[filmscanners] RE: SS 4000 Questions
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Petru Lauric Hi! First, does the lamp have an auto shut off feature, The SS4000 I have received did not have such a feature. There is a firmware update though that supposedly fixes this problem. Second, are these things somewhat noisy? Specifically, during scans it sounds as though the Twin Dwarves of Enfan Island were calling up Mothra. Ooh-ee, ah-woo... Do they all do this? Yes, this seems to be normal. At least I haven't heard from anybody who's SS4000 doesn't make these noises. Thirdly, it seems to require a bit of force to get the carrier to slide in and engage. My slide carrier does need a little force but not much. It seems more a matter of getting it in the right angle. In contrast my negative carrier was very hard to put into the scanner and needed quite a lot of force. I have requested a new negative carrier and this one now works as well as my slide carrier. Lastly, is there a way to shut the front door to keep out dust? VERY unfortunately there is no such door on the scanner. Rob Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: CanoScan 9900 Dirty Glas Plate
Arthur, Thanks for your reply and tips. Your explanation makes sense. Actually, I have a refurbished $30 flatbed scanner that has the same problem - just much worse. I opened this scanner to clean the inside surface of the glas bed. After leaving the scanner on for a long period of time (1 day or so) with the lid closed the fog appears again. Leaving the lid open or even turning the scanner off helps some. So I guess they used really cheap material that cannot stand the quite high heat produced inside this scanner. Maybe that's why the company who made the scanner doesn't exist anymore...:O Rob -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Arthur Entlich Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 3:02 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: CanoScan 9900 Dirty Glas Plate This problem is often due to the plasticizers or mold release agents evaporating from the plastic surfaces from heat after the scanner is built. SOmetimes even the materials used in packaging the scanner may off-gas materials that deposit of the glass bed. These scanners travel by slow ship and often go through considerable temperature changes. First, make sure the fogginess is on the inside surface, by carefully cleaning the outer surface well. As to how much the fog degrades the image, it somewhat depends upon the degree of fog the type of lighting and image sensor, and the thickness of the glass. If there is an area, as you indicate, which is not foggy, you may wish to scan the same material in different areas of the scanner and see if the results are different, keeping in mind that all flatbed scanners have a sweet spot where they scan the best (usually a column down the center of the length of the scanner bed). The bottom line is that scanners really shouldn't have residue on the internal glass surface, and this should be covered by warranty. You might try an exchange and see if the next one is cleaner. Sometimes service techs will end up removing the fog during a cleaning but add other dirt or contaminate the image sensor. These scanners are put together by robots and people in clean rooms (in theory, at least) and whenever they are opened, the risk of new dirt entering exists. Art Robert Meier wrote: I have just purchased a CanoScan 9900. After installing the unit I realized that the glass on which the film/document is placed is foggy. You can see this best when the scanner light is on and look almost parallel to the glass plate. The part closer to the back is more foggy then the other side. Also there is a small clear part so it's definitely not just a property of the glass. Has somebody else discovered that on this particular scanner or other scanners? Is this typical? Does it affect image quality from a practical point of view? Robert --- - Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] CanoScan 9900 Dirty Glas Plate
I have just purchased a CanoScan 9900. After installing the unit I realized that the glass on which the film/document is placed is foggy. You can see this best when the scanner light is on and look almost parallel to the glass plate. The part closer to the back is more foggy then the other side. Also there is a small clear part so it's definitely not just a property of the glass. Has somebody else discovered that on this particular scanner or other scanners? Is this typical? Does it affect image quality from a practical point of view? Robert Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: OT: DVD formats
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Brentley Beerline The Sony 4x plus minus drive is down to 239 here in Silicon Valley after rebates and is a good deal. The plextor will be 299 when it ships. That seems quite a high price. You can get the Sony DW-U10A DVD±RW for $159 (http://store.yahoo.com/livewarehouse/dvso25950.html). The NEC is $143 (http://store.yahoo.com/livewarehouse/dvne28950.html) comes without SW, though. The DVD+R are even cheaper. Robert Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: JPEG2000 Paul
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Julian Robinson Robert - I am confused. Can you tell me which implementation uses kakadu, given you know it is fast? I thought the fnord thing was kakadu based, but obviously I've got it wrong somewhere. It is based on kakadu. But the creator told me that he is using the 'standard' Microsoft compiler without any optimizations. Therefore, I guess not only the MMX code is disabled but in general the code is not optimized by the compiler. That is probably why it is so slow. I have a feeling once he has finished the whole project he will compile it with optimizations on and sell the plug-in for a fee. Robert Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Newish Digital Tech
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hum. Do you have a source for that? I dont believe that is true, and will have to think about your assertion. What is the source of the random variations? I know there is some randomness in reception of photons, simply because of atmospheric dispersion, and other causes... I think he is talking about the quantum noise which is introduced due to the Poisson probability distribution of the Photons hitting the detector. The resulting error in the signal is proportional to sqrt(2). Hello Robert, If he is, thats called shot noise and its = sqrt(S), where S is the signal in electrons. It certainly is the noise that limits CCD performance. Yep, shot noise = photon noise. And yes it's sqrt(S). So when the signal is twice as big then the noise only increases by sqrt(2) which improves the SNR. Robert Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: SS4000 fixes to improve quality--dust removal
If the brush is dry and free of grease and the same is true for the dirt on the mirror then it might work. But who knows what kind of dirt is on the mirror. I would not take the risk of making it worse and possibly requiring a very expensive trip to the repair center. On a camera it's not that bad because the mirror won't affect the image quality (unless you have a fixed mirror). Rob -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The mirror in the SS4000 is accessible only through a small slot unless one wanted to disassemble the entire carriage mechanism (bad move...) I can reach it with a air can flexible plastic tube. I could also reach it with a high-quality artist's brush. Would that be safe to use? Even with the air can, there is still a fine dust layer that seems not to budge. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Prints from scans ... are there reallydifferences any more?
