: filmscanners: Stains and Grains (was Yellow Stain)
> 
    [Oostrom, Jerry]  [] 
> So if it's only occasionally a problem, don't worry. You can
> got a lot of conventional prints made from your negs for the
> difference in cost between the Scanwit and anything else
> that's worth having. Some negatives have always been
> difficult to print. The mistake occurred at the moment the
> button was pressed, not when the scanner was bought.
> 
[Oostrom, Jerry]  If only it were an occasional problem for me :-( 

RE: filmscanners: Stains and Grains (was Yellow Stain)

[Oostrom, Jerry]

Thanks for your extensive research Frank!

BTW. I received your mail twice.
Could I ask you to try your photoshop correcting example with the BMW image
if it is not too much trouble?

Thanks Jerry

> -Original Message-
> From: Frank Nichols [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 12:40 AM
> To:   Filmscanners@Halftone. Co. Uk
> Cc:   Jerry Oostrom; Lynn Allen
> Subject:  RE: filmscanners: Stains and Grains (was Yellow Stain)
> 
> WARNING: The following is a rather long discussion of the "yellow stain"
> effect seen on ACER Scanwit 2720s reported here a week or so ago. I am
> posting this in hopes of getting more details on the actual working of the
> scanwit from someone "in the know" - such as optics, sensor design, etc.
> If
> you don't have a Scanwit or if you don't have this problem you may want
> skip
> these ramblings of a somewhat inept newbie... :-)
> 
> ...
> 
[Oostrom, Jerry]  [] 

> I still have the examples of this effect posted at my website
> (http://www.theNichols.net/scanner ) This weekend I will be posting a
> couple
> of methods for hiding/correcting the yellow stain effect using Photoshop.
> The methods are not perfect, but they can salvage an unusable photo in
> most
> cases.
> 
> /fn

RE: filmscanners: Canoscan 2400 UF

[Oostrom, Jerry]

> -Original Message-
> From: Jack Phipps [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 12:07 AM
> To:   '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject:  RE: filmscanners: Canoscan 2400 UF
> 
> I think you'd be a lot happier with the Acer 2740 at a similar price.
>  
> Jack Phipps
> Applied Science Fiction
> 
[Oostrom, Jerry]  Why?  ... Who, you or he?

Jerry Oostrom
Acer Scanwit user.

>   -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) 
> 

filmscanners: PPs

[Oostrom, Jerry]

Well, I actually like PP (Practical Photography, UK magazine) much better
than PP (Popular Potography, US magazine) but its the price/ads ratio
difference (pound/euro*amount_of_ads rates vs. US-dollar/euro*amount_of_ads)
that let me choose for a subscription on PP US. Occasionally I buy a PP UK
if it contains articles I am especially interested in.

Not that PP UK contains better tests, jut better photos printed on more
expensive paper, more tips and articles that don't spread over 20 pages
(continued here... continued there...).

Jerry


> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Meier [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 9:41 AM
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  Re: filmscanners: LS-4000ED Dmax 4,2 or rather 2,3?
> 
> --- Hersch Nitikman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I just went back to the Popular Photography issue
> > that reviewed the new 
> > scanners, and what I saw was very different from
> > what was said here earlier 
> > today. They rated the LS-4000 Very highly. In fact,
> > maybe too highly...
> 
> Well, PP seems to write a lot of things to please its
> advertisers. There are a lot of articles that are
> flawed and don't really tell you the whole truth. It's
> not that everything they write is wrong but you have
> to take it with a grain of salt. I have to admit that
> I also did subscribe for PP but at $3/year there is
> enough information that is worth the $3.
> 
> Rob
> 
> __
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
> http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

RE: filmscanners: ScanWit Yellow stain

[Oostrom, Jerry]

I saw your offer.

I'm not living 'close' to Nieuwegein, but perhaps I will try to post a sheet
of negatives (have to get permission from my wife ;-) her relatives are on
that sheet of film), of course with a CD and postage paid return envelope.

Thank you for your offer,
I'll contact you offlist,

Jerry


> -Original Message-
> From: Henk de Jong [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 9:00 AM
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  Re: filmscanners: ScanWit Yellow stain
> 
> > Jerry, I'd suggest you find another photographer with another scanner
> (this
> > List might help you--if there are any fellow-Dutchmen about, please
> pitch
> > in).
> 
> In the thread:
> "filmscanners: OT: I'm a bit in a paradox here!!?: was RE: VueScan + flat
> colors (that disappear with Mika"
> I wrote:
> "If Jerry is living near Nieuwegein (Utrecht), maybe I can try to scan his
> film in my ScanWit 2720?"
> 
> __
> With kind regards,
> 
> Henk de Jong
> The Netherlands
> 
> Homepage Nepal - Trekking Around Annapurna - Photo Gallery:
> http://annapurna.wolweb.nl
> 

RE: filmscanners: LS-4000ED Dmax 4,2 or rather 2,3?

[Oostrom, Jerry]

Sorry Nikon, it was the the LS with the IV that had normal contrast and the
one with the 4000 that had high contrast. It was my memory that had no
contrast.

> -Original Message-
> From: Oostrom, Jerry [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 1:53 PM
> To:   '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject:  RE: filmscanners: LS-4000ED Dmax 4,2 or rather 2,3?
> 
> I just read in Popular Photography about a test on 7 filmscanners. The
> Nikon
> LS-4000ED I believe was also mentioned there as having few shadow detail.
> The SS120 had great shadow detail in that test.
> 
> 

filmscanners: OT: I'm a bit in a paradox here!!?: was RE: VueScan + flat colors (that disappear with Mika

[Oostrom, Jerry]

Good,

then its probably only me acting under-age here 
(a sign pointing in this direction is the wise refraining from comments by
Maris and even more so Mikael).

Thank you Art for putting some balance to my comments and double apologies
to Mikael Risedal. 1) I didn't know your 'Puh' and exclamation marks were to
be interpreted differently from the way they sounded to me and the way I
visualized it for myself (it was funny though ;-) and as a result I've put
myself in a position I was putting you in (2) (pfff english is difficult). 

Mikael, please don't stop writing the way you do because of me, my opinion
is not worth it, yours is, so please keep writing and doing your tests and
helping Ed enhance Vuescan, Nikon enhance Nikon stuff etc. Please don't let
me scare you off.

Art, I know the debate IS minor, but in the Netherlands we have a saying:
,Don't make an elephant out of a mosquito'. Apparently that's what I did
while I thought Mikael was doing it. I still do a little bit because he
seemed to assume things about Maris actions / intentions / efforts etc. and
judge on that, at least thats how it reads in my understanding of english.
Perhaps its my age (31) and I haven't built up enough years of social skills
and experiences to see into these cultural and linguistic differences. My
assumption was: Mikael is from the north (Sweden) and proud of it ('Lund,
Sweden' --> assumptions, assumptions, assumptions...), so when he sounded
angry he was a lot more angry than if he were from the Mediterranean, where
generally people behave more sanguinary.

BTW. My gut feeling still is that your comment could as well or even better
be directed to Mikael. Does that mean there is no hope for me anymore?? :-(


Greetings,

Bully

For the tired among you: I'll skip mailing on this subject for now, promise.
However, I cannot yet promise that I won't react when I get
(rightfully/wrongfully/based on mere assumptions) the impression that people
judge based on mere assumptions because its easy.

> -Original Message-
> From: Arthur Entlich [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 10:06 AM
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  Re: filmscanners: VueScan + flat colors (that disappear with
> Mika
> 
> Jerry,
> 
> I think that the majority of any perceived acrimony that occurred in 
> these recent exchanges of ideas, is due to linguistic differences, as it 
> can be more difficult to both write in, and fully comprehend in a second 
> language.
> 
> I think there is a very minor debate here, and not much else.  You might 
> be over-reacting to the interchange taking place.
> 
> Art
> 

RE: filmscanners: LS-4000ED Dmax 4,2 or rather 2,3?

[Oostrom, Jerry]

I just read in Popular Photography about a test on 7 filmscanners. The Nikon
LS-4000ED I believe was also mentioned there as having few shadow detail.
The SS120 had great shadow detail in that test.

Since nobody else on this list mentioned this test (an american magazine,
sent to Holland--> plenty of time for americans to read it) I assume its not
such a popular magazine among filmscanner people?

> -Original Message-
> From: Tomasz Zakrzewski [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 12:38 PM
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  filmscanners: LS-4000ED Dmax 4,2 or rather 2,3?
> 
    [Oostrom, Jerry]  []
>  But I've just read a review od the 4000ED in German magazine "digit"
> ftp://ftp.lasersoft.com.pl/SFPrasa2001/Digit_3-2001.pdf which says, that
> the
> true Dmax of this scanner is 2,3! It was even worse than with Coolscan
> LS-2000 which had 2,6. What't this???
> It means no details in shadows. The reviewers say that this low Dmax is
> the
> consequence of the increase in resolution at the cost of the
> light-sensitive
> area of the sensor (whatever it means) which causes too low
> light-sensitivity.
[Oostrom, Jerry]  [] 

RE: filmscanners: ScanWit Yellow stain

[Oostrom, Jerry]

Here are some of the scans I promised.

I made them by attaching the scanner to another current outlet group, but it
did not change things. I also swapped the negative to show you the error IS
in the scanner, not the negative (largest yellow band still appears at the
right side).

Here they are in the http://www.bigfoot.com/~jerfi/testscannerfix/ dirctory:

The film scans were made using Vuescan 7.1.3, the newest version yesterday.
I set:
*the Vuescan settings to default, 
*   used a scan resolution of 675dpi and resampled the image to a
quarter its size (corresponding to 337 dpi) using Picture Window Pro 3.0.
The crop file was saved from Picture Window Pro as a jpg at 100% quality
The raw scan file was also downsampled using PWP and may as a result have
obtained a color profile (perhaps sRGB, didn't take the time to check that).
My mistake.  However, you will still see the banding if you convert it to a
positive scan. BTW. the raw scan file is still in 16bit mode. 

Now if you compare this to the flatbed scan from the print I received from
the printing service you know that the print shows much more color
information AND has no banding! Unfortunately, they just crop wrong!#$%

Film: Kodak Supra 400, shot at ISO320, me leaning almost over the car with a
wide-angle.
The whole roll was shot at ISO320, but this particular negative seems more
over-exposed.
Except for the yellow bands and strange color I obtained a scan with a very
nice soft! grain pattern.

The crop file:
http://home.wanadoo.nl/joostrom/testscannerfix/ToWebFilmScanquart.jpg 162k

The raw tiff 48bit file:
http://home.wanadoo.nl/joostrom/testscannerfix/scan0002quart.tif 858k!!!

The nice flatbed scan with the wrong crop but NO banding: 
http://home.wanadoo.nl/joostrom/testscannerfix/toWebFlatbedquart.jpg 132k
(also PWP'd and saved at 100% jpg quality)

So is it user error, is it scanner error (bad lamp / bad CCD) or is it me
pushing the envelopes of what a decent scanner can do?


Thank you all for your interest, I've used you comments to make my point at
Acer NL,

Jerry


BTW. All good intentions and manners aside: Mr. Honda Lo has become very
silent for weeks now. The same goes for the dutch contact person, whom I've
mailed several times (always received a return receipt, but unfortunately
that does not prove much). I am getting frustrated enough to write to the
bosses / managers / colleagues of this dutch contact person (whose email
addresses I got from Mr. honda Lo), just not there yet and still hoping for
some help from Acer NL. Are they just waiting for my 90 days warranty over
the previous repair to pass?
This mail is Bcc'd again to both Honda Lo and the dutch contact person.

> -Original Message-
> From: Oostrom, Jerry [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 12:52 PM
> To:   '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject:  RE: filmscanners: ScanWit Yellow stain
> 
> The scan that I made is indeed OFF the planet, even on my screen, but it
> has
> been done with the regular settings in which I scan normally exposed
> negatives (gamma 2.22). I overexposed the whole roll from ISO 400 to ISO
> 320, should not be too much I think, but this frame came out more
> overexposed than others. The print from the printing service is OK though,
> I
> could send a flatbed scan of it (the only problem is their cropping, they
> took off parts of the left door!@#$%). 
> 
> Anyway, before you all start thinking I am in error here, I think I'll
> send
> a raw scan downsampled to the list (I'll send only the link) so you can
> see
> for yourself if it's me or the Scanwit.
> 
> The scanner does not work OK on normally-exposed materials in the sense
> that
> even though the errors are much less visible, they are still there, most
> noticeably on even coloured or light colored parts of a scan from negative
> and on dark colored parts of a positive. Its ruining the wedding shots we
> have taken from our family.
> 
> Thank you for your interest,
> 
> Jerry
> 
> > info & comparisons

RE: filmscanners: VueScan + flat colors (that disappear with Mikael Risedal)

[Oostrom, Jerry]

Mikael,

even if I 'rely' on your writing, it still wasn't that obvious what the real
issue was before your last mail. Your behaviour in it is 'uncontrolled' as
if you lost your self-control. As a result it contains personal accusations
and assumptions of which I cannot believe you have any good proof and even
if you did, why write it to the list? It reads like a cartoon now and you
become i.m.o. a caricature in it (like many supposedly adults I know btw. of
which some are on this list too.).

So loosen up!

... 
Although perhaps, you know each other very well and you were just joking
around, teasing your friend Maris! If that's true, then you've got me and
possibly others fooled. ...In that case, keep on! 

Anyway, I always like to read your posts, regardless of how polarised and
colourful they are. Most parts of it have real benefit for me.

And yes, you can see this as a personal attack,
but I can assure you: 
*   I have many problems in which I myself do not keep the amount of
self-control or compassion that I like to have kept, even if it was only to
keep up an appearance of matureness.  
*   Others fight little flame wars in this list too, they were however
not interesting to me, so you were just unlucky.
*   there's no benefit in looking upon my mail as an attack and I do
mean to help (I also like to sting, but I do like to help ;-)
*   I send this to the list, since I think it may prevent some other
list-participants (some LEDs blinking? ;-) to make bad caricatures of
themselves. Of course some of you list members may find it more difficult if
you cannot be as direct as you like... Just remember then that if you don't
want your mail and your image to loose value because of your own words you
should not write personal accusations on somebody's acts or more importantly
intentions etc. in public, even if they are true. (this is how I try to make
my mail less of a personal accusation is it working? 8-)



Saint Jerry




> -Original Message-
> From: Mikael Risedal [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 5:34 PM
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  Re: filmscanners: VueScan + flat colors
> 
> Maris!!!
> 
> You dont know or try to learn what the real issue is. I have discover that
> 
> something is wrong in VueScan and color space Adobe RGB.
> 
> Read this !!
> 
> From ED
> Yes, Adobe RGB makes flat colors.  There's probably something I'm
> doing wrong inside VueScan (I may have inverted a matrix wrong).
> 
> Regards,
> Ed Hamrick
> 
> This is not a question about what suits the web or not. Every one knows
> what 
> you are writing about S-RGB and the web. I do... There
> are a problem inside  VueScan to convert and handel color space Adobe RGB.
> The software are optimized in S-RGB .
> 
> I think I rather I let ED Hamrick explain it for you.
> 
> And yes Im working in color space Adobe RGB not S-RGB.
> And if you will learn something from others read what they rely are
> writing. 
>   Puh
> 
> Mikael Risedal
> Photographer
> Lund Sweden
> --
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >From: "Maris V. Lidaka, Sr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: Re: filmscanners: VueScan + flat colors
> >Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 10:02:41 -0500
> >
> >That may be fine for images you intend to post on the web, but by leaving
> 
> >it
> >in the sRGB color space you are limiting the colors available for
> archiving
> >and for printing.  This is also BTW the reason the colors don't look flat
> -
> >because the colors have been compressed.
> >
> >I prefer to scan and leave the image in Bruce or Adobe RGB, and change to
> >sRGB only the copies I intend to post to the web.  The archived scan will
> >remain in a wider color space despite the 'flat' appearance.
> >
> >Maris
> >
> 

RE: filmscanners: ScanWit Yellow stain

[Oostrom, Jerry]

I'll try your solution with the blank frame.

I once tried to insert a piece of blank frame into the calibration hole and
it made the whole scan stripy!

Thanks,

Jerry.

BTW. I Bcc'd Mr. Honda Lo, so that's why I included all of your mail.


> -Original Message-
> From: Mark T. [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 2:44 PM
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  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: ScanWit Yellow stain

[Oostrom, Jerry]

The scan that I made is indeed OFF the planet, even on my screen, but it has
been done with the regular settings in which I scan normally exposed
negatives (gamma 2.22). I overexposed the whole roll from ISO 400 to ISO
320, should not be too much I think, but this frame came out more
overexposed than others. The print from the printing service is OK though, I
could send a flatbed scan of it (the only problem is their cropping, they
took off parts of the left door!@#$%). 

Anyway, before you all start thinking I am in error here, I think I'll send
a raw scan downsampled to the list (I'll send only the link) so you can see
for yourself if it's me or the Scanwit.

The scanner does not work OK on normally-exposed materials in the sense that
even though the errors are much less visible, they are still there, most
noticeably on even coloured or light colored parts of a scan from negative
and on dark colored parts of a positive. Its ruining the wedding shots we
have taken from our family.

Thank you for your interest,

Jerry

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 8:47 AM
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  RE: filmscanners: ScanWit Yellow stain
> 
> Here, this looks completely out to lunch, especially gamma, which is way 
> too high. I can't really tell much about the image itself because such 
> gross gamma correction is required before I can see anything much, and 
> then a pile of colour correction too. If this looks anything like OK gamma
> 
> on your screen, your monitor is off a different planet.
> 
> Whilst I can see what you mean about the sort of yellow vignette, the 
> background - behind the car - has gone an elegant rose pink. I rather 
> suspect there is nothing wrong with the scanner hardware, but there's a 
> combination of pushing the exposure envelope, software and (perhaps) user 
> error here. It's actually quite an interesting effect ;-) almost like 
> cross-processing. 
> 
> A small (eg downsampled) Vuescan SCAN000n.tif would be useful at this 
> stage, if you have s/w which can cope with 16bit/ch files.
> 
> Does the scanner work OK on normally-exposed materials?
> 
> Regards 
> 
> Tony Sleep
> http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner 
> info & comparisons

RE: filmscanners: ScanWit Yellow stain

[Oostrom, Jerry]

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, which gave a
perfect fine grained print, but scanning with the Scanwit 2720S is useless
for such overexposed negatives as the negative is too dark for the (my)
scanwit to scan. I don't know if it is the lightbulb which gives uneven
illumination or dust on the lenses, CCD failures etc, but the outer sides of
the CCD give too much noise on a dark negative / positive and in case of a
negative this results in yellowish banding.

Here I show you the scan, downsampled a lot of times. I did use either
Vuescan or Miraphoto white balance (which clearly failed, but I know I
checked both programs for their results: you get this strange color cast). I
didn't try to remove the color cast, but you can still clearly see the
yellow / brownish banding along the long edges. The one on the side of the
frame where the left door is located is very prominent, it corresponds to
the floor side of the film holder as you insert it in the scanner.

I sent AcerCM some of my new scans (or links to the scans) made with the
'repaired' unit and they went very silent :-(
I don't know if that has to do with vacations or whatever. I think they know
they didn't solve the problem during the repairs and they can't solve it
without changing a lightbulb or CCD, which is probably too expensive.
Unfortunately, my warranty expired during the repair period, so there is not
much left to do.
I tried some things on my side as well to see if the problem has to do with
electronic interference (somebody on this list suggested that some time
ago), but I don't know enough about electronics to do some educated tests: I
wrapped the SCSI cable in aluminium foil, but it was to no avail. I'll try
one last thing this week: hook up the scanner on another group than the PC.
This is my last hope. I've seen the monitor flickering, so it could be that
the current or voltage is not stable enough in the group of the PC.

almost scanwitless,

Jerry
 <> 

BTW. I Bcc'd a new contact at AcerCM who was willing to offer some help. I
hope he will react, even if it is to tell me he can't help.

> -Original Message-
> From: Alan Womack [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 6:13 AM
> To:   Majordomo leben.com
> Subject:  filmscanners: ScanWit Yellow stain
> 
> Has anyone gotten an answer from Acer on this yet?  My one year warranty
> expired before I realized I had a problem with the scanner and not the
> negative itself.  :)
> 
> Alan
> 
> Epson Inkjet Printer FAQ: http://welcome.to/epson-inkjet

<>

RE: re[2]: filmscanners: re: brown yellow down side of Acer Neg scans

[Oostrom, Jerry]

Hi Alan,

I think you suffer from the same problem as me. My scanner was just returned
from Acer only to show the old problems. I received two new holders, but no
better scans. All the things you did and Eds suggestions I had done before I
sent in the scanner.  :-( 
But there again is a bright light: I've got Acer mailing with me again: they
asked for more scans to see if they can come up with another solution. So I
gave them a few (did most of them last night). Who knows what good can come
out of this, even if it does not help me personally. Thanks Acer! (a few of
them are bcc-d again, among them the engineer working on my case)

Here are the scans I made with the returned scanner:
(links because the files are big, app. 1600x1200 pixels!)

http://www.bigfoot.com/~jerfi/testscannerfix/Burgers_2_17.jpg (+/- 700k,
Vuescan). Notice that there is some kind of smog in the sky along the long
sides of the frame, as if we had vertical layers of smog on this beautiful
day. Read-outs confirm that the sky at these brown yellowish spots has
larger R and G values, where B stays mostly the same compared to the middle
of the frame. If you want the effect to be exaggerated lower the gamma value
of the blue channel (don't know why this works though). Btw. I blurred the
sky which I didn't do with the other scans.

Miraphoto 2.0 scans
http://www.bigfoot.com/~jerfi/testscannerfix/Miraphoto_origin_2.jpg (97%
quality jpg, +/- 700k). This scan is made with as much as possible neutral
settings of Miraphoto. Watch the snow: commercial prints do not show
differences in color of snow between border and middle of the frame.

A smaller version with some color - balancing.
http://www.bigfoot.com/~jerfi/testscannerfix/Miraphoto_balance_3.jpg (90%
quality jpg, +/- 300k).

Vuescan versions of the same frame (Sorry Ed, I changed the black and white
points such that the scan does not look so good, even worse than Miraphoto,
but I did it to clip as few as possible data):
http://www.bigfoot.com/~jerfi/testscannerfix/Vuescan_origin_2.jpg (97%
quality jpg, +/- 700k).  
http://www.bigfoot.com/~jerfi/testscannerfix/Vuescan_balance_3.jpg (90%
quality jpg, +/- 300k).




Here is the scan I sent to this newsgroup and to Mr. Honda Lo from Acer
Taiwan before I sent the scanner into service. Scan made by a Miraphoto
color raw scan, followed by a vuescan scan from disk file.
 <> 
good luck to your problem with the scanner Alan, 
I wouldn't mind seeing a few examples of scans with that problem from you,
so we can see if it is the same problem we are talking about.

Kind regards,

Jerry Oostrom

BTW. I think such symptoms could be solved by either replacing the CCD or
adding black point calibration to the unit. This we had already discussed
some time ago in this list. Of course electric interference and other
problem sources cannot be ruled out, but I don't know how to investigate
that possibility and what solutions to search for in that case.

Question to the list: if the hardware does not allow black point
calibration, is there any way I can do it myself? Perhaps using masks etc?




> -Original Message-
> From: Alan Womack [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 3:51 PM
> To:   Majordomo leben.com
> Subject:  re[2]: filmscanners: re: brown yellow down side of Acer Neg
> scans
> 
> I closely examined the calibration port on the negative film area, there
> is nothing in there to interfer.  I also did a little vaucumning of the
> entry door on the scanwit and a squirt of compressed air to remove dust
> etc that may have found refuge in the scanner to no avail.
> 
> The yellow/brown on the side of the negative continues.  I will have to
> try a kodak neg next as this was with Fuji 100.
> 
> Alan
> 
> 
>  >>  > I just checked a frame with the problem in Miraphoto 2.0 and it
> exhibits
>  >>  
>  >>  the 
>  >>  > same yellow/brown cast down the right hand side on this sky
> negative.  A
>  >>  
>  >>  > difference of up to 12 points blue.
> 
>  >>  Double-check that you don't have anything blocking the light path in
>  >>  the film holder in the calibration area.

<>

RE: filmscanners: Fast, decent (if you are lucky), low res scans

[Oostrom, Jerry]

Reply is below.

BTW. I blind-carbon-copied this mail to several of the involved people at
Acer, so that they are again reminded to the advertising power of users
(actually also not to talk too much behind their backs). I suggest some of
them follow this filmscanner mailing list to hear the public's opinion on
their service and their poducts. Please see http://www.halftone.co.uk for
subscriptions to the mailing list, the digest and/or
http://phi.res.cse.dmu.ac.uk/Filmscan/ for a searchable archive.

> -Original Message-
> From: Arthur Entlich [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 3:44 AM
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  Re: filmscanners: Fast, decent, low res scans
> 
> 
> 
> Oostrom, Jerry wrote:
> 
> 
> > BTW. Lately I had sent in my scanner for service, and when I received it
> > back (problem not solved, at best only marginal improvements!) I
> received an
> > extra filmholder and slideholder! 
> 
> Maybe using double holders will fix the service problem?
> 
> Or some poor guy now has a scanner with holders at all?
[Oostrom, Jerry]  Well, in their defence I can say they thought the problem
could be some kind of reflection from my slide- and filmholder so they
promised me that they would send these items (new). I said "Well thanks, but
I know that is not the problem and I would prefer you to solve the real
problem" (symptoms: brown-yellowish bands with negatives along the scan
direction at the boundaries of the frame for light parts of the photo,
similar problem with positive-film in dark shadowish parts, I've mailed
examples to this forum in the past) . The real one they didn't solve
(perhaps since as somewhere midway during the repair session they stated
they were unable to reproduce the problem). They also said that they would
replace a module and perhaps they did, since the scanner scans a frame at
full resolution backwards (w.r.t. direction, image unchanged). However, that
could also be a new behaviour of Vuescan. (I only did test with full-res
scans though and did not look at the scan direction with Miraphoto). 

> This seems to be becoming a standard operating procedure in the 
> industry, returning the unit unrepaired.  Since shipping isn't cheap 
> (you usually have to pay at least one way) and you are without your unit 
> (no smug comments!) for weeks at a time, you eventually just give up and 
> live with the defect.
[Oostrom, Jerry]  Unfortunately, my warranty is over now. 

> Maybe its cheaper than actually hiring staff to fix these things?
[Oostrom, Jerry]  I also phoned Acer and came in direct contact with the
engineer. She seemed to be a Japanese, not yet speaking any dutch. Thus she
was probably sent here to strengthen the technical staff of the service
unit. So although my problem is not (yet) solved, I still think Acer is at
least trying to set up a good service unit in the Netherlands.  

Greetings,
Jerry 

RE: filmscanners: Fast, decent, low res scans

[Oostrom, Jerry]

> -Original Message-
> From: Phil [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 7:00 PM
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  Re: filmscanners: Fast, decent, low res scans
> 
> Thank you for the replies on the "how do I make fast, decent low res
> scans"
> question I posted yesterday!
> 
[Oostrom, Jerry]  [] 
> Jerry, is the 675 ppi scan on the Acer Scanwit 2740S REALLY done in under
> 10
> seconds?
[Oostrom, Jerry]  I don't know, I don't have one (I have a 2720S). If you
have the dust-removal enabled it will perhaps take somewhat more(!) than
double the time of a normal scan at 675dpi (5 seconds was mentioned?). 
Anyway, the suggestion I made and later Alan made on having two slideholders
and filmholders available is especially useful with vuescan, since you can
change its settings to automatically start scanning upon insertion of a
slideholder and after scanning it will spit it out for you, so there is not
even need to touch the mouse or keyboard or even a scanner button for the
speed-freaks on a tight budget. 

Good luck on your quest, 

Jerry Oostrom

BTW. Lately I had sent in my scanner for service, and when I received it
back (problem not solved, at best only marginal improvements!) I received an
extra filmholder and slideholder! 

RE: filmscanners: Fast, decent, low res scans

[Oostrom, Jerry]

Philippe,

filmscanner batch scanning low-res with auto-levels:
if you ever start thinking about filmscanners and don't want to spend too
much money initially, you should know that although 'Auto-levels' was said
to be a Photoshop thing, the Acer Scanwit software called Miraphoto also has
such a setting (called Auto-density). The Acer scans quite fast using lower
dpi settings (e.g. 675dpi), its own scanner software allows batch scanning,
but only to an application I believe. Vuescan is not too expensive and can
help you a lot there. However, batch scanning is only done in batches of six
negatives or four framed dias. It would be good to have 2 slideholders and 2
filmholders for faster batch scanning. 
The Acer Scanwit 2720S has no ICE and the 2740S has, but I don't know if you
will need ICE scanning at such low resolutions for the specific purpose that
you mentioned. The Acer scanwits come with their own SCSI card (at least the
2720S does).
I don't recommend any filmscanner cheaper than the Acer 2720S for your job.

Future other use:
If you ever want to use your scanner for other purposes (full res scanning
etc., full quality), then you are better off with another more expensive
scanner with ICE or FARE (dust removal algorithms), since the Acers have
hardware imposed limitations to the exposure of R,G and B channels (so I've
heard) and can therefore not properly expose negatives and dust is always a
time-consuming problem.