Here is what I would do. Find a good mini-lab that produces relative constant results. Then if you have a print that didn't turn out well, need an enlargment, have film where you know that prints probably won't come out well in a mini-lab, etc then go to the pro lab. Rob Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Scanning with too much resolution? (was: PS sharpening...)
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I agree, multistep downsampling can give a better image, than a single downsample, at least in PS. I've done that for images that are for the web (100 PPI is what I target), and I believe they do look better. Why are you targeting a certain ppi for the web? I think you should rather go for a certain image size rather then ppi. I know you say you leave them at the scanned resolutions, but doesn't that put you at the mercy of what ever the browser does, and may degrade your image? When I have a large image in the browser, a lot of times it re-sizes the image, after it's done loading it... The browser does not care about the ppi. It just displays it pixel by pixel. Only exception seems to be the latest versions of IE which scale images. But they do not scale it according to any ppi information. Instead they scale it so that the image fits in the brower window. Rob Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: dpi - formerly PS sharpening
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] By leaving the dpi at 2700 or 4000, is the file size larger than it would be at 72dpi? Not really. What your are doing is creating an image with a certain dimension, i.e. 450x300 pixels. Then you set the dpi to for instance 4000 without changing the dimension of the image. Therefore, the image size stays the same because the dimension stays the same. The dpi is only a hint to a program. The reason why you might be confused with this is because PS will change the image size when you change the dpi and have resampling checked. The easiest way to understand the above is with an example. Open any graphics file in PS. Go to image size (Alt-I-I). Uncheck Resample Image. Now change the Resolution to different values. While you do that look at Width, Height in the box Pixel Deimesions: xxk. You will notice that the dimension and file size xx stay the same. Now look at Width and Height in the box Print Size. You will notice that the print size will decrease with higher Resolution. In other words, if somebody prints this image from a program that checks the resolution it will produce the size that it shows in PS. Robert Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: [filmscanners_Digest] filmscanners Digest for Fri 9 Aug,2002-Firnware
TH, Firmware is the software that is running inside the scanner to make the scanner run. It controls all the internal stuff like steper motor, light source, etc. From a user's point of view the firmware is usually not important unless you need some bug fixes. Rob -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Khor Tong Hong Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 10:38 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: [filmscanners_Digest] filmscanners Digest for Fri 9 Aug,2002-Firnware What is firmware? TH -=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=- Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 01:44:55 -0700 From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi Michael, Welcome to the list. I can give you some views in regard to your purchase. I use both a Polaroid S4000+, which is the identical hardware in the Microtek 4000tf with different firmware and front end software, and I also own a Minolta Dual Scan II, which is very similar to the Elite II. The main difference between the Dual II and the Elite II are: -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: PS sharpening
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Then Image - Image Size - change the resolution to 1/2 of the Resolution shown, readjust the Document Size to what you want, click OK. It will be downsampled by 1/2. Continue doing this until the Resolution is what you desire. Excuse my ignorance but what is the logic doing it this way instead of resample it directly to the resolution you want? Rob Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Web home page writing software
-Original Message- If you want even a medium-sized web site, then you'd be crazy to do it in plain HTML, because the amount of repetitive typing would be prohibitive, and the number of needless bugs would be enormous. Well, I write my own HTML and scripts BECAUSE I want to reduce the amount of redundant typing. Just create a template, some additional tools and you can change the apperance of dozens of pages with a click of a bottom. That approach also make you design a webpage more consistently. It takes a bit more effort at the beginning but saves lots of time later on. Robert Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Problems With SS4000
Hello All, I have a Polaroid SS4000 which I did just setup on my new system. Unfortunately, I have quite some problems. First when the driver for the Polaroid was installed the system crashed with a blue screen. The second time it did work, or at least seemed to work. Then when I start Polaroid's software v4.5 or Silverfast 5 the system completely hangs during initialization of the scanner. Any ideas how to fix that? If it helps anything here is my system configuration: Asus A7M266-D, dual Athlon MP1900+, 1GB module Kingston memory, IDE RAID 0, Radon 8500DV. Any help is appreciated. Robert Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Problems With SS4000
Tom and All, I am running W2k. My scanner is the SS4000, not SS4000 Plus. The SCSI card is the one coming with the scanner. I believe it's an Adaptec 2940 or something. No other SCSI devices are connected to the card. Termination should be ok as I have used the same setup on a different computer. If I can't solve the problem I think I will setup the scanner on my old PIII. It has only 384MB memory and 40GB HD but that is good enough for scanning. Then I'll just transfer the files on my just installed 100Mbit LAN. Kind of cumbersom but I guess it should work out... Anyway, if you have suggestions to solve my problem I would be happy. Robert -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] What OS and version are you using? Do you have the SS4000 or SS4000 Plus? If you are using SCSI what card are you using and what else is on the SCSI chain? Tom -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have a Polaroid SS4000 which I did just setup on my new system. Unfortunately, I have quite some problems. First when the driver for the Polaroid was installed the system crashed with a blue screen. The second time it did work, or at least seemed to work. Then when I start Polaroid's software v4.5 or Silverfast 5 the system completely hangs during initialization of the scanner. Any ideas how to fix that? If it helps anything here is my system configuration: Asus A7M266-D, dual Athlon MP1900+, 1GB module Kingston memory, IDE RAID 0, Radon 8500DV. Any help is appreciated. Robert -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Problems With SS4000