Batch scanning whole films:
If somehow you decide you have more money available then there is a Kodak
scanner that allows you to scan whole filmstrips of 36 frames at a time. It
does not follow your budged though.

Budget flatbed scanners that do film too:
I have no idea here, what the prices are, but I believe there are some Epson
flatbeds that do a good job, and I recently saw an ad in Popular Photography
on a Canon flatbed that does 2400x4800ppi and I believe that was optical. I
don't think it is cheap though.

Jerry

RE: filmscanners: Cleaning slides

[Oostrom, Jerry]

> -Original Message-
> From: Lynn Allen [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 3:48 PM
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  RE: filmscanners: Cleaning slides
> 
> 
> I hope that Honda Lo is still auditing this list. If not, Jerry, I'd be
> happy to supply you with his email address. :-)
> 
[Oostrom, Jerry]  I have his email address and have contacted him
(actually he contacted me!). I am sure he is willing to help me as he did in
the past and I am using his name to help me get the support here in the
Netherlands ongoing. Until now, the people helping me here are still helping
me, still friendly etc., so I cannot say they are unwilling at this time.
However, with their approach to the problem as they have shown it to me, it
is quite clear why they don't see the problem. And that is why I would have
liked it if the 48-hour hot-swap would have been valid here too.

Gtx,
Jer.  

RE: filmscanners: Noise correction algorithms

[Oostrom, Jerry]

Beautiful reply with masterful selection of original text serves to prove
your and my point!

;-)

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 10:34 AM
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  Re: filmscanners: Noise correction algorithms
> 
> In a message dated 5/1/2001 2:20:15 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
> 
> > This reminded me that I should put only one question in a mail
> (ironically
> >  that was even Ed's suggestion to me, even longer ago),
> 
> Yes, this maximizes the chances that someone will answer the
> question.  I learned long ago that when I wanted a specific
> answer to a specific question, I should limit the e-mail request
> to that specific question. 10-paragraph e-mails with questions
> buried within the fourth paragraph generally won't get
> responses to the buried questions.
> 
> Regards,
> Ed Hamrick

RE: filmscanners: Cleaning slides

[Oostrom, Jerry]

> -Original Message-
> From: Lynn Allen [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 2:41 PM
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  Re: filmscanners: Cleaning slides
> 
> Art wrote:
> 
> > These same companies that immediately offer free
> repairs or replacement when a product doesn't meet functionality after
> minimal usage?
> 
> To their everlasting credit, Acer *does* in fact replace, rather than
> repair, defective Scanwits with new ones. At least in the US, as I know
> firsthand.
[Oostrom, Jerry]  I have my Acer scanner sent in for service, but
here in Holland they had not heard about a replacement programme. In fact
they are trying to repair my defective one. And they are until now
unable/unwilling to see the problem of the scanner: background noise,
devastating for negatives in general or the dark part of slides. Luckily
they are still testing for the problem, but I was disappointed when I saw
their sample scan, which of course looked good: the scan was cropped to
29x14mm (ratio 2:1), whereas I scan full-frame 36x24mm (ratio 3:2). I said
they probably didn't do a full frame scan and thereby unintentionally left
out the parts of the CCD line/array that are failing, they responded that
they performed a full frame scan. Then I responded: how strange, look at the
ratios, the dpi etc... Now I am waiting for their answer...

It is terrible: they are friendly, very willing to help and I want
to keep it that way, but it sure is hard to explain such an apparently
elusive problem to them while minimizing the risk of offending them on how
they test my scanner.

[Oostrom, Jerry]  :-( 

RE: filmscanners: Noise correction algorithms

[Oostrom, Jerry]

I already asked this question to Ed and later to this list, all some time
ago. Ed replied that his algorithms were "of course" already doing such a
thing. Then I asked, where can you set the threshold on black (slides) or
white (negs) for what is considered to be dust and waited... (no answer to
that question).

This reminded me that I should put only one question in a mail (ironically
that was even Ed's suggestion to me, even longer ago), since then it clearly
shows both parties that the other person is not answering / missing that
question. But that is getting OT.

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. Small problem is that you
have to do a full-resolution pre-view, and the big problem is... well,
unknown to me, but known to Ed and other software manufacturers. Perhaps it
has to do with patents, but what I hear is 'click-toot-toot...' and since I
hear that often I wonder: does anybody understand what I am trying to get
at?

"Bar Bar" applying to the civilized greeks 

;-)



> -Original Message-
> From: Lynn Allen [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 5:00 PM
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  filmscanners: Noise correction algorithms
> 
> This question is for Ed, and any other program-savy people who want to
> answer.
> 
> Since dust is always "white" on negs and always "black" on slides, while
> "noise" is usually lighter and "grain" is usually darker than the
> surrounding field of pixels, is this or can it be considered in the
> cleaning
> algorithms?
> 
> This suddenly seems so obvious as I experience the problems more, and I
> wonder what I'm missing that it isn't more easy to deal with. (?) Example:
> red pixels in sky colors, when it isn't sunset, green pixels in skin-tones
> and shadow tones at mid-day. It's very perplexing, because I'm pretty sure
> my scanner or its software is actually "seeing" or at least "interpreting"
> those pixels. I could, of course, be wrong, but that's how it looks to me.
> 
> Best regards--LRA
> 
> 
> ---
> FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com
> Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
> 

RE: filmscanners: Acer Scanwit 2720s vs 2740s vs HP s20

[Oostrom, Jerry]

Thanks Arthur, 
I'll try the magic wand and a blur / remove dust scratches. There are almost
a 1000 spots on one slide. But the real soluion is perhaps another film
processor. I'll even try using some water to wash the slide.

> -Original Message-
> From: Arthur Entlich [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 4:38 AM
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  Re: filmscanners: Acer Scanwit 2720s vs 2740s vs HP s20
> 
> Hi Jerry,
> 
> If these spots are in an area that can be isolated, and they are 
> different enough from the rest of the area, you can do a few different 
> things in Photoshop (I believe in LE also) to fix it.
> 

filmscanners: Scan pass alignment, how does it smoke? (important to scanwit users) RE: filmscanners: Canoscan 4000

[Oostrom, Jerry]

I just wonder how this scan alignment works:

does the software give a command: "advance to frame X" or
"advance to position "offset + (distance between frames) * X",

because if it is the latter, it would perhaps be possible to test the
alignment of frames by looking at the boundary between frame hole and the
surrounding film / slide holder, there should be a transition between black
and not so black. Problems would perhaps be with very dark slides, but with
infrared those slides may not be that black.

And if that transition spot is not so clear, then one could just test on the
first clear transition of the film frame border or filmholder frame border
to the film frame. 

Of course a drawback is that the 'raw' scan would be done on more than the
complete frame and the cropping is done only at the end.

Since I sometimes do batchscanning of raw scans, such a test would be handy,
even if it would just give an indication to the raw scan (e.g. in the name)
that it may be misaligned. If it could be used to correct the alignment:
even better. 

Ah well, if you think about at without knowing the ins and outs it all seems
simple.

I hope I got the attention of Mr. Lo and Mr. Hamrick. Nice to have them
here.

Jerry.

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 7:49 PM
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  Re: filmscanners: Canoscan 4000
> 
> 
> The one thing to be cautious of is that it looks like it makes
> two passes over the film (like the ScanWit 2740S), once for
> scanning RGB and once for scanning infrared (i'm guessing
> this from reading the specs - I've never seen one).  It can
> take almost twice as long to do two scan passes and there are
> potential problems with the two passes being perfectly
> aligned (especially at 4000 dpi).
> 
> 

RE: filmscanners: Acer Scanwit 2720s vs 2740s vs HP s20

[Oostrom, Jerry]

> -Original Message-
> From: Rob Geraghty [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 12:35 PM
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  Re: filmscanners: Acer Scanwit 2720s vs 2740s vs HP s20
> 
> "Oostrom, Jerry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If ICE would remove these spots, which are likely in the film itself,
> well
> > then that is all the more reason to buy the 2740s. It would be nice
> though
> > if you would have an ICE'  algorithm (FROSTY?) in which you could
> specify
> > which pixel colors should be regarded as dust. Although it would
> probably
> > work well on not too dense negatives only and not on dias.
> 
> You could try the salt and pepper filter in Paintshop Pro 7.
> 
  Interesting, unfortunately, I don't have Paint Shop Pro or
Photoshop without LE "extension". How do you fare with that filter on dust
with negative scans where you leave ICE off?

Jerry

RE: filmscanners: Acer Scanwit 2720s vs 2740s vs HP s20

[Oostrom, Jerry]

Hi, 

I am also a scanwit user (but not a regular mailer to this list) 
I've got mine (a 2720s) almost a year ago and foolishly as I was never
turned it in for service until last weekend, foolish because it had a flaw
in the CCD from the beginning (I mailed some of these problems to this list
before, see archives and you can see a few scans on my homepage, but they
are not as clear as the examples I have sent to this list).

I would have bought the 2740s if it were out then, because I spent a lot of
time removing dust with cloning. I also clean the negatives, but I always
seem able to damage the negs (very slight scratches), regardless of how
careful I am.

Jerry

BTW
Recently I have come up with a problem in several dias that if it would be
cured by ICE would certainly put the 2740s high on my list: black spots all
over the dia like filth-cristals. It was a Fuji Provia 100F film pushed to
400, perhaps it has something to do with it, although most dias were OK?!???
Anyway with perhaps thousand spots that you cannot remove with a dry cloth
on a single dia I don't even consider cloning.
Example (unfortunately not a crop from a high res pic, but a downsampled
version, still you can see spots close to the lioiness face and between her
paws):
http://www.bigfoot.com/~jerfi/photo/BB/Burgers%20Bush%20-%2030%20april%20200
1/slide_11.jpg 

If ICE would remove these spots, which are likely in the film itself, well
then that is all the more reason to buy the 2740s. It would be nice though
if you would have an ICE'  algorithm (FROSTY?) in which you could specify
which pixel colors should be regarded as dust. Although it would probably
work well on not too dense negatives only and not on dias. 

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 4:44 PM
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  filmscanners: Acer Scanwit 2720s vs 2740s vs HP s20
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> am new to the filmscanner world, so please bear with the newbie questions.
> 
> 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?
> 
> 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).
> 
> If you have a 2720s, would you (on hindsight) have bought the 
> 2740s?
> 
> The other unit I'm considering is HP's s20, but on features, stacks 
> up with the 2720, and is much more expensive here.
> 
> Thanks
> Lawrence
> 
> -- 
> Sent through GMX FreeMail - http://www.gmx.net

RE: filmscanners: film scanner software

[Oostrom, Jerry]

Did you know that there are examples of lightbulbs with a special kind of
light: darkness! 
I know I have one! 
Let me just post you 2 of the 27 URLs, this will leave only 69 posts to
follow!

http://www.lightresource.com/dksk-02.html

actually, the second one seems to disagree with this (ahhh ... science!):

http://paul.merton.ox.ac.uk/science/darksucker.html



> -Original Message-
> From: Mystic [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 10:21 AM
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  Re: filmscanners: film scanner software
> 
> Re:  Flame War
> 
> How many list members does it take to change a light bulb???
> 
> Answer: 578.
> 
> 1 to change the light bulb and post to the list that the light bulb has
> been changed.
> 
[Oostrom, Jerry]  [] 
> 27 to post URLs where one can see examples of different light bulbs.
> 
> 44 to post that the URLs were posted incorrectly, and to post corrected
> URLs.
> 
> 

RE: filmscanners: LONG; Is: AcerScanwit but also generic calibration was: AcerScanwit

[Oostrom, Jerry]

Well, since we have Acer listening now, I cannot but make a request:

Mr. Honda Lo and all the rest of interested filmscanner list members,

I have a 2720 that does not function properly. The problem is probably
background noise in the CCD. During calibration only the responsiveness to
the white light is calibrated for each CCD pixel. I think you can compare it
to determining the whitepoint for each pixel. I would like to have added the
blackpoint too. (I.e. read the response from the CCD with no light reaching
the CCD). Of course this would imply changes to the firmware if at all
possible.

I mailed Ed Hamrick on this issue and he agreed after several mails that the
error I was seeing is indeed a CCD response issue, but he could not help me
with added functionality to calibration (blackpoint calibration) as the
hardware of the scanwit does not offer a means yet to do so.

I think that is sensible to have first of all my Scanwit repaired, I have
the scanner for app. 10 months now so perhaps it's all under warranty, but
secondly it would be a nice feature if scanner calibration (regardless of
which brand) would also be done for both black and white point for each CCD
pixel. This may be especially useful after aging of the scanner.

Thank you in advance for your thoughts and time,

Jerry Oostrom


For the interested ones a part of the mail discussion with Ed and an example
(if the list lets me send it) of a negative scan out of many scans in which
the error is shown: yellow bands across the long edges in scans from
negatives (especially bad in the wedding dresses on my homepage's members
only section) and with regard to diafilm: light bands across the long edges
of dark dias (examples see windmills and airplanes page of my homepage:
http://www.bigfoot.com/~jerfi)  
 <> 
mail 1:
Dear Mr. Ed Hamrick,
 
once again I have a question for you.
 
My scanwit 2720 has a peculiarity. I believe it is the lamp that
does not function at 100%.
As a result my scans look bad across the long side at the borders of
the frame: negative scans become yellowish there, which is especially bad
for buildings, white dresses and as in the example I sent you: snow. The
prominence of this problem is much more apparent when I use your software if
compared to Miraphoto (Scanwit's own software) which is probably due to your
software being of better quality. 
 
Can you confirm that it is the lamp that is giving me problems? Or
is it some sort of reflection against the negatives.
I have attached the vuescan log, the vuescan settings, a 4x
downsized crop file and an 8x downsized scan file. Scan was done using
version 7.0.3
 
Is it possible for you to do a calibration that would countereffect
this behaviour? I.e. a calibration that takes into account the pixel
readouts for each pixel along the short edge of a scan.
Should I place a piece of clear film in the small rectangular cutout
used for the calibration? 
Is it possible to do a calibration against a whole frame (filled
with a clear negative)?
 
Or is there something I can do with raw scans in a
photoeditor which will subtract e.g. a raw scan of a clean frame from a raw
scan with photocontent and then reread the result in Vuescan to get the
right colors?
mail 3:
In a message dated 3/30/2001 1:51:54 AM EST,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> Is Vuescan automatic calibration performed only with the scanner
lights on
>  or is it done with both scanner lights on and off?

It's done exactly the same way as the Acer software - with the light
on.
The calibration data is read when the film holder is all the way
into
the scanner.  It reads the CCD at the small, rectangular slot in the
film holder.  If you have anything blocking this slot (i.e. film),
the
calibration will be messed up.

Regards,
Ed Hamrick 
mail 5:
In a message dated 3/30/2001 3:20:04 AM EST,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> no,  I haven't got anything blocking this slot. Please believe me
in this: I
>  have not yet placed anything in the calibration slot and the slot
is still
>  as it came from the factory: i.e. OK.

I believe you, but it was worth checking.

>  Is it possible and sensible for you to do a calibration as it is
done now 
to
>  get the CCD response for lights on and add a second part to the
calibration
>  in which you read the CCD for background noise (i.e. with the
light
>  obscured) and integrate both readings in the scanner response?

No, this isn't possible.  The way the hardware works is that I need
to do it the current way - there's no provision for what you're
asking
for in the hardware.

You might consider having your scanner serviced, since the
problem occurs both with VueScan and with the Acer so

RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements

[Oostrom, Jerry]

Changes sound good to me too. Please do make these changes. Thanks in
advance. 
First I thought I should not reply because you (Ed) asked for opinions of
people who objected to the suggested changes or who would like things to be
done differently.

Finally I came up with a suggestion, but the real suggestion is in the first
line.

Just a little thought on behaviour which is arguably a bug: 
I use preview memory setting and it does not seem to remember from which
frame (in Scanwit case 1-4, 1-6) the last preview came. So if e.g. I batch
scanned a set '1, 2F, 3R-6R' and enter a new set for the new frames '1,
2F-4F, 5, 6L' the preview will immediately turn the last frame preview of
the previous set (6R) to the orientation of the first frame of the next set
(1, i.e. to the left) and the crop box does not change orientation. 
Please let the crop box always follow the orientation of the preview
(perhaps you already did, but the bug is in remembering the frame in the
preview to which the orientation applies).
Also if possible and not objectionable do not calculate the preview from
memory of the frame of the last preview if it does not equal the frame
(number) of the next (to be done) preview.

I hope I made myself clear, it is hard to tell what I mean without showing
it.
Of course: I do not have the newest Vuescan version, but I know it is in the
6.7.x range.

Jerry.

> -Original Message-
> From: Ezio [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 1:36 AM
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
> 
> YES !
> Thanks Ed !
> 
[] 

> - Original Message -
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 11:56 AM
> Subject: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
> 
> 
> > I'm thinking about some improvements to the VueScan
> > user interface, and I'd like to solicit feedback and suggestions.
> >
> These are the main things I'm thinking of - let me know if you
> don't like these changes or if you'd like to see things done
> differently:
>  

RE: filmscanners: VueScan 6.7.5 Available

[Oostrom, Jerry]

(Story now hopelessly continued:)
Actually what I told below is not completely true / correct. If 'bit' is
meant instead of 'byte', the shortcut 'bit' is used and not 'b'. 
During an assignment that I did at AT&T (Lucent) I made the mistake to
calculate 
522 Mbit as 522*1024*1024=522*1048,576=547,356,672 bits is 25,356,672 too
many. Luckily I was pointed to my error very soon.



> -----Original Message-
> From: Oostrom, Jerry 
> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 8:57 AM
> To:   '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject:  RE: filmscanners: VueScan 6.7.5 Available
> 
> To hopelessly continue that story:
> 1kb = 1024 b if both b stand for byte. 
> 1kb = 1000 b if both b stand for bit (i.e. at least in some parts of the
> telecom world). However, then it is mostly written in conjunction with
> '/s', i.e. 1kb/s 522Mb/s or 2Gb/s: remember those are not
> (integer)multiples of powers of 1024.
> 
> Jerry.
> 
> 
>   -Original Message-
>   From:   Frank Paris [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>   Sent:   Saturday, March 03, 2001 3:49 AM
>   To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>   Subject:RE: filmscanners: VueScan 6.7.5 Available
> 
>   1kb = 1024. 857,211 / 1kb = 837.12 kb. End of story.
> 
>   Frank Paris
>   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>   http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 
> 
>   > -Original Message-
>   > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>   > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of IronWorks
>   > Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 5:24 PM
>   > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>   > Subject: Re: filmscanners: VueScan 6.7.5 Available
>   > 
>   > 
>   > My 6.7.5 shows to figures - 837kb (rounded I guess) and also 
>   > 857.211 bytes,
>   > for whatever it's worth.
>   > 

RE: filmscanners: VueScan 6.7.5 Available

[Oostrom, Jerry]

To hopelessly continue that story:
1kb = 1024 b if both b stand for byte. 
1kb = 1000 b if both b stand for bit (i.e. at least in some parts of the
telecom world). However, then it is mostly written in conjunction with '/s',
i.e. 1kb/s 522Mb/s or 2Gb/s: remember those are not (integer)multiples of
powers of 1024.

Jerry.


> -Original Message-
> From: Frank Paris [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 3:49 AM
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  RE: filmscanners: VueScan 6.7.5 Available
> 
> 1kb = 1024. 857,211 / 1kb = 837.12 kb. End of story.
> 
> Frank Paris
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of IronWorks
> > Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 5:24 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: filmscanners: VueScan 6.7.5 Available
> > 
> > 
> > My 6.7.5 shows to figures - 837kb (rounded I guess) and also 
> > 857.211 bytes,
> > for whatever it's worth.
> > 

RE: filmscanners: SS4000>Vuescan>Grafics Program

[Oostrom, Jerry]

> -Original Message-
> From: John D. Horton [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 7:56 PM
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  Re: filmscanners: SS4000>Vuescan>Grafics Program
> 
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Oostrom, Jerry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 6:09 AM
> Subject: RE: filmscanners: SS4000>Vuescan>Grafics Program
> 
> 
> >
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: shAf [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 7:42 AM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000>Vuescan>Grafics Program
> > >
> > > Robert writes ...
> > >
> > > > Why do you worry? The raw file has no been color adjusted.
> > >
> > > The difference beween sRGB and Adobe RGB (or any other
> > > > work space) is not an image mode change, it is a profile,
> > > > a definition.  Data is not lost.
> > >
> > > It would depend on how "Picture window" handles the image data and
> > > defines sRGB.  If it held to the principles of CM and the use of
> > > profiles, then it would "change the data" to put the image in sRGB.
> > > But that principle assumes it was in one color space to begin with
> > > (scanner color space), and was converted (changed) to sRGB.  On the
> > > other hand, Picture Window may have simply assumed sRGB ... assigned
> > > the profile without changing the data.  Do you know how PW works??
> > >
> > [Oostrom, Jerry]  With the Pro version that facilitates CM:
> > * You can specify a scanner profile for TWAIN input,
> > * you can specify an assumed profile for input of a file without
> > profile,
> > * you can specify your working space,
> > * printer profile and
> > * monitor profile.
> > * You can specify the conversions and the display to "preserve the
> > depth" (I don't remember the term PW uses).
> > * you can download a 30-day trial version to look for yourself if it
> > adheres to all principles of CM. It seems to me it does, but I am
> everything
> > but an expert on this subject.
> > The conversions do take a few seconds, therefore I assume that they
> > alter the 'triads', or color values and are in the view of some 'image
> mode'
> > changes.
> > Note that it is useful to regularly visit the site as the software
> > has been patched a few times in the latest weeks, some of the patches
> had
> to
> > do with color space conversions (i.e. conversion to sRGB for creation of
> > slideshows).
> >
> > B.T.W. Are there any real disadvantages for the web if you convert
> > your input tiff with embedded color space to an sRGB .jpg slide and
> leave
> > out the sRGB definition for size reduction purposes? I ask because that
> is
> > the solution currently (to be) implemented with the newest patch of
> PWPro3.0
> > (patch d). To me it looks OK, but how will it look to others on the web?
> 
> 
> 
> My original post stated that Picture Window Color Management was disabled.
> I
> ask what PS shop does on like circumstances.
> shAf's reply answered the question.
> John Horton
[Oostrom, Jerry]  I am sorry that my reply was not to your questions
but to his questions in his reply to Robert and then only partly, i.e. if
color management was enabled. Please forgive me: I don't know the answers to
your questions :-( Fortunately there is shAf ;-)

Jerry Oostrom

RE: filmscanners: SS4000>Vuescan>Grafics Program

[Oostrom, Jerry]

> -Original Message-
> From: shAf [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 7:42 AM
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  Re: filmscanners: SS4000>Vuescan>Grafics Program
> 
> Robert writes ...
> 
> > Why do you worry? The raw file has no been color adjusted.
> 
> The difference beween sRGB and Adobe RGB (or any other
> > work space) is not an image mode change, it is a profile,
> > a definition.  Data is not lost.
> 
> It would depend on how "Picture window" handles the image data and
> defines sRGB.  If it held to the principles of CM and the use of
> profiles, then it would "change the data" to put the image in sRGB.
> But that principle assumes it was in one color space to begin with
> (scanner color space), and was converted (changed) to sRGB.  On the
> other hand, Picture Window may have simply assumed sRGB ... assigned
> the profile without changing the data.  Do you know how PW works??
> 
[Oostrom, Jerry]  With the Pro version that facilitates CM: 
*   You can specify a scanner profile for TWAIN input, 
*   you can specify an assumed profile for input of a file without
profile, 
*   you can specify your working space, 
*   printer profile and 
*   monitor profile. 
*   You can specify the conversions and the display to "preserve the
depth" (I don't remember the term PW uses). 
*   you can download a 30-day trial version to look for yourself if it
adheres to all principles of CM. It seems to me it does, but I am everything
but an expert on this subject.
The conversions do take a few seconds, therefore I assume that they
alter the 'triads', or color values and are in the view of some 'image mode'
changes.
Note that it is useful to regularly visit the site as the software
has been patched a few times in the latest weeks, some of the patches had to
do with color space conversions (i.e. conversion to sRGB for creation of
slideshows).

B.T.W. Are there any real disadvantages for the web if you convert
your input tiff with embedded color space to an sRGB .jpg slide and leave
out the sRGB definition for size reduction purposes? I ask because that is
the solution currently (to be) implemented with the newest patch of PWPro3.0
(patch d). To me it looks OK, but how will it look to others on the web? 

RE: filmscanners: Vuescan long pass mode

[Oostrom, Jerry]

> -Original Message-
> From: bjs [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2001 9:16 PM
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  Re: filmscanners: Vuescan long pass mode
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Herm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2001 2:20 AM
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: Vuescan long pass mode
> 
> 
> > charge bleeding is a characteristic of CCD sensors, once the electron
> wells get
> > filled up you get these vertical smears as the charge "bleeds" into
> adjacent
> > pixels..its a hardware problem, can only be solved by limiting the
> exposure.
> 
> I agree it is a hardware problem but smart programmers have been working
> around hardware problems for decades.
> 
> I have a Pascal program that takes N files at arbitrary exposure levels
> and
> combines them into one "longpass" result.  It accounts for charge bleeding
> and a number of other issues.  The result has none of the gross errors
> that
> Vuescan currently shows and works far better.
[Oostrom, Jerry]  
Byron,
"smart programmers" used in comparison to Ed, "gross errors", "far better",
by the nuances in these words you sound as if you feel attacked, just like
Ed and others in reply to you b.t.w. ;-) 
Perhaps, that is the common way we try to make others do what we want, by
shooting them and let them dance to our bullets. In defence they shoot back
with the same attitude. This list has a handful of people who sound like
this in many of their mails and I am astounded that these people are
generally past 40 years of age, i.e. supposedly grown ups. However, they are
also generally the ones quickest to respond to requests for help, so that's
a good reason for me to stay voluntarily on this list.



Anyway, I'll give it a try, fortunately you all can lough at my silly
attempt to help you and Ed only later, when I have shields up. 

I have no understanding of the idea behind the "long exposure" algorithm,
though I did use it with my Scanwit, resulting in magenta tints in faces,
especially lips, noses and cheeks. It sounds to me as if Ed's algorithm
works like this: you do one or several normal exposure (multi-)scans and one
long exposure scan and combine the results with some weighing factor
(probably fixed or reciprocal to the luminance value of one or all color
channels and also reciprocal to the exposure) for pixels in the long
exposure scan that have not been exposed to the limit (e.g. 255 in 8 bit
scan, only looking at one color channel). 

Perhaps the most simple approach would be to make this weighing factor in
channel X or all channels 0 (zero) for any long pass exposure pixel adjacent
to or in close neighbourhood of a long pass exposure pixel that was
overexposed in channel X. The unfortunate result would be that you loose the
shadow info in areas of high contrast, but the problem of bleeding should be
smaller. In this case you don't make use of knowledge about which pixel is
well exposed and which pixel contains change bleeding, so you don't need to
know.

Another, complex approach would be to apply scouring algorithm in the long
exposure scan to the sections with pixels exposed to the limit (one/all
channels). That is, if scouring algorithm can be applied that way. The
pixels that were exposed to the limit would still have weighing factor 0,
but the adjacent pixels could have their normal weighing factor, whatever
that is.

Time's up.


I am sure some of you, programmer or not, or Ed, who is a smart programmer
i.m.o., will come up with far more ingeneous approaches and accompany them
even with pseudo code to combat the pixel bleeding problem. Some of you seem
really knowledgeable about the physics of light and the engineerings behind
CCDs and stuff, thus this poses little challenge to at least some of you.
Perhaps inspiration or time available is the limiting factor for most.

Jerry

filmscanners: RE: dpi question (was: Beginner's question on which scanner to chose)

[Oostrom, Jerry]

> -Original Message-
> From: patton paul [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 4:41 AM
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  Re: filmscanners: Beginner's question on which scanner to
> chose
> 
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Armando A. Cottim wrote:
> 
> > Hi guys.
> > Sorry for this question.
> > I notice that your posts are all so high leveled that I almost feel
> ashamed 
> > for such a beginner's question but ... here it goes.
> > 
> > I 'm considering the acquisition of a scanner to scan slides for my
> magazine.
> > I've been given several options.
> > (Please consider that Portugal is not the best place to get the ultimate
> 
> > machine just by going to the shop) :-(
> > 
> > First of all I was shown the Epson 1640 Photo (which is a flatbed and is
> 
> > said to scan 1600x3200dpi)
> 
> What does 1600x3200dpi mean?  Does it scan at 1600 dpi along one dimension
> and 3200 dpi along the perpendicular dimension?  I've also been puzzled by
> a similar claim on Epson's website.  It gives a maximum print resolution
> for the Epson 1270 photo quality printer of 1440x720 dpi
> -Paul Patton
[Oostrom, Jerry]  With all such measures I always assume that the
smaller number is the real resolution in one direction which I think is more
important: 1600dpi for the optical unit in this example and 720dpi for the
individual ink jets.  The larger number just states how precise the stepper
motor can position the CCD array or the ink jet array. Normally the stepper
motor positions it only perpendicular to the axis in which the array is
placed.
But who knows, maybe that somebody implemented the use of two
stepper motors active on different axes, one perhaps being a piezo element
that just shifts the (optical/inkjet) array, thereby creating greater
resolution. No idea what dpi 'formulation' you would get then and if you can
derive the resolution of the (optical/ink jet) array only from those .

filmscanners: Oops! Magenta faces.