Owen, Thomas, I have downloaded and installed v5.5 of Polaroid's software. I also have updated the scanner driver from v1.3 to 1.4. Unfortunately, it still doesn't work. The same is true when I restrict Polaroid's software to use only one cpu. Since the same problem happens with Silverfast I do not believe that Vuescan would solve the problem. Maybe installing the ASPI driver will help. I'll try that later. Thanks, Robert -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of owenpevans Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 7:13 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Problems With SS4000 Hi Bob, Did you load the ASPI drivers necessary for this application? It can be had at www.hamrick.com Secondly, I would download Version 5.5 of the Polaroid software as it is much improved over the 4.5 you have. Lastly, try Ed Hamrick's version 7.5.37 and with all the new features I think after you do, you may toss the other two out. Beware the 7.5.37 needs ASPI also. Hope this helps, Owen - Original Message - From: Robert Meier [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 9:31 PM Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Problems With SS4000 Tom and All, I am running W2k. My scanner is the SS4000, not SS4000 Plus. The SCSI card is the one coming with the scanner. I believe it's an Adaptec 2940 or something. No other SCSI devices are connected to the card. Termination should be ok as I have used the same setup on a different computer. If I can't solve the problem I think I will setup the scanner on my old PIII. It has only 384MB memory and 40GB HD but that is good enough for scanning. Then I'll just transfer the files on my just installed 100Mbit LAN. Kind of cumbersom but I guess it should work out... Anyway, if you have suggestions to solve my problem I would be happy. Robert -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] What OS and version are you using? Do you have the SS4000 or SS4000 Plus? If you are using SCSI what card are you using and what else is on the SCSI chain? Tom -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have a Polaroid SS4000 which I did just setup on my new system. Unfortunately, I have quite some problems. First when the driver for the Polaroid was installed the system crashed with a blue screen. The second time it did work, or at least seemed to work. Then when I start Polaroid's software v4.5 or Silverfast 5 the system completely hangs during initialization of the scanner. Any ideas how to fix that? If it helps anything here is my system configuration: Asus A7M266-D, dual Athlon MP1900+, 1GB module Kingston memory, IDE RAID 0, Radon 8500DV. Any help is appreciated. Robert -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: JPG sharpening [was: Color spaces for different purposes]
-Original Message- So, aside of asking for any observation regarding improving my workflow - why is the sharpening so much more effective on the smaller image? In PS there are three parameters for USM. One of them is the radius. The bigger the radius the more surounding pixels are taken into account for sharpening. Now if you downsample your image it is kind of like compressing mutliple pixels into one pixel. For USM that has the same effect as increasing the radius. Therefore, if you use the same radius for the original image and the downsampled image then the effect of sharpening will be stronger for the downsampled image. Maybe this is what you see. Make sure you also play with the other two parameters. Robert Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] i1 Printer Calibration
I have an i1 from GretagMacbeth for today. I am trying to calibrate my Epson 1200 but have some questions. I would appreciate if somebody could give me some input. So here is my question. First I have to print a test target. I then scan this target in. With these measurements a new printer profile is created. I am a bit confused what profile I have to use now(PS6.0 Print Options-Show More Options-ColorManagment-Print Space, that's the correct place, right?). Basically, it should be the new profile. But that still does not give me accurate results. I believe the problem is that when initialy printing the test target a different profile was used (since I haven't created a new one yet). Obviously the i1 HW does not know about that profile so it can't figure out what color translation has been done when I was printing the test target. So how do I do that correctly? Idealy, I could disable a profile for printing the test target. Is this possible? If so how? Here is a practical example: 1) RGB in PS: 34 34 34 2) RGB sent to printer through profile1: 44 44 44 3) RGB should be 40 40 40 4) New profile is created with correction 44-40=4 44-40=4 44-40=4 5) RGB sent to printer through profile2: 34+4=38 34+4=38 34+4=38 But 38 38 38 is wrong. It should be 40 40 40. The error comes because profile1 is not taken into account. __ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: i1 Printer Calibration
--- Robert Meier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Idealy, I could disable a profile for printing the test target. Is this possible? If so how? Is it 'same as source' that won't do any additional conversion? I believe it is but I am not sure. I always used a standard profile form my epson1200 and have not messed with these setting. Rob __ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: JPEG Lossless mirror?
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Re-encoding *unchanged* data at the same compression setting gives no additional loss. It does give an additional loss. Nevertheless, the additional loss is very small, much smaller then what you lose when you store a tiff image with the highest jpeg quality in PS. The question is whether flipping constitutes changing, and I think it probably doesn't, but I don't know the JPEG spec well enough to be sure. I am sure someone will. To flip an image you do not have to decode and code it again. You just re-arrange the DCT coefficients. Considering the jpeg algorithm I believe it will work only on images with a multiple of 8 pixels in the flipping direction. Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.yahoo.com Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: JPEG Lossless mirror?