[Oostrom, Jerry]

Oops,

I just used the new Vuescan6.6.3 restore colors option together with some of
the suggestions of the advanced workflow suggestions of Ed Hamrick's
Vuescan. But I think I screwed up by using the 'generic film type' setting
for Superia 400 film. 
As a combined result of these settings the whole scene, but especially the
faces seem to have a magenta cast. How do you correct for this using levels
and curves without the scene getting too green? Can it be done, or should I
rescan using another film type setting or put color restore option off?

Thanks for your time,

Jerry

RE: filmscanners: How Not Embedding Color Space in Web Graphics

[Oostrom, Jerry]

WOW!

I reported my problem to www.dl-c.com and they've already sent me a patch.
It's almost like Ed's Vuescan! This is the third time they were able to send
me a patch within two days of reporting a bug in a few weeks stretch. 
BTW. All bug reports of mine had to do with slideshow stuff.

shAf, if you would like to see how they handle profiles: they have a 30day
trial version of PWP3.0. I have no idea whether that version contains the
newest bugsolves, but color profile handling is included. I don't know what
you mean with the differences in color profile handling between PS 4.0 and
PS5.0 and up and how that would relate to PWP3.0, so perhaps you can try the
trial version and find out if PWP3.0 color management is morelike PS4.0 or
PS5.0 and up (to 5.5).

Anyway, the bug report on removing an embedded profile was unclear to the
people at dl-c, so I have to try and reproduce the problem and send them
examples.

I did have PS5.5 (for two months) but illegally, because I wanted to try
wysiwyg printer profiling. Howewer, I never really liked having this stuff
illegally, so I used my legal copy of PSlight, but that didn't do color
management, so I bought PWP3.0. This package was affordable unlike PS5 and
had the features that I needed. Pictures always looked the same in both
PS5.5 and PWP3.0, regardless of embedded image profile. Of course I used the
same monitor profile for display in both programs. 
PWP3.0 lets me do my usual edits: crop, warp (against cheap wide angle lens
distortion), color balance, unsharp masking, cloning, etc. all in 48 bit
mode and it is fast. It is also supposed to have chromatic aberration
removal, vignetting removal and such stuff. So I am glad to have something
legally which does a lot of the important edits in 48 bit mode that PS5.5
does in 48 or just 24 bit mode and PS5.0light does in only 24bit mode.

Here are some parts of the mail replies from dl-c which made me rave about
them much the same way this list does about Ed's listening ear and quick
updates.

##
mail 1:

From: 
 "Jonathan Sachs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Save Address - Block Sender
 Reply-To: 
 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 To: 
 "Jerry & Fiona Oostrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Save Address
 Subject: 
 RE: A new problem with Picture Window 3.0
 Date: 
 Wed, 31 Jan 2001 06:31:30 -0500

 Reply
   Reply All
   Forward
   Delete
 
Previous
 
Next
 
Close


>> 1. I have trouble converting a file from being coded in color space
ProPhotoRGB to color space none. (I also have trouble batch converting files
with certain profiles embedded to my specified profile)

What kind of trouble are you having? Can you email me a copy of the
ProPhotoRGB profile?


>> 2. It seems that the slide show images have no color space embedded. This
is
OK as long as the original images used as source for the slideshow would
first be converted to have 'no' color space or color space sRGB. As it is
now, I have to do it manually (i.e. convert to sRGB) if I don't want to end
up with color biased desaturated pictures in the slide show. This part
relates to what is in my opinion a bug: the slide show creation 'module'
does not take into account the original color space in which the file is
coded and you end up with 'different' images.
What I would actually like is to have an option in which the slides would
have a color space that I can specify when creating the slide show. I should
also be able to specify color space 'none', which should return the color
info to a file with color space none or if that is logically not possible (I
am no ICM wizard) to color space sRGB but without the color space
specification embedded.
The thumbnails should also take into account the color space of the
originals, but should themselves have no color space info embedded.

Your points about the slide show are well taken -- I will try to clean this
up.

Jonathan Sachs
Digital Light & Color

#
mail 2 from dl-c
:
I am attaching a preliminary version of PW 3.0d which add the following
feature:

In PW Pro, when opening images for use in a slide show, if they have an
embedded profile, they are converted to the current working color space for
inclusion in the slide show. This change should be reflected in both the
thumbnails and the final images.

To install the new version, just extract the file pw30.exe from the attached
pw30.zip and copy it over the file of the same name in the folder in which
you installed PW Pro 3.0.

Please let me know if this works for you or if you encounter any problems
with the new version.

Jonathan Sachs
Digital Light & Color



> -Original Message-
> From: shAf
> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 4:59 PM
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  RE: filmscanners: How Not Embedding Color Space in Web
> Graphics
> 

RE: filmscanners: How Not Embedding Color Space in Web Graphics

[Oostrom, Jerry]

Sorry, but I do not have Photoshop.
(Yeah yeah, now you feel sorry for me!)

BTW. If you open without keeping the embedded profile, does Photoshop not
convert to your working profile? I chose working profile 'none', but my
package (picture window pro 3.0) did not do any conversion with that
setting. Anyway, I asked the creators of the package about this and until
now they responded to my previous questions with a free update of their
software!

Jerry

> -Original Message-
> From: Larry Berman [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 1:34 PM
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  Re: filmscanners: How Not Embedding Color Space in Web
> Graphics
> 
> I'm not sure if I'm understanding your question. I have Photoshop set for 
> Adobe RGB and to ask me every time I open an image (if the profile is 
> different) if I want to keep the embedded profile or to open without it.
> 
> So if you're looking to remove a profile, just set Photoshop to a
> different 
> profile and open your image without it.
> 
> Larry
> 
> 
> >Just a question:
> >
> >how do you remove an embedded color space from your large tiff file?
> >
> >I have a color profiling capable software package, but it didn't allow me
> to
> >profile convert to color profile 'none'. It seemed it just didn't do any
> >conversion if you selected none. Without the conversion I get greenish,
> >color desaturated, contrastless images. So now I convert to sRGB. The
> >conversion to webgraphics then just removes the profile, but the (sRGB
> >coded) color info already is much more like (no profile) normal color
> info,
> >compared to the situation where I just remove the profile info from
> >ProPhotoRGB coded files.
> 
> 
> <:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:>
> Larry Berman
> 
> Web Sites for Artists: http://BermanGraphics.com
> Compare Image Compression from the top
> Graphics Programs: http://ImageCompress.com
> Explore the Art Show Jury process from a web site:
> http://ArtShowJury.com
> <:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:>

RE: filmscanners: [OFF] problem with image brightness

[Oostrom, Jerry]

Hi,

your pictures are BEAUTIFUL!

I don't think there is a need for sRGB, but I don't think it adds much to
the file size too. So if you want to be absolutely sure 
that for people who are fussy about color and such you have a maximized
chance they see what you want them to see, then 
embed sRGB. Perhaps you should also add a calibration page or section to
your website where you let people adjust their 
monitor contrast and brightness to see the fullest amount of shadow detail

Now I have the strongest urge to go on travel vacations again,
(unfortunately for you I do not want to buy images, I want to shoot them
myself, but you have inspired me (and my wife if I 
show her you pictures). Your 'less is really more')

Jerry Oostrom

> -Original Message-
> From: Cooke, Julie [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 6:54 PM
> To:   '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject:  RE: filmscanners: [OFF] problem with image brightness
> 
> Does everyone here embed sRGB colour spaces into web graphics? I wasn't
> sure
> if this was the best thing to do, I assume it would help standardise how
> the
> images are displayed on different machines. It would also increase file
> size/image download time.
> 
> I haven't on my site (www.lightdrawing.com), suggestions and comments
> welcome BTW before it goes live! 
> 
> Julie
> 
> 
> 
> 

filmscanners: How Not Embedding Color Space in Web Graphics

[Oostrom, Jerry]

Just a question:

how do you remove an embedded color space from your large tiff file?

I have a color profiling capable software package, but it didn't allow me to
profile convert to color profile 'none'. It seemed it just didn't do any
conversion if you selected none. Without the conversion I get greenish,
color desaturated, contrastless images. So now I convert to sRGB. The
conversion to webgraphics then just removes the profile, but the (sRGB
coded) color info already is much more like (no profile) normal color info,
compared to the situation where I just remove the profile info from
ProPhotoRGB coded files.

> -Original Message-
> From: Larry Berman [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 7:53 PM
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  filmscanners: Embedding Color Space in Web Graphics
> 
> One problem embedding color space in web graphics.
> It will add approximately 10% to the file size and for me that's out of
> the 
> question because it'll slow down page load time.
> 
> Larry
> 
> 
> >Does everyone here embed sRGB colour spaces into web graphics? I wasn't
> sure
> >if this was the best thing to do, I assume it would help standardise how
> the
> >images are displayed on different machines. It would also increase file
> >size/image download time.
> 
> 
> <:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:>
> Larry Berman
> 
> Web Sites for Artists: http://BermanGraphics.com
> Compare Image Compression from the top
> Graphics Programs: http://ImageCompress.com
> Explore the Art Show Jury process from a web site:
> http://ArtShowJury.com
> <:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:>

RE: filmscanners: Fw: Color Profiles for Scanners

[Oostrom, Jerry]

> -Original Message-
> From: Austin Franklin [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 8:27 PM
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  RE: filmscanners: Fw: Color Profiles for Scanners
> 
> The RGB
> on your display can be set to WHATEVER you want to.  If you change the
> brightness, it changes the output...changes in the life of the tube change
> the output.  Unless you calibrate it TO something it has no idea what it
> is
> outputting.  Every monitor is different too.
[Oostrom, Jerry]  We once played a practical joke on one of our colleagues:
we switched two of the three RGB cables of his VGA monitor. We wondered why
he never reacted at all. So a week later we switched the cables back. Only
then did we hear him complain, because 'all the colors were mixed up again'
and he had to 'change the styles of the windows' again, manually. (working
with UNIX and graphics based applications, not photos).

BTW. I like to see those first sentient / conscious monitors that have ideas
about what they are showing once they are calibrated...

RE: wedding photography was RE: filmscanners: Color Profile conversions and high-bit/low bit conversions. In w

[Oostrom, Jerry]

Thanks all for your replies,
some responses to Michael's mail are below.

> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Wilkinson [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 12:48 PM
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  Re: wedding photography was RE: filmscanners: Color Profile
> conversions and high-bit/low bit  conversions. In w
> 
> 
> My advice is DON'T do it.
> Weddings are a one off (well,one at a time) affaire and you can not
> afford
> to get it wrong.
> If you are accepting money to cover cost of materials you are accepting
> liability,
>  unless you are able to get a waiver signed before the wedding
> absolving you of any liability for whatever reason.
> Stress is a normal byproduct of wedding work and the truth is that
> unless you are absolutly
> at ease with your equipment and have back up kit to hand you will always
> have it.
> If I ever do a wedding its always for free,reportage style only, so that
> I can enjoy the event.
> If you want to do it ,join a wedding photographers association and go to
> every seminar and
> meeting you can,look at finished albums,even carry succesfull snaps with
> you so you can recreate
>  them whilst under pressure.
[Oostrom, Jerry]  We usually go one day before the wedding to the scenes
where it is all about to take place and see the lighting for that time of
day on several spots etc. At night we look into e.g. wedding magazines to
get a little more in the mood etc. so that during the wedding day we are so
enthousiastic that we almost cannot stop photographing
> Bottom line is that you have to charge for your time ,suite to be
> cleaned etc,transport to the venue ,
> kit you use and its replacement.
> Any one can work for free but will your client /friend feed you when you
> are hungry ??
[Oostrom, Jerry]  Well yes, at the wedding yes! Remember: they are family.
And there's always lots, I mean lots of food during our weddings (our family
is Indonesian in origin).

[Oostrom, Jerry]  Anyway, I appreciate you advice. We do (friends and)
family after having forewarned them a lot and having tried to push them
using professionals. You could almost say that we do them unvoluntarily,
it's just they wont listen or have really not enough money to pay for a
photographer which style they like.. And until now (only 4 times), they
always seem to like what we do, at least they say they are satisfied, but
the pressure is still there, and the pressure to do something new or keep
from doing old mistakes is growing. We even feel more pressure after the
last 2 shoots being particularly to their taste.

But what can family do about liability? We would feel guilty of having
failed them, but there is not a lot they can do about it otherwise. I think
warnings should be enough for a close family. But we'll warn more and harder
now, even though a part of both of us (the fool part ;-) likes to do the
shoots. We still have time: only 2 planned family weddings this year and the
first is in May.

I'll look into the other suggestions you gave. 

Have a nice weekend,

Jerry.

 
BTW. We don't do clients period, we don't make money doing photography, we
just spend money a lot of it. 

RE: filmscanners: Fw: Color Profiles for Scanners

[Oostrom, Jerry]

Duh!

> -Original Message-
> From: shAf [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 6:48 AM
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  Re: filmscanners: Fw: Color Profiles for Scanners
> 
[Oostrom, Jerry]  [znibh..]

>  Not much of a point really.  I'm sure many readers are saying ...
> "duh".  My original point was for someone somewhat befuddled with
[Oostrom, Jerry]  befuddled? I look zizzup 'n ze Vebsterz: befuddled->
thorolly confused (wiff liquor) What makez u fink I'm drunk!?@#$%  Hikh! 

[Oostrom, Jerry]  [schnappss!]

>  I just threw it in for conversation, not argument.
> 
> shAf  :o)
> 
>  <> 
> 
> 
But anyway, thank you chef !  ;o)

Liquor_pfuh_Beer.jpg

RE: filmscanners: Color Profile conversions and high-bit/low bit conversions. In w

[Oostrom, Jerry]

I feel better now thanks to you and others (a few who replied off-list).

Still I have the feeling that I do not really understand the color space
stuff, but it is getting better and less of a thing to worry about, which I
am good at. 
Anyway, it's really time to put our energy in improving the shots we make.
Perhaps then they become worthy of the fuss related to scanning them etc.

Jerry (& Fiona)




OT mumbling:
We (Fiona and me) keep getting asked by our large family to shoot their
weddings, and while we have some success in persuading the few "richer" ones
to use professionals like in our own wedding (which was a very successful
wedding(-shoot)), we have the trouble that the last 2 wedding shoots by us
were very much to their taste and ours. 
We are lately wrestling with mixed feelings: we like to take pictures, esp.
of such family occasions, we do it for free (only cost of albums, film and
processing) and we know that the wedding couples that we shoot are not at
all wealthy, we do it together (three SLRs, two color, one b/w, two
persons), we know how to capture the atmosphere and we stay all day and
night, we are no strangers etc etc. but it is still a lot, I mean a LOT of
pressure and we make such a lot of mistakes again and again (e.g. lantern
poles growing out of the bride, too much uninteresting ceiling etc.), we
have otherwise very limited equipment: flashes that connect directly on top
of the cameras, consumer grade lenses, only 35mm film etc. 
Also, allmost all the weddings are in the same city (what new refreshing
approach or new site to take or do next) and the family is so close with
each other that we are afraid that the albums are all the same style.
Anyone out there experiencing the same thing or are you all professionals?

Perhaps the best suggestion is to follow a course on photography?
How do you feel about the teachers in such schools? We sometimes hear from
insiders (graduated students) that those teachers are not the most
open-minded or even artistic people.

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 5:06 AM
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  Re: filmscanners: Color Profile conversions and high-bit/low
> bit conversions. In w
> 
[Oostrom, Jerry]  [snip helpful comments] 
> If it makes you feel any better, I archive to 8bit files too. The reason:
> I can only 
> get 10 TIFF's on a CD as it is, and they have to be in a readily
> accessible and 
> finished form I can send to clients.
> 
> Regards 
> 
> Tony Sleep

filmscanners: Color Profile conversions and high-bit/low bit conversions. In which order?

[Oostrom, Jerry]

I have a question as result of the 'Color Profiles for Scanners' thread.

>From that thread I got the feeling that it isn't the best approach to have a
low (8-bit) image file with a large gamut space. You use a small part of the
possible 256^3 values in which a pixel can be RGB-coded, which is either
visible as a narrow histogram or considerable combing . Articles from Bruce
Fraser also seemed to suggest that.

What I have done however, until recently, is make a lot of high-bit scans of
color negative film, let vuescan code them in ProPhotoRGB, do my color
adjustments and convert to 8-bit files for archiving. My priorities were: 1
archiving, 2 monitor viewing, 3 web use, 4 printing. 
I think now the approach taken was wrong for my priorities. 
*   I should either have converted to a smaller gamut space just before
converting to 8-bit, or 
*   should never have edited in ProPhotoRGB but in a smaller gamut color
space or 
*   should have archived the 16-bit files instead (I am reluctant to do
this, I have a little crowded home) 

Does anyone care to say something about the pros and cons of the three
approaches?

Thank you in advance,
even for reading this far,

Jerry Oostrom

RE: filmscanners: Fw: Color Profiles for Scanners

[Oostrom, Jerry]

Thank you Tony Sleep for answering the questions.
Andrew Rodney also mailed a link to an article that itself links to another
article which confirmed my suspicions. (Thank you too, Andrew)
His link:
http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/8582.html

The other linked article states IMP that a wider gamut color space will not
give you more colors (number is always infinite and WRT image files always
limited to bit depth):
  The size of the working space's
gamut determines the
   spacing of the 256 possible
values of each channel. In a
   large-gamut space, the values are
spread farther apart
   than in a small-gamut space.
Hence the trade-off: A
   wider gamut gives you a wider
range of color, but it
   doesn't give you more colors. The
same number of
   colors are simply stretched over
a larger color range.
(from http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/6541.html)

Now I just have to see if I can also see the limitations of gamut, of which
you say they are much more apparent than granularity differences between
color spaces used in 24/48 bit files. I have already seen some sort of
posterization occur in the sky with editing certain high-bit scans of
negative film in ProPhotoRGB where the scene was a heavy backlit one, with a
tower in front and a bride in the shadow of that tower. Of course this could
very well be caused by other factors as e.g. limitations of my scanwit.

RE: filmscanners: Fw: Color Profiles for Scanners

[Oostrom, Jerry]

Anyone care to answer my previous questions?

Perhaps the questions can be translated as:
*   Is it correct to state that a color space with accompanying limits
to its gamut will have only a finite number of colors? Why? Or is this
finiteness applicable for the number of colors that the current types of
image files can have when they are in a specific color space?
*   Will a smaller gamut color space allow finer granularity to code
colors in its gamut than what a larger gamut color space would allow for the
same range of colors (i.e. those same colors that fall in the smaller gamut
color space) or are image files not coded in such way?

Thank you in advance, 
Jerry

> -Original Message-
> From: Oostrom, Jerry [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 9:33 AM
> To:   '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject:  RE: filmscanners: Fw: Color Profiles for Scanners
> 
[snip] 
> > -Original Message-
> > From:   Andrew Rodney [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent:   Thursday, January 11, 2001 3:01 PM
> > To: Film Scanners; Bob Shomler
> > Subject:Re: filmscanners: Fw: Color Profiles for Scanners
> > 
[snip]  
> > Taking a file in sRGB and converting it to Adobe RGB isn't going to
> expand
> > the gamut of the file. It's fixed after becoming sRGB. You can't
> increase
> > the color gamut simply by converting into a space that can hold a larger
> > number of colors. 
> > 
>   [Oostrom, Jerry]  I wonder about this, are there spaces that can
> hold a larger number of colors? If I see it as a 48bit image file I assume
> the number of different colors to increase with a factor 2^24 in
> comparison
> to a 24bit image file. Or is the number of bits only one of the upper
> limits
> to the number of colors in a color space and will a color space never hold
> more than say a number X of colors? 
> 
>[snip also some of the q's] 

RE: filmscanners: Fw: Color Profiles for Scanners

[Oostrom, Jerry]

Strange, but it seems some of my replies arrive about eight hours later than
I send them and some never get there.

Anyway, I have a question below:

> -Original Message-
> From: Andrew Rodney [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 3:01 PM
> To:   Film Scanners; Bob Shomler
> Subject:  Re: filmscanners: Fw: Color Profiles for Scanners
> 
> on 1/10/01 7:54 PM, Bob Shomler at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> > But if changes do expand into the larger gamut it might affect printed
> output.
> 
> Taking a file in sRGB and converting it to Adobe RGB isn't going to expand
> the gamut of the file. It's fixed after becoming sRGB. You can't increase
> the color gamut simply by converting into a space that can hold a larger
> number of colors. 
> 
[Oostrom, Jerry]  I wonder about this, are there spaces that can
hold a larger number of colors? If I see it as a 48bit image file I assume
the number of different colors to increase with a factor 2^24 in comparison
to a 24bit image file. Or is the number of bits only one of the upper limits
to the number of colors in a color space and will a color space never hold
more than say a number X of colors? 

(After writing the stuff below I have to warn you: If you read on,
you risk getting a headache, I am totally confused here and don't even know
anymore what I am tyring to say or find out, I am getting some coffee now
and press send, if you read on get coffee and press delete. you have been
warned)

I assumed that the maximum number of colors in each of the commonly
used color spaces for photo files would actualy be infinite (X=infinite) and
only limited by the numbers of bits used. (Should I have assumed that image
files in smaller gamut color spaces do not use all available bits?)
I assumed that if you convert a binary image file from a limited
gamut space to a larger gamut space that would just decrease the number of
colors used in the file, because there is a much more limited range of
bit-values available to map colors from within the smaller gamut in the
larger gamut. As a result the used color gamut of the file would stay the
same, but the number of colors would have decreased, with the chance that
you get visible posterization if you use too few coding bits per pixel
(perhaps with 24 bits already).

Why do I ask this stuff (I am asking to myself too)? 
If a space with a smaller gamut can hold only YY discrete colors and
another space with larger gamut can hold ZZ discrete colors would imply that
YY < ZZ then it would look to me that if I convert from the higher gamut
space to the lower gamut space I would have to map ZZ into YY colors, of
which even some of the ZZ colors cannot be mapped. This would always lead to
posterization, except if the image colors were originally all in the smaller
gamut range. There would also be no need for an image in the smaller gamut
color space to use more bits than needed to code YY colors. This is what I
am able to read from Andrew's reply, but I have the feeling it is not what
he intended.

If the colors are not discrete colors and the number of colors is in
fact 1 or infinite for any given gamut, then there would even be a sort of
posterization if you converted from the larger into the smaller space where
all colors of the image were already contained in the smaller gamut. (i.e.
you should see combing in the histogram of the image in the smaller gamut
space, because that smaller gamut space has larger resolution if coded in
the same number of bits as the larger gamut space (here my english really
gives up on me))

If I should never convert spaces, it becomes important to know which
gamut the scanner can actually cover and select a space in Vuescan that uses
the smallest gamut that can encompass the scanners gamut, instead of
choosing just any of the larger color gamut spaces. That was probably the
question that the originator of this thread started with and that was
probably answered long ago. 8-7

Jerry Confusestrom

RE: filmscanners: New scanners from Nikon

[Oostrom, Jerry]

http://www.nikon.co.uk/rangeele.htm

> -Original Message-
> From: Mikael Risedal [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 9:53 AM
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  filmscanners: New scanners from Nikon
> 
> 
>  Nikon Coolscan IV ED, LS-40
>  Nikon Super Coolscan 4000 ED, LS-4000
>  Nikon Super Coolscan 8000 ED, LS-8000
> 
>   4000 dpi and 14 bit/channel
> 
>Mikael Risedal
> _
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

RE: filmscanners: RE: Here's a place...

[Oostrom, Jerry]

[Oostrom, Jerry]  I heard that with ftp sites (Ok whalemail isn't
one) you sometimes get a small (html) file telling you or containing a code
that should tell you there are too many simultaneous users.

Perhaps that is the reason that at times it didn't work for some
people?

> - Original Message - 
> From: OK Photo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 7:54 AM
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: RE: Here's a place...
> 
> 
> > 
> > >Please , anybody having problems in downloading or succeeding in it ?
> > >
> > >I don't understand any more what's happening.
> > 
> > Just d/l it this morningno problems.
> > 
> > Paul
> > 
> > 

RE: filmscanners: Aliasing again, alas

[Oostrom, Jerry]

Am I the only one receiving this error:

File Not Found

The requested URL /base1.css was not found on this server.

Additionally, a 404 File Not Found error was encountered while trying to use
an ErrorDocument to handle the request. 

?


> -Original Message-
> From: Rob Geraghty [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2000 6:27 AM
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  RE: filmscanners: Aliasing again, alas
> 
> Tony wrote:
> >www.halftone.co.uk/tech/filmscan/alias.htm
> 
> I like the explanation, Tony - a few pictures can be really helpful, which
> is why some threads on this list take longer than they might otherwise.
> :)  One small niggle which may not be worth mentioning - AFAIK most film
> scanners use a single row of CCD elements moved across the film or with
> the film moved across the elements, rather than a grid CCD like in a
> digital
> camera.  So your grid pattern diagram shows the areas "seen" by the CCD
> elements, not a grid of actual CCD elements.  The net effect is the same,
> so it may not be worth confusing people with.
> 
> Only pedants like me would point it out. ;)
> 
> Rob
> 
> 
> Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://wordweb.com
> 
> 

RE: filmscanners: VueScan 6.3.19 Available

[Oostrom, Jerry]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2000 8:19 AM
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  Re: filmscanners: VueScan 6.3.19 Available
> 
> In a message dated 12/11/2000 8:19:34 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
> 
> > Now I'm confused (not hard to do).  Please explain to me "where" ICE
> >  is.is it software or hardware?  Or a combination of both to get
> that
> >  capability?
> 
> ICE is the marketing name for a dust removal technique invented
> by Albert D. Edgar while he was working at IBM (he's at Applied
> Science Fiction now).
> 
> The patent can be read at:
> 
>   http://www.delphion.com/details?&pn10=US05266805
> 
> It's U.S. Patent 5,266,805
> 
> This patent only describes the way the infrared channel
> is used to correct the image, but it has several problems.
> 
> The first problem is that it assumes the infrared channel
> doesn't show any image data, but in reality the infrared
> channel isn't flat (especially for Kodachrome).  The
> second problem is that the infrared and color channels
> aren't perfectly aligned, which causes the edges of dust
> spots to not disappear when the algorithm in this patent
> is used.
> 
> VueScan uses an entirely different (and I think better)
> approach to using the infrared channel to remove the
> dust spots.  It doesn't result in any color shift, it works
> with Kodachrome, and it doesn't apply a softening filter
> in areas where there's no dust spot.
> 
> Regards,
> Ed Hamrick
[Oostrom, Jerry]  A ha, so Vuescan cleaning still uses the infrared
channel. Perhaps you remember from the thousands of mails received this year
that some person (I) once sent you a request for a cleaning algorithm that
probably does not exist yet. I thought this up myself, but perhaps a lot of
others did too and were just knowledegable enough to know  it was asking for
the impossible or could never work.

Now I think I should propose it to this group and receive answers
from them why it is not feasible.
(Keep in mind that I am not good at math and such).

What I noticed with dust on slides in a neutral scan is that most of
the dust is real pitch black. With negatives it is black in the raw scan,
but has a color shift related to the white point chosen in the positive crop
file. Many times however, it will be at the boundary of the histogram.

Can an algorithm be constructed that applies selective
softening/cleaning at parts that are at the lower boundary of the histogram
for a slide and at the upper boundary of the histogram of a negative? 
Has it already been made (does the clean filter in the newest
Vuescan already work as such)?
Did I ruin any surprise for a new cleaning algorithm in vuescan that
can be used for the wicked scanwit and any other scanner without ICE?

Please tell me if this idea is any good to investigate and build
upon,

thanks,

Jerry.

filmscanners: Downsampling vs averaging RE: Film Scanners and what they see.

[Oostrom, Jerry]

Wait a minute,

I always thought that down sampling consisted of some kind of averaging (of
samples).
I thought bicubic and bilinear and such terms could as well be related to
down sampling as they could to upsampling. 
Now I wonder: how does downsampling work? 
Does it exist of sampling only one of the pixels in the previous larger
image for each pixel in the new image? 
It more or less explains why I have some grainy images that retain a lot of
their graininess when downsampled. But why is downsampling often called
better than downsizing?

Thank you all in advance,

Jerry

> -Original Message-
> From: Shough, Dean [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 4:38 PM
> To:   '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject:  RE: filmscanners: RE: Film Scanners and what they see.
> 
[cut] 
> I expect you are right except perhaps for the Epson 1200 and 1600 series
> scanners.  I am not sure if they use a custom CCD with smaller pixels or
> if
> they are micro-stepping with an ordinary 600 and 800 dpi array.  But, now
> that I think about it, if you use a scanner at 1/2 or 1/4 of its full
> resolution, then the pixel size remains the same but the Nyquist limit is
> much lower.  Sounds like a recipe for alaising and another good reason to
> always scan at higher resolution and average down (not down sample).
> 
[cut] 

RE: filmscanners: RE: cd storage

[Oostrom, Jerry]

I promised I would send some more info on the consumer test that I had read.
Please read the previous mails in this thread to place the information in
context to avoid repeating info and unneccessary mail.
In fact, don't even read it ;-), it is just here so that I keep my word.