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe you are not correct, here. I have read in several accounts, both from people who have tried this experimentally and from people who understand the theory of JPEG compression Well, then it's probably because these people don't know how to do an experiment or they only know the theory. Do the following: 1) Open i.e. a *.tiff file in PS. 2) Save it as jpeg at quality 12 - *1.jpg 3) Close the file. 4) Reopen the jpeg file (*1.jpg) 5) Save this file as jpeg at qulity 12 -*2.jpg (If does actually compress it again although it could just copy the original file and rename it since no alteration took place. But that would be streching it a bit) 6) Close the jpeg file (*2.jpg) 7) Open both jpeg file (*1.jpg and *2.jpg) 8) Go to Image-Calulations 9) Chose *1.jpg as source 1 (background and red, blue or red channel) 10) Chose *2.jpg as source 2 (background and same channel as for *1.jpg) 11) Chose Difference for Blending, Opacity 100% 12) Chose New Document for Result 13) Since the error is very small you have to adjust the levels. The easiest to just use 'Image-Adjust-AutoLevels' = 'Shift-Ctrl-L' If you wish you can also do the following additional experiment: 14) Open the original *.tiff file 15) Calculate the difference but know between *.tiff and *1.jpg (step 8-12) 16) Do Shift-Ctrl-L to adjust the levels. You will see that in the second case the error is bigger. You start seeing contours of your object and that although you stored the image at the highest jpeg compression. You actually can look at the jpeg file in a hex monitor and figure out the quantization coefficients PS uses. Now if you had chosen a lower jpeg compression you would see an even bigger error (because the quantization coefficients are bigger). Now in the first experiment you see only a small error. You don't see any contours which is why I said it's noise like. Now, I am not sure if for each consecutive saving of the image the same amount of loss would occur. Maybe not. It's possible that the loss will gradually decrease until there is no loss anymore at all. Not sure about that. (Though why you would want to open a JPEG and then resave it unchanged, at the same compression ratio, rather than simply closing it, is an open question.) Well, you might want to change only a small part of the jpeg image, i.e. to remove a person etc. After the change obviously you have the actually save the image. But now not only the area where you have made the change but the whole image will be affected. Again there would be a way to keep the rest of the image as it was and just recompress the changed part (with a max of an additional 7 neighbour pixels in each direction) but that would be asking too much. Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.yahoo.com Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: JPEG Lossless mirror?
--- Pat Cullinan, jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I had been a believer in the proposition that multiple jpeg saves would degrade an image, but after reading a notice to the contrary in one of the trade mags, I did my own trials and now I save and resave jpegs which aren't even maximum quality without any qualms. The trade magazine is wrong at least for the following common scenario. If you save a picture as jpeg in PS, close the image, reload the image and save the image again in jpeg you will lose data. The difference noise like and very small. For a normal picture you won't see any difference. Also it might be the additional loss gets smaller and smaller with many additional savings (without editing) upto a point where there is no change anymore. I have no mathematical proof for that, though. Now if you start with an image in PS, edit it, save it, edit it, save it, etc. you are not losing any data. The reason is that PS only writes the compressed image to a file but keeps the uncompressed image in memory. So it does not compress it and then reload the compressed image back into memory. In the later case you would lose data with each save and it would be awfully slow. One thing I wonder is if it is possible to do a lossless flipping of an image that has not a multiple of 8 pixels in the direction you flip it. Does anybody know about that? Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.yahoo.com Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: CRTs vs LCDs PhotoCal
--- Colin Maddock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The blacks need to be neutral before the whites are adjusted. That is one thing I was always wondering about. When I use the factory settings of my Sony 400PS and turn up contrast to 100% the blacks have a red cast. The factory settings for 6500K are Bias: 56(R), 61(G), 41(B) and Gain: 91(R), 83(G), 67(B). Reading through the documentation of PhotoCal by ColorVision it seems PreCal does not make any adjustments to the blackpoint but only the whitepoint. Did I get something wrong here? Also Nuno Sebastião has pointed out that bias should be 0 and gain should be 1. I would assume that a bias value of 50 represents an effective gain of 0 in order to make negative and positive adjustments. Now applying the same to gain I would also expect numbers around 50. Obviously, this is not the case but all numbers are way above 50. So what is bias and gain really? Thanks, Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: PC memory type for filmscanning (OT - slightly)
--- Herm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: After further testing I found out that the Pentium had substantally faster memory throughput, but the athlon was about 40% faster in math operations (integer and floating point operations).. so overall photoshop performance is not fully dependant on memory performance.. Actually, I believe the Athlon (XP) is slower when it comes to FP. For integer is supposed to be much faster, though. So I my conclusion is that PS uses mainly integer operations. Is this true or am I completely off here? Rob __ Do You Yahoo!? Send your FREE holiday greetings online! http://greetings.yahoo.com Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe' in the title or body
Re: filmscanners: X-ray scanners/etc
--- Jeff Spirer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Having read the entire FAA regulations, I will point out that the regulations have ALWAYS allowed for immediate suspension of the film check provision. The right to suspend is not in any way connected to 9/11. Jeff, can you provide a link to the text that allows the suspension of hand checking film. Just for my personal interest. Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month. http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1
RE: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images
It *IS* more unsafe to use RAID0. And MTBF *IS* additive. No and no. I designed SCSI controllers and disk subsystems (for the storage division of one of the top computer manufacturers) for years, as well as tested disk subsystems. I know how MTBF is determined. Seems like you have done everything and also know everything. I don't know how your company (or you) determined MTBF of a RAID0 system but most companies as Compaq, IBM, Sun, Adaptec, etc. say that MTBF will decrease. Exactly because of the reduced MTBF of a system with multiple HDs Berkeley has suggested the RAID system. The RAID system is supposed to relax the impact of the reduced MTBF. That doesn't mean the MTBF becomes higher when a RAID system is deployed but it just makes it more likely that the failure can be repaired. That is not the case for RAID-0 though which is why many people said that RAID0 does not really belong to RAID which asks for redundant drives (which are obviously non-existent in RAID0). I see though where your (company's) calculation might come from. You can determine MTBF for a certain device by testing for example 1 drives for 1000 hours and then divide the total of 1*1000 hours by the number of failures. That way you don't have to test one drive for a long time (it's lifetime and then replace it with a new one). Nevertheless, this calculation doesn't apply to RAID as a RAID system has to be considered as a single identity. So you cannot claim that because you have 10 HDs your RAID system is working 10*1=10 hours in each single hour. Your RAID system is ONE identity and therefore is working only 1 hours each hour it is up. Therefore the MTBF decreases. Nevertheless, the reliability of HDs are quite high these days and therefore I wouldn't hesitate to have a RAID0 system with a couple of HDs for my imaging purposes and adequate backup. As a matter of fact, I am considering updating my computer system and in that case I am going to setup a RAID0 system with two fast 80GB. End of discussion on my side. Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Find a job, post your resume. http://careers.yahoo.com