3 types of burners using 3 different brands:
Philips CDRW 800 (8x)
HP CD-writer Plus 9310i (10x)
Plextor Plexwriter (12x)

longevity indication test:
put recorded CD under UV lamp with label side up for 100 hours
Accompanying explanation said that light from the up-side of the CD will
also reach the other end. Especially the outer boundary of the CD will be
prone to have less longevity.

Tests of recorded CDs were e.g. done on a 10 year old Yoko CD player. That
player was unable to play a lot of the tested CDs correctly. On color:Not
all green CDs were good (the worst 2 were green! and a few of the best were
green) and not all blue CDs were bad (one TDK was reasonably good).

The test speaks about 30 CDs, not some high number of CDs of 30 different
'brand and types'. Since there were 30 different brand and types tested I
can't tell if they tested with only one per brand and type or with many.
This makes the test much less useful.

They suggested to look at http://www.digido.com. They noticed that three
brands (Philips, Sony and Basf) and type of CDs that had a verdict 'GOOD'
all came from the same factory, Taiyo Yuden Company.

Here 10 of the best (best 2 because of price/performance on top):
typecolor writing side
==  ==
Sony cd-r 74/650green
Memorex 829306-25   green
Hewlett Packard C 4437 Agreen
TDK cardflexgreen
Traxdata TXS 874green
Philips gold prof. all speedgreen
Philips silver premium  green
Basf/Emtec Ceram Guard  green
Kodak Ultimagreen
Arita Gold  green

This was just what this particular test indicated.
I think that the other mails in this thread can therefore give you a better
indication of which CDs to buy, perhaps the last one of Tim Atherton below
of which I snipped the tail part



> -Original Message-
> From: Tim Atherton [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 12:29 AM
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  filmscanners: RE: cd storage
> 
> Here is some info I posted on another list, based on a recent workshop I
> went on.
> 
> This was on the preservation of modern information carriers (optical and
> magnetic media) run by two conservation scientists from the Canadian
> Conservation Institute:
> 
> 
> But basically, while testing is still being done, the following generally
> hold true;
> 
[Oostrom, Jerry]  [snip: look into archives to find this long mail] 

RE: filmscanners: cd storage

[Oostrom, Jerry]

Some quick answers from my memory below:

> -Original Message-
> From: Alan  Tyson [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 10:16 AM
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  Re: filmscanners: cd storage
> 
> Dear Jerry,
> 
> It would be fascinating to see the list, but even more
> interesting to read the details of the results. I assume the
> article's only available in Dutch, is it?
[Oostrom, Jerry]  yes

> I hope they used very big sample sizes. I should expect the
> failure rates to be so low as to need samples of hundreds
> per brand. I should be most interested to hear what sort of
> failure rates they found. Did the article specify the rates?
> It would give us an idea of just how big a gamble we're
> taking with our image storage.
[Oostrom, Jerry]  I suspect the rates are not that high. Have to look up the
article.

> Also, in my experience of writing & using CD-Rs, there's
> much more variation between drives than between discs.
> Faulty discs can be readable on some drives and not others.
[Oostrom, Jerry]  They tested with at least three consumer drives. A philips
capable of 8x speed, an HP capable of 10x speed and a plextor capable of 12x
speed.

> So did they use some top class scientific equipment and
> actually measure the vital statistics of the written data?
> Or did they use retail consumer writing equipment for the
> tests, in which case how did they eliminate variation
> between drives?
[Oostrom, Jerry]  They used equipment consumers would also be using.

> BTW
> 
> The data are in the chemically sensitive layer on the
> non-label (bottom) side, so a label will make no difference
> to UV exposure. The reflective metal layer already offers
> perfect protection from the top.
[Oostrom, Jerry]  Perhaps for good ones. I've seen more than one disc
through which you could see light shine through. These were not perfectly
protected in my opinion. Anyway the magazine said nothing about the ceramic
protecting the disc (that was my extrapolation / hunch), but it said that
labels were a good way to protect the disc especially towards the outside
ring from UV light. The outside boundary of the disc was said to be
especially vulnerable to light. My interpretation: this will be true for CDs
not stored in total darkness, e.g. a spindle where the CDs are stored
vertically and the spindle casing is shine through plastic. Any 'perfect'
metal protection on one side of a disc will 'perfectly' reflect UV to the
other side of the neighboring disc.  Do you agree this is a possibility?

[Oostrom, Jerry]  Anyway, I don't think the test would have been done with
100s of CDs per series of a brand and expensive scientific equipment as the
magazine itself is targeted for the Netherlands (perhaps Belgium too, 2 tiny
countries) only, the magazine does not contain a lot of 3rd party commercial
advertising and the test seemed to be a national one (i.e. I thought the
results would only have been printed in the dutch version of the magazine).
That severely limits the amount of money they can devote to this test. But,
perhaps the results can still be used as an indication for which CDs to use.
And perhaps somebody from Germany noticed whether the same test appeared in
the Stiftungs Warentest (it's called roughly like that I believe). If that
is so, the targeted audience was much larger and chances are that the
resources devoted to the test were much larger then if it were only for the
ducth market.


Greetings,

Jerry.

RE: filmscanners: cd storage

[Oostrom, Jerry]

Coincidentally,
a magazine in my country (consumentenbond, roughly translated as consumer
league) that tests all kinds of stuff just tested some 50 types of CD-Rs,
with type I mean a series of a brand. In this list there were also Kodak
CD-Rs, but if I remember correctly the 'Ceramic' type of the Kodak CDs was
tested as the best of the Kodaks. In their test they mentioned that for the
durability test they had put the CD-Rs under a UV-light. They said that a
good way to store the CD-Rs was in complete darkness (seems trivial). If
this was not going to happen then CD-Rs could benefit from CD-labels as
extra protection from light. Perhaps aside from dye characteristics and such
that the 'Ceramic' version benefited in the longevity test from the Ceramic
acting as an extra light stopping shield.

About gold and silver: the magazine had some explanation about the colors
green and blue as coming from (gold + bue dye layer) and respectively
(silver + blue dye layer) and told that for some time it was thought that
green was better than blue. Their tests showed this to be largely
independant of each other: there were a few good blue ones and one of the
worst tested CDs was green, but as I remember a majority of the good tested
ones were indeed green.
I don't remember that previous threads on CD-longevity had info on the Kodak
CD-R Ultima 80. 
Also in a another follow-up TDK was mentioned. The magazine had one good
type and one lesser type of the TDKs, which was also the cheaper version.
If any one is interested I can look up the magazine and e.g. put the top 10
in a mail to this list, though I warn you that the series/designation of a
brand may differ between countries and that the consumentenbond is not
specialised in computer related tests. It's a general magazine for consumer
products.
 

Jerry Oostrom
http://home.wanadoo.nl/joostrom

> -Original Message-
> From: Rob Geraghty [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 4:01 AM
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  RE: filmscanners: cd storage
> 
> Jules wrote:
> >I would like to know how the Kodak CD-R Ultima 80 is for storage?
> 
> Is that an 80min CDR as opposed to a normal 74min CDR?  I wouldn't suggest
> using anything other than 74min CDRs as a matter of course - they might
> work on your CDR drive, and they might work on your current CDROM drive,
> but there's a good chance they won't work reliably on other drives.  It's
> better and cheaper to stick to 74min (650MB) CDRs.
> 
> > It says on the package that it is silver and gold. What
> > was the verdict on the best cd's for storage?
> 
> There's a huge amount of debate about brands and types, but it seems to
> be generally agreed that gold CDRs will last longer than silver.  However
> it seems to me that the stability of the dye layer is the real issue, so
> I'm dubious.  I generally use Kodak Gold Ultima (gold not silver) CDRs
> though.
[cut] 

RE: filmscanners: Nuts!

[Oostrom, Jerry]

Weird, I thought I did this myself intentionally in the threads that I
started, but considering the way my memory works that could or could as well
not have been true...
perhaps it is time to go on celebrate weekend!

Sorry...

Jerry
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, November 24, 2000 3:21 PM
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  Re: filmscanners: Nuts!
> 
> > Now I see a "filmscanners" in the subject line taking up precious 
> > space.
> 
> Again, this is something that I was repeatedly asked for...
> 
> Regards 
> 
> Tony Sleep
> 

filmscanners: RE: [] Nuts!

[Oostrom, Jerry]

You are right.
It is nuts.
Whenever I used 'filmscanners' in a thread subject, it has been because in
this list one can not be sure these days that a mail really is about film
scanners. But I will leave it out now, to save precious bandwidth and to
comfort you. But I'll still consume some extra bandwidth by sending this
reply to the filmscanner list i.s.o. you. I do this because I also like to
signal, just like many others have done, that I don't like to have so many
off-topic threads. 

Have a nice weekend,

Jerry

BTW. 
All my filmscanner mail is redirected to one folder. I think one filter rule
should be enough for one mailing list. I am not willing to put more time in
managing inbox rules and kill files and such. Perhaps, to comfort you I will
add an inbox rule that scans for 'OT', 'off-topic' or 'off-thread' and let
matching mails go to e.g. the 'deleted items' folder. No need to add
filmscanner then, if other people use 'OT' whenever appropriate.


> -Original Message-
> From: Roger Beamon [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
[bandwidth cut (BC)]
>  Subject: filmscanners: Nuts!
> 
> Now I see a "filmscanners" in the subject line taking up precious 
> space. I suspect that it is intended to aid folk in separating this 
> list from other traffic in one's incoming mail. 
> 
> Can anyone be using a mail client today that doesn't offer 
> filtering on various headers to dump into discrete folders?
[BC]  

RE: filmscanners: Profiling, Ilford XP2 and Vuescan.

[Oostrom, Jerry]

to continue the farce... :-)

I had just written a laborious reply, but then the Outlook server crashed
and thus my client!

Here you have a shortened and an even more delayed reply. I found out that I
had been lying to you all: there is not more graininess in black and white
scans (Ilford XP2 setting in vuescan) than in color scans 'generic setting
in vuescan). There seems to be somewhat more contrast in b/w scans.

--> I like to ask you color wizards to tell me if the generic setting scans
of the ilford xp2 film show a distinctive color cast on your calibrated
monitor or seem black and white enough. I also like to know whether it
should be black and white if scanned with 'generic color' setting in
vuescan, since the film has this purple color (i.s.o. an orange mask)
attributed to what is called an anti-halation dye by others in this thread.








Here are the scans, all less than 400k in size :
(Copyright J&F Oostrom, images of some kids at a wedding, please download
and view only)
Common settings of images: 
white balance(!), auto white + black point, both at 0.05, profile:
proPhotoRGB

Generic film type setting overview scan
(film type generic color negative, size reduction x2, clean filter, latter
two settings are used most by me, afterwards unsharp masked and auto-levels)
http://home.wish.net/~jerfi/generic02.jpg
The histogram shows differences especially in the green band if compared to
red and blue

Ilford XP2 setting overview scan
(film type Ilford XP2 400 negative, size reduction x2, clean filter, latter
two settings are used most by me, afterwards unsharp masked and auto-levels)
http://home.wish.net/~jerfi/ilfordxp2.jpg

Generic film type setting crop scan
(film type generic color negative, no size reduction x1, no filter, no
unsharp mask, only auto-levels)
http://home.wish.net/~jerfi/generic05.jpg
This is a fairly grainy scan, but to my surprise not much less than the
following scan:

Ilford XP2 400 setting crop scan
(film type ilford xp2 400 negative, no size reduction x1, no filter, no
unsharp mask, only auto-levels)
http://home.wish.net/~jerfi/ilfordxp2crop.jpg

Interestingly, the .jpg versions show even less of a color cast than their
.tif originals. Perhaps that info is compressed too. Anyway if it shows too
much of a color cast on your screens then perhaps I have to recalibrate my
monitor cq. build a new profile for it.

The reason I thought that the generic setting showed less graininess is
because I had made scans some time ago, also using Ilford XP2 setting for
Ilford XP2 film that seemed very grainy to me, much more than the prints
showed. If that was due to 'aliasing' then I expect all Ilford scans to show
it, but it does not.
Here I have a small example of such a scan. It shows a bit of the graininess
which was very prominent in the full resolution scan. This image has been
reduced more than 4 times in size, but still it seems more grainy to me than
the overview scans listed above (especially the pants, compare them to dark
parts in the other scans).
http://home.wish.net/~jerfi/prisonandme.jpg

Thanks in advance for your time and insight.



Jerry Oostrom
http://home.wanadoo.nl/joostrom

> -Original Message-
> From: Oostrom, Jerry [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, November 17, 2000 7:54 AM
> To:   '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject:  RE: filmscanners: Profiling, Ilford XP2 and Vuescan.
> 
> Sorry, the scans will have to come later (begin of next week), something
> came in between...
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From:   Oostrom, Jerry [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent:   Thursday, November 16, 2000 8:19 AM
> > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> > Subject:RE: filmscanners: Profiling, Ilford XP2 and Vuescan.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Anyway, I'll put an example scan
> > somewhere (tomorrow) and then you color wizards can tell me what color
> > cast
> > it has. I'll also do the b/w version and see if it is still as grainy as
> > before, because the grainy examples were from long ago and I must find
> out
> > first if I haven't been lying to you all.
> > 
> > Thank you,
> > 
> > 
> > Jerry 

RE: filmscanners: Profiling, Ilford XP2 and Vuescan.

[Oostrom, Jerry]

Sorry, the scans will have to come later (begin of next week), something
came in between...

> -Original Message-
> From: Oostrom, Jerry [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 8:19 AM
> To:   '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject:  RE: filmscanners: Profiling, Ilford XP2 and Vuescan.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, I'll put an example scan
> somewhere (tomorrow) and then you color wizards can tell me what color
> cast
> it has. I'll also do the b/w version and see if it is still as grainy as
> before, because the grainy examples were from long ago and I must find out
> first if I haven't been lying to you all.
> 
>   Thank you,
> 
> 
>   Jerry 

RE: filmscanners: Profiling, Ilford XP2 and Vuescan.

[Oostrom, Jerry]

> -Original Message-
> From: Laurie Solomon [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 6:19 PM
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  RE: filmscanners: Profiling, Ilford XP2 and Vuescan.
> 
> Thanks for the clarification.
> 
> >I am trying to say, because colour neg films all have different types of
> orange base fog, the various software have to make colour adjustments to
> correct for this, B/W NEG has no such colour in its base, and if you tell
> the software, that B/W neg is a colour film, it will correct for the
> orange
> base (that isn't there), and put a colour cast into the resulting scan.
> 
> I agree with what you are saying above.  If the purple anti-alising tint
> is
> still part of the film after processing, It will typically muddy up the
> highlight and mid-tone areas of the scan by adding noise when using the
> b/w
> NEG settings of the scanner application, while possible registering as an
> overall purple cast when scanned with a color setting.
> 
[Oostrom, Jerry]  This is why I wondered whether the outcome of the
b/w scan with color setting should be color casted or not. I.e. why did I
get darkbrown and white scans, that after monitor profiling turned into
black and white (without any other action by me, b.t.w. I did the profiling
without any of these scans on my screen!). My expected result was that the
scans were still darkbrown white, also for many of the reasons laid out here
8-x, but the b/w setting scans were grainy, not muddied up and the color
setting scans turned out to be b/w. Anyway, I'll put an example scan
somewhere (tomorrow) and then you color wizards can tell me what color cast
it has. I'll also do the b/w version and see if it is still as grainy as
before, because the grainy examples were from long ago and I must find out
first if I haven't been lying to you all.

Thank you,


Jerry 

RE: filmscanners: Prints using Acer ScanWit

[Oostrom, Jerry]

> -Original Message-
> From: photoscientia [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 10:31 PM
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  Re: filmscanners: Prints using Acer ScanWit
> 
> Hi Geoff
> 
> Geoff Stafford wrote:
> 
> > I have an Acer ScanWit 2720S.
> >
> > Recently I took some 2700 dpi scans (2550x3720) on a CD into
> > Boots the Chemists and had prints made. Their system feeds the
> > image files straight into the mini-lab.
> >
> > The results from negs or slides are superb,
> 
> That's great to hear.
> Someone with some positive feedback for a change!
[Oostrom, Jerry]  I am happy too though, I am just focusing on the few
problems I still have at this time. Anyway, I am veeer happy for the
money I spent on this scanner. I also have enlarged prints (4xA4) and they
are quite acceptable to me and until now any visitor of our house. However,
I have not done any resampling of the images prior to sending it to the
printer driver.   


> A 7" x 10.5" print shouldn't be any problem at all, and A4 is easily
> acceptable with a little (shush!) interpolation. (we don't want to wake up
> the sleeping threads, do we?)
> 
> I'll tiptoe away now, before any damage is done.
> 
crack... KLURRATSBENGBOOOM!   

;-)

RE: filmscanners: Profiling, Ilford XP2 and Vuescan.

[Oostrom, Jerry]

Thank you for all your replies.

I will tell more on some of the parts in which I didn't express myself
clearly and risk the danger of becoming even more unclear:
*   I scan the negative film, not the print. 
*   XP2 seems to have a 'purple' mask instead of an orange mask.
*   I was mostly interested in knowing whether I calibrated my screen
correctly after seeing the difference in XP2 RGB scans using generic color
negative setting before and after the 6 square monitor profile adjustments
that I made.
*   XP2 RGB scans seem less grainy than XP2 grayscale scans. I will try
to provide an example in one week (I am busy right now with all things I
don't want to be occupied with as some drug addict wrecked my car locks and
car interior just to return home with 2 cheap pairs of sunglasses, 2 old
audio cassettes, an overdated first aid box, 4 old maps and a box of
tissues!)
*   I wonder how a grayscale scan of XP2 cq. a grayscale image can show
as black and white in both monitor profiles (one made using 3 color squares,
other using 6 color squares, both same gamma value) and how an RGB scan of
XP2 can show dark brown/white, quite nice though, if using the 3 color
square monitor profile and black/white using the 6 color square monitor
profile, which is supposed to be a tougher test in correct profile creation.
In other words: does the color difference imply that my 3 square profile is
wrong or that my 6 square profile is wrong. 
*   If one of these profiles is wrong (and one should be i.m.o.) how can
a grayscale image still be displayed grascale in both profiles? Is it that
it has equal values of R, G and B, whereas the RGB XP2 scan has different
values of R, G and B that just happen to provide a gray or black and white
looking image in one monitor profile and a color shifted version in the
other monitor profile. I hope it is this, so I can sleep again. I also hope
the 6 square profile is correct, I could make that verdict if XP2 RGB scans
are supposed to be B/W.. If the 6 square profile IS correct, I can advise
others to try the squares on this page
(http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Usingmira.htm), which is btw. a page of
someone on this list, who has been so smart/well-mannered/ethical not to
join in this thread.  

Thank you again for all information on XP2,

Jerry.


> -Original Message-
> From: Laurie Solomon [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 4:34 PM
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  RE: filmscanners: Profiling, Ilford XP2 and Vuescan.
> 
> A very brief and simple answer to your inquiry to the initial question is
> yes they should look black and white.   [Oostrom, Jerry]  Thank you, now I
> just wonder if it should also look black and white if you do a negatvive
> film scan with settings as if the film where a generic color negative film
> with a generic orange mask instead of what it is: the XP2 'purplish'
> looking mask.  

RE: filmscanners: Best method for downsizing images

[Oostrom, Jerry]

People of the list,

Thank you for your on-list and off-list replies. You know, it's not that my
images are really worth the fuss, but it is the feeling that counts for me
that I retain most of the original info and hopefully quality in my image
edits.

Thank you,

Jerry.

filmscanners: Profiling, Ilford XP2 and Vuescan.

[Oostrom, Jerry]

Hello people,

I have this question: 
Should a white balanced vuescan scan with film setting generic of Ilford XP2
(a monochromatic film) look black and white?



I ask this because the first time I used this film I got sepia toned prints
back from the lab. The other times they were greenish or (dark)brown/white
prints. At the time I liked this very much. However: when I used vuescan to
scan this using settings black/white, film: Ilford XP2 I got black and white
pictures that showed a lot of grain. As soon as I used generic setting they
became dark brown and white. I thought this was because of the color of the
film (a bit like purple!?).
However, when I recalibrated my screen using the 6 squares of the (I believe
www.photoscientia.co.uk) photoscientia website instead of the 3 squares of
the adobe gamma or basic wiziwyg profiling tool, I got better colors in
general, even though the squares of the latter tool seem off! And to top
that, the scan of the ilfor xp2 film is now black and white in the generic
film type setting (and less grainy)!

So, I wonder whether I got my monitor profiled better now, or that I should
let somebody else do it. 

In a diagram:

film XP2
==
profiling--> # Wiziwyg / Adobe Gamma# photoscientia +(wiziywg /adobe
gamma)
using--> # 3 squares# 6 squares 
-#-=# ===
vuescan  #  #
film setting #  #
 |   #  #
 |   #  #
 V   #  #

#
B/W  # black and white  # black and white
Ilford XP2   # grainy   # grainy
 #  #
Generic color# dark brown and white # black and white!
negative # (almost sepia)   #
 # softer grain # softer grain



If the scans should look black and white the generic color negative setting
is i.m.o. preferable to the black and white Ilford XP2 setting of vuescan.
Now I just need to test Miraphoto for my scanwit with these settings.


Thanks in advance.

Jerry Oostrom

homepage: http://home.wanadoo.nl/joostrom with some Scanwit scans
http://community.webshots.com/user/jerfi for some vacation scans (mostly
flatbed)

RE: filmscanners: Best method for downsizing images

[Oostrom, Jerry]

Is there no known answer to my question?
Is it too trivial to ask?
Or is it my brlahbrlahbrlah (barbaric) language cq. personality?

Anyway let me reword it:
Which of the next 2 procedures results in more loss of picture quality?
1. Downsize an image (w.r.t. number of pixels) using bicubic resampling,
then go from 16 bit / pixel to 8 bit / pixel.
2. Go from 16 bit / pixel to 8 bit / pixel, then downsize an image (w.r.t.
number of pixels) using bicubic resampling.

Many, many many thanks for any answer to the last question!



> -Original Message-
> From: Oostrom, Jerry [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 12:01 PM
> To:   '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject:  RE: filmscanners: Best method for downsizing images
> 
> Just a question:
> 
> Is it better to first downsize an image before doing a high-bit->low bit
> (I
> mean 16 to 8 bit as Photoshop calls it) conversion or does it not matter?
> 
> I initially assumed that a bicubic resampling on high bit data would give
> better samples, but it takes more time too and I just wondered if the
> difference is still if at all visible in jpegs. Perhaps it is only visible
> when you are upsizing?
> 
> (Oh oh that's two questions! I'll leave it at that)
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> Jerry Oostrom
> 
> homepage: http://home.wanadoo.nl/joostrom with some Scanwit scans
> http://community.webshots.com/user/jerfi for some vacation scans (mostly
> flatbed)
> 

RE: filmscanners: Best method for downsizing images

[Oostrom, Jerry]

Just a question:

Is it better to first downsize an image before doing a high-bit->low bit (I
mean 16 to 8 bit as Photoshop calls it) conversion or does it not matter?

I initially assumed that a bicubic resampling on high bit data would give
better samples, but it takes more time too and I just wondered if the
difference is still if at all visible in jpegs. Perhaps it is only visible
when you are upsizing?

(Oh oh that's two questions! I'll leave it at that)


Thanks in advance.

Jerry Oostrom

homepage: http://home.wanadoo.nl/joostrom with some Scanwit scans
http://community.webshots.com/user/jerfi for some vacation scans (mostly
flatbed)

Inaccurate colors (was RE: Vuescanwit tip)

[Oostrom, Jerry]

Hi all,

I have scanned one roll of Fuji Velvia I shot this summer. This was my first
take at Fuji Velvia. Most of the dias are underexposed, which in turn meant
that when I processed them in Vuescan all errors by me and my Acer Scanwit
turn up quite visibly. E.g. sunsets where the dark parts at the long side of
the dia turn out lighter than on the dia itself. You can also see red lines
in the longitudinal direction of the scan! 

Now I am actually inviting you unashamedly to visit my just created first
homepage (please Tony, don't kill me off the list for this). But some of the
photos in it show quite definitely where the Acer Scanwit and/or me and/or
Fuji Velvia fail. E.g. I have red cornfields taken in twilight, I have
aeroplanes where dark ground is light etc. etc. The first two aeroplane
photos even show failure in filmholder positioning or optic failure. I
believe it is the latter however, since  black birds turn out part green (I
used a Tamron 70-300mm and a Soligor 2x converter on a Nikon F601 (N6001)).
Still I think some of the photos show far too much red grain which leads me
to believe I have a more faulty unit than the average Scanwit.
Note: All pictures are in BruceRGB even though the profile is not embedded.

Have a nice weekend,
 

Jerry
http://home.wanadoo.nl/joostrom
   

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 1:01 AM
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  Re: Vuescanwit tip
> 
> Mine is quite good at registration, but I did see a registration problem
> once on
> frame 6, I think the holder is hanging out so far that it flexes in
> between
> passes...if you really want to see horrible registration try an HP
> Photosmart
> scanner.
> 
> BTW, a new version of the official software is available.
> 
> "Alan  Tyson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  wrote:
> 
> >Jerry,
> >
> >I wasn't aware that the Scanwit was particularly bad at
> >registration, as I found multiscanning worked well on the
> >few occasions I tried it. I think I remember someone here
> >6-9 months ago saying it was quite good.
> 
> Herm
> Astropics http://home.att.net/~hermperez
> 
> 
> The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
> To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE
> FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are
> reading the Digest.


The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

Vuescanwit tip

[Oostrom, Jerry]

Hi fellow scanwitters,

as we are the unfortunate owners of a filmscanner that has less precision in
positioning the holder than most others we could use tips.

I may have one (please reply if this works for you):

- Do not use multiscanning on frame 6 of the filmholder (did not test the
slideholder).
  Safely use multiscanning on frames 1-5 of the filmholder.

And since the positioning is not that precise on frame 6, you can best do a
raw scan full frame and crop the scan from disk later, or crop an area
larger than your final intended crop if you use frame 6.   

Good luck scanning,

Jerry 



NB
There was another (more general and most useful, imo worth repeating) tip
from Alan Womack, not per se related to Scanwit, vuescan or filmholder
positioning:

- There is no need to reboot the PC to let the SCSI card see the filmscanner
if you turned the filmscanner on after your PC, just reboot the SCSI card,
i.e. do: Start->Control Panel->System->Device Managers; select SCSI card and
press 'refresh'. That will cause a rescan by the scsi card.


The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

Embed colour profiles in images, useful in Linux?

[Oostrom, Jerry]

About Linux:
Does Linux already have some sort of colour management system (e.g. in
gimp?) that works with profiles embedded in images, profiles for input and
output devices?
Soon we will have Vuescan embed the profiles (you're a hero Ed!, the list
too btw for gently pressing him to that point), but in my older version of
Linux there was no support for a CMS that uses these embedded profiles.

Jerry

> -Original Message-
> From: Bob Armstrong [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, October 02, 2000 3:17 AM
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  Re: Embed colour profiles in images
> 
[Oostrom, Jerry]  [] 
> As I see it, the real point is that it serves no purpose to look back at
> where we have been except to use that as a possible pointer to where we
> might be going next.  In this respect I do hope you're right that good
> developers move towards LINUX as we may then be able to move on from the
> PC/Mac debate.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Bob Armstrong
> 
> 
> 


The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

Intensity calibration on scanwit with vuescan fails (was RE: determining scanner's native gamut)

[Oostrom, Jerry]

On my scanwit I have problems that when scanning slides: the outer parts
(i.e. towards the long edges) seem too light (a bit muddy i.s.o. black),
especially visible with slides with really dark areas towards these edges. I
also notice this on negatives where the outer edges become yellowish i.s.o.
white. 
This is with Vuescan. I don't know if Miraphoto fares the same, as I haven't
used Miraphoto for some time now.

So is there something wrong with my scanwit, is it a limitation of the
scanwit, or is it the calibration through vuescan that does not function
optimally?

When does the intensity calibration take place (at power-on of the scanner /
at start of a scan (strip) session)?

Any suggestions what I can do about the problem?


Thanks in advance,

Jerry.

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 7:21 PM
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  Re: determining scanner's native gamut
> 
[Oostrom, Jerry]  [] 
> Every scanner I know of does this calibration function.  The light in
> the middle of the film is usually 20% brighter than the light at
> the edges.  The intensity calibration takes care of this.
> 
> VueScan uses the same post-calibration data that all other
> scanners use - this is what I refer to as raw data.
> 
> It's sometimes possible to get the pre-calibration data out of
> a scanner, but you really have to work at it.  None of the
> scanners I've reverse-engineered do this.
> 
> Don't confuse the intensity calibration with the color calibration,
> which is an entirely different thing.  Intensity calibration has
> no mixing of the colors (i.e. there's no 3x3 matrix multiplication)
> while color calibration mixes the colors (i.e. applies a 3x3
> matrix multiplication).
> 
> Regards,
> Ed Hamrick
> 
> 
> The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
> To resign, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> with UNSUBSCRIBE
> FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are
> reading the Digest.


The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.