RE: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images
Laurie, spanning: The drives are cascaded. So if you have a 60GB and 80GB HD you get a 140GB HD. Except that you are able to see one big HD there is no advantage regarding speed, etc. striping: Puts drives in parallel configuration. The smallest HD limits the capacity. For example if you have a 60GB and 80GB HD then the total capacity will be 60GB*2=120GB. The advantage is that you can almost double the sustained read/write speed. This is only true if the drives are on seperate IDE channels. Most motherboards have two independent channels. In this configuration you are best off using two identical HDs. mirroring: Writes the same data on two different drives. So when one goes bad you can replace it with the other. You don't gain any capacity or speed if it is not combined with any of the above techniques (which then will require more then 2 HDs). If you have raid0+1 you use striping and mirroring. So if you have 4 60GB HDs you would have 240GB with striping (RAID0) only. But since you use also mirroring (RAID1) the capacity is only half of it to keep a copy of all the data you have - 120GB Robert --- LAURIE SOLOMON [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Preben, Since you seem to be knowledgeable about IDE RAID matters, I wish to make use of your knowledge as a resource even if it is OT for this list. I recently bought an ABIT motherboard with RAID. The manual is not very clear as tot he difference between RAID 0 (striping) and what it does versus JBOD (spanning). I understand what RAID 1 (mirroring) is and how it works; but I really do not understand how RAID 0 works or what parallel operation of the two drives on the channel means and entails. While it may be different for third party RAID controllers, the manual for the RAID controller on the ABIT KG7-RAID motherboard says that you need 4 drives to use RAID 0+1 and that the second pair duplicate the first pair. This appears to contradict your point concerning You pay the equivalent of one drive i.e.. - in this case - 100 GB for the security of your data, but you end up with a 300 GB drive array. If I ma reading the manual correctly, at least on the ABIT RAID, you would have 200GB of original data storage and 200GB duplicate mirror backup protection under the RAID 0+1 setup - especially if you follow their advice of using same size, make, and model of hard drive in the array. Could you comment on this in a way so as to add some clarification for a novice to RAID arrays. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Preben Kristensen Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2001 5:35 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images IMO the best price/performance/data safety setup is IDE Raid 5. If you buy a Ide Raid 5 card (Adaptec makes a good one: 2400A, which sells for around 300 US) you can then connect, say four IDE 100GB drives and get an array which is very fast AND fairly fault tolerant. You pay the equivalent of one drive ie. - in this case - 100 GB for the security of your data, but you end up with a 300 GB drive array and the ability to swap/hotswap a drive and rebuild the array should one of the drives fail. Also, by using UDMA/100 5400 instead of 7200 drives you get a slightly slover performance, but you gain by having much lower temperatures and much lower noise levels. Such a Raid 5 system would cost around 1300 US (depending where you buy) for 300 GB, but your data is much more secure than the simpler and cheaper Raid 0. Lastly, these stand alone Raid cards - unlike raid solutions on motherbords - have their own processors on board which takes over all the hard work, freeing up your system processor. GreetingsPreben - Original Message - From: James Grove [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2001 9:46 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images I have just ordered a 60 Gig Maxtor ATA 100 drive (ATA 133 is also available) I have done this because it is far cheaper than buying another 36 gig drive to go on my U160 SCSI channel. I can get the Maxtor drives for around 60 UK pounds, which means I could buy 4 of these IDE drives for the same price as a Quantum U160 36gig drive! One thing to remember about Ide if you decide to give the drive a beasting is to cool it with a slim cooler. -- James Grove [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.jamesgrove.co.uk www.mountain-photos.co.uk ICQ 99737573 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ezio c/o TIN Sent: 10 November 2001 21:18 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images I would recommend to buy a U-160 SCSI ... from e-bay ... I have just done this to integrate the other 3 U-160 I have and I have bought for 102US $ a 18GB IBM 1 rpm brand new
RE: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images
--- Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just wanted to note that RAID 0 is, in most cases, a bad idea. The reason is that if you stripe your data across multiple disks and one fails, you lose all the data. It's better to split the files up among many, smaller logical drives. It's great from a performance standpoint but that's about it. RAID 0+1 or RAID 5 are much better ideas. Paul Wilson I disagree that it's a bad idea. It's no more unsafe than a single disk. MTBF is NOT additive. RAID 0 IS the fastest, and if that's what you need, then it's a good idea. It *IS* more unsafe to use RAID0. And MTBF *IS* additive. Actually, more exactly it is reduced and not increased. If you have 1 drive with a MTBF of 10 hours you can expect an error every 10 hours in average. If you have 4 drives each with an MTBF of 10 then your MTBF of your RAID0 system is 10/4=25000 hours, i.e. in your RAID0 system an error will occur every 25000 hours in average and such an error will be disasterous for the whole RAID0 sytem. The abve does not take into account failures due to over-surge, earthquakes, etc in which case MTBF is not linear. But MTBF for an individual HD does not take these kind of events into account either. Anyway, 25000 hours is almost 3 years. Taking into account that with most home systems you don't use more then 2 drives, that with many solutions you don't gain much speed with more then 2 drives, and that the MTBF can be considerable higher a failure is even much more unlikely. Therefore, with some backup, RAID 0 is still a good solution if you want to have higher speed. This is especially true if you work with big files. 50 MBytes image files already take quite a while to store an a regular system. When you work with files that have multiple 100 MBytes then a RAID0 system is sure quite helpful. Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Find a job, post your resume. http://careers.yahoo.com
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: 2700ppi a limiting factor in sharpness?
--- Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In an ideal world I might go for Contax or Leica, but I have very limited funds, so the best choice seems to be get a good lens for the gear I already have. You don't need Leica and Contax lenses to see a difference. Most better brands have good and low quality lenses. And regarding resolution one better first invests in a tripod. Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Find a job, post your resume. http://careers.yahoo.com
filmscanners: Minolta Scan Multi/Polaroid 45/Nikon 8000/Polaroid 120
I want to scan my wedding pictures which of shot on MF. Unfortunately, I only have an SS4000 so I need to get a MF scanner for a couple of days. I was looking for a Nikon 8000 or Polaroid 120 but nobody seems to rent either of them. The only thing I found is a Minolta Scan Multi for $50/day and a Polaroid 45 (what's the difference between the 45/45i/45ultra?) for $150/weekend. The later would be quite far an cumbersom to pick up. So I wonder which scanner you would suggest. Except for a dozen or so pictures I won't need very high resolution. Actually, dynamic range seems to be more of an issue for the negs I got back. Are the Minolta Scan Multi and Polaroid 45 much inferior in these areas compared to the Nikon 8000/Polaroid 120? Or does anybody know a place in the SF bay area where I could rent a Nikon 8000/Polaroid 120 for a weekend? Regards, Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Find a job, post your resume. http://careers.yahoo.com
filmscanners: Renting MF Scanner
Does anybody know where I can rent a MF format scanner, i.e. Polaroid or Nikon for a weekend and how much that would cost? I live in the San Jose area but would consider going up to SF to rent a scanner. Thanks, Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. http://personals.yahoo.com
Re: filmscanners: NIKON LS 4000 AND D1X
--- Pat Perez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Keep in mind that just because a sensor is smaller than 24x36mm doesn't make your lenses obsolete. It makes them telephoto, and comparatively high speed at that. The 200 f2.8 might end up a 300 2.8, which can costs thousands of dollars. It is all in how one lloks at it. If I were a sports or nature photographer, I think I'd be in hog heaven with the magnification factor. Or another way to look at it is that you just crop the inner part of a 35mm frame. In other words, you are using just parts of what your 35mm lens covers. That means you have lots of glass (the area increases with the square of the radius) that you waste. There is one good thing about that tough. The CCD require that the rays come in at 90 degrees. Especially with a wide angle lens the exposure rate would depend on the distance from the middle point. I have to admit that I don't know how bad that effect is, though. Also I believe that lens design can compensate for it somehow. And if not you can still do it electronically. Assuming that the most important object is somewhere around the middle that shouldn't be too bad. Robert __ Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help? Donate cash, emergency relief information http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/
RE: filmscanners: NIKON LS 4000 AND D1X
--- Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is one good thing about that tough. The CCD require that the rays come in at 90 degrees. No they don't. Different CCDs and different CCD designs have different acceptable angles. It is true that with wide angle lenses, you do get falloff at the edges, and it is probably worse than film in certain CCD designs. Well, sure they don't require it if you don't care about the fall off. And yes, it is true that some CCDs are more suspectable to it then others which depends on the design and angle. But then on an SLRs (as the 1Dx we are talking about) you can have so many different lenses from 1800mm to one with a 220 degree coverage that you can't really cover all angles. Robert __ Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help? Donate cash, emergency relief information http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/
filter for Anthony (was Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging)
I would suggest that everybody just sets up a filter that transfers Anthony's messages directly in the delete folder (there will be a lot of them from him if you have a peak at the delete folder before deleting permanentaly). He's not only annoying to the list but he is plain wrong on most accounts and contradicts himself again and again. And this is not only the case for this thread. It's not worth arguing with him because he just turns every word around to make it look he's right although he's not. Just some advice/idea. Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Get email alerts NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger http://im.yahoo.com
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
--- Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip And remember, it only has to be blasted with x rays once to be ruined--you might be shooting with film that has already been fogged. Wrong. You don't know what you are talking about. Don't spread rumors that are not true. To everybody else, never put film in check-in bagage. The x-ray machines for carry-on luagage for almost all countries in the world are film-save except for very high-speed film or many times of scanning. In most countries you can ask for hand-inspection although the laws don't mandate it (put it in clear zip-lockers, out of the canister or in transparent canisters). Also, the x-ray machines used for the carry-on laguage expose the film evenly while the CT-machines don't. Therefore, it is much harder to detect any problem with the 'regular' x-rays then the one's from the CT scanners. Also, the later ones work in a quite different way then the 'regular' x-rays which is why they are more dangerous to film. Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Get email alerts NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger http://im.yahoo.com
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
--- Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Robert writes: Wrong. You don't know what you are talking about. Don't spread rumors that are not true. You should mention that to Kodak, since that is my source. I thought that they knew something about film, but perhaps you know more; you should inform them that they do not know what they are talking about, before the spread any more misinformation. Well, let's put it this way. I have been in the development team of the biggest company producing these kind of CT scanners. I have also been working for another company working with CT scanners for medical and industrial applications. There have been a lot of test been done regarding film safety. What your problem is, is that you don't know what you are talking about and just mix things up. I have always said that you should not put film in check-in lugage. That's what all the mentioned articles say as well. The articels say that such x-ray machines might be used in the future for check-in lugage. Except for countries under very high security (i.e. war etc) there won't be any such scanners because they are too expensive. I could go on but you wouldn't believe me anyway and would always have something to complain (which usualy turns out to be wrong anyways). Oh, by the way, check out that sentence in one of the articles you have mentioned: Be cautious with short-ends and other film purchased from re-sellers. Another reason to buy film at home from a source that you know and have been working with before. Oh, and I am going to add a filter to my email account... Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Get email alerts NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger http://im.yahoo.com
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
--- Lynn Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This definitely pisses me off, and I wrote and sent corroberating pic to the (US) FCC in charge--for whatever good that will do. snip I'm just coming on--then dropping off again--to warn you all to use the lead bags when you travel (as if that would help), or buy film at point of destination and mail it back home. What a complete PITA. The solution is simple. Don't put your film in your check-in bagage but carry it with you. I've done many times and it works fine with 100 or so rolls of film. If you carry more then that (besides possible camera equipment) and you travel alone send the film to your location or buy it on location. I don't really recommend lead bags. I heard that some scanners (probably from L3) can increase power to a degree that even lead bags won't help. If this is true or not I am not sure. Nevertheless, other scanners don't work that way and simply will trigger an alarm. That increases the risk for you to be called back to open your lugage. And when it's too late to do so then your lugage might stay behind Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Get email alerts NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger http://im.yahoo.com
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
--- Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've never understood why photographers lug hundreds of rolls of film around the world when film and development are available practically everywhere on the planet. What's so special about film and development at home? Because you don't know how well they have stored the film. I've seen enough film, even in photo shops, that was definitely not stored properly. And I don't really feel like finding a good professional place to buy my film when I have lots of other stuff to worry about. Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Get email alerts NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger http://im.yahoo.com
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
--- Dana Trout [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That solution doesn't always work. When we were in Europe (Athens and Rome) security would not allow us to do anything but run the film through the scanner. However, I was told that the intensity of the X-rays of the gate scanner was much less than what is used for checked baggage. I don't know how true that statement is. The x-ray machines for hand-lugage is film-save in almost all countries, especially Europe, America, etc. So unless you have to pass through x-ray a dozen time there shouldn't be any problem. If you have to pass through x-ray very often during your trip then you might want to look for alternatives. Just as a side note, in the US you can ask for hand-control and they can't forcue you to put it through x-ray. But you have to add some more time as they often do some visual inspection as well as samples (with a white cloth put into an analyzer). In other countries you sometimes can get hand-inspection although they don't have to do it. Plus you can always put have a dozen of very fast film in your bags to convience them more to do hand-inspection. So again, as long as you don't have to go through many x-rays for hand-inspection you are fine. It's mainly the big CT-scanners that destroy film. In addition, they destroy it not evenly which makes it more visible then the other x-ray machines. robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Get email alerts NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger http://im.yahoo.com
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
--- Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Robert writes: Because you don't know how well they have stored the film. What reason is there to believe that it would be stored any worse than at home? And how do you know how well film is stored at home? Because I've seen it many times with my own eyes. And I am not even talking about the guys who sell film on the street with the package already faded out, photo shops storing film right behind a glass window where the hot sun shines at it, etc. I am also talking about other photo shops where inproper storage is not that evident. It's not that it happens only in other countries but in other countries I don't know the source whereas here I know it. How much difference does improper storage make? And what do you consider improper storage? Huh, so you think improper storage doesn't make any noticable difference? I don't think the x-ray for handbagage is much worse (unless you scan it many many times) then improper storage of film. And I don't really feel like finding a good professional place to buy my film when I have lots of other stuff to worry about. Like having all the photography from your trip ruined by x-ray fogging. If you prepare yourself good enough there is no problem with x-ray. Thousands of amateur and professional photographers have done it. Anyway, I have the impression you are only here to argue, even about things that are quite obvious and without ever changing your opinion by just a tiny bit. Therefore, it does not make any sense to respond to any of your messages anymore. Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Get email alerts NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger http://im.yahoo.com
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
--- Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do have a few games installed, but they are about the only non-critical applications on the machine You have games installed on a mission-critical system??!! A system that is so important that when it is out for a day or two would ruin your whole business?!! Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
--- Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The VueScan documentation warns that it might not work very well on Polaroid scanners, though, as I recall. According to previous messages from you it seems that you wouldn't have time for multi scanning anyway. So why bother if it does or does not work well with the SS4000? Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
Re: filmscanners: yet *another* low cost way to avoid the future
--- Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do image editing all the time. The 2x 200 MHz isn't as fast as current systems, but it is _fast enough_, just as it was when I bought it. You are falling prey to the misconception that a newer, faster system somehow makes older systems inadequate--but an older system that has been adequate in the past remains so in the future, unless your requirements change, and this is true no matter how much faster the more modern systems become. But you are going from a 2700dpi (LS-2000) to a 4000dpi (LS-4000) scanner. This very obviously does change the requirements of your system, unless of course you use your new 4000dpi scanner only at 2700dpi. In addition, time seems to be of critical importance to you. Even a cheap new system will outperform and old dual PPro@200Mhz by a big margin, especially if you have lots of memory and a fast HD. So you would be well advice to upgrade your computer. Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
RE: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography
--- Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A 6M pixel camera, assume 2000 x 3000, will give you a very nice 8x10-11x14, but that's about the limits unless you use Genuine Fractals you won't get very good looking images above that. For general reception (candid) shots, a digital 35mm equivalent should work OK, but I certainly would not use it for formals. To answer your question, no, I would not give up my scanner for a digital camera yet. When the digital cameras get to 16M pixels, I will consider getting one...but I will probably always use film anyway, since I shoot mostly BW these days, and I don't do weddings any more. I would easily use digital for commercial work though. Typically, most commercial work doesn't require much enlargement, but it really depends on what the client expects for an end result. Well, that was the kind of answer I was hoping to get. Thanks, Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
RE: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial p hotography
--- Soren Svensson (EUS) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Austin Franklin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Only the color information is shared amongst multiple pixels NOT the edge information. That does not make the four pixels one pixel. Do the geometry. Each of the four sensors is capable of sensing an entirely unique section of the image. Why is that so hard to understand? Because it isn't true. Each sensor has a filter in front of it (R, G or B). That means that you have to use sensors next to it to get a true value of the luminance at each sensor. Each sensor just measures the luminance within a small spectrum. I think that's pretty clear, isn't it? :-) That this is one approach but not the best. If you take four pixels and reduce it to one you will reduce spacial resolution. Yes, each pixel does measure only a part of the luminance but keeping it that way and interpolating the missing two channels (which isn't really necessary for edge detection but to have a true color value) is still better then combining the four pixel. In addition if you would take that approach it doesn't make any sense to have grgb but rather rgb. You use grgb because you do want to increase the number of pixels that contribute most to the lumiance. If you combine them you lose all that advantage. But now I'm off camping and taking pictures. Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
RE: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography
--- Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Third, the 6 megapixel resolution is an interpolated resolution. That is not true. The luminance information in one shot digital cameras is NOT interpolated (except in the Fuji cameras), only the chrominance. Color information is not near as critical as edge information. You still get full 6M pixels of edge information. Most digital cameras use an GRGB patter. Further, the luminance is defined as approx. Y=0.3R + 0.6G + 0.1B. Since you do not have all color information you first have to interpolate it to calculate the luminance value. Therefore, the luminance value is also interpolated. By the way, the formula also shows that the green channel is most important for the luminance. That is why there are usualy twice as many green values then red and blue values. That give you the advantage that the luminance channel will be more accurate then the chrominance channel. But it STILL has to be INTERPOLATED. Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
Re: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography
--- Robert E. Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] ...The digital camera gives you only 6M*8bit/channel=6Mbytes... 6Mpixels *8bits/channel *3channels = 144Mbytes. This assumes 3 bytes/pixel it may be higher if bit deepth per channel is greater than 8. Bob Wright Er, no. That would be 144M BITS, not bytes, which is 24M Bytes... Mea coupa! But still greater than 6 Mbytes. Again, the 24Mbytes(@8bit/channel) are INTERPOLATED. The camera (S1, D1x) only captures 1 channel (not 3) for each pixel But that's it. I won't repeat it again. Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
Re: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography
--- Robert E. Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Robert Meier [EMAIL PROTECTED] ...The digital camera gives you only 6M*8bit/channel=6Mbytes... 6Mpixels *8bits/channel *3channels = 144Mbytes. This assumes 3 bytes/pixel it may be higher if bit deepth per channel is greater than 8. Bob Wright First it's 144MBITS not Mbytes. 144Mbits=18Mbytes (actually accoring to my first assumption of 12bits channel it's 27Mbytes). Second, as I have mentioned the cameras (S1, D1x) does NOT capture all three channels for all pixels. Only one channel per pixel. The other 2 channels (2/3 of the total output data) is interpolated either by the camera or software on the computer (in case of raw images). Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
RE: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography
--- Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can repeat it all you like, but what you say is not entirely accurate. The data is two dimensional. Each pixel has position (an XY coordinate) as one dimension and color information as the other. I don't follow you. I didn't talk about dimensions but about number of channels per pixel. And while it does not address my point at all there are more then the two 'dimensions' you mentioned, i.e. time, etc. Interpolation requires the addition of new data points, like when a scanner that has an optical resolution of 1200 DPI gives you 2400 DPI. Interpolation does not require new data points, it can produces them. Also it does not necessary mean that there will be more pixels. Interpolation can simply add missing color information. When you look at the R, G, and B channel each on a 6MPixel grid many data points in each channel will be missing. So it does not generate new pixels but new data points within the channels to produce a true color pixel. That is interpolation of positional data. Interpolation means to insert between other elements. Exactly, you insert the blue, green, and red data points where they are missing on the 6Mpixel grid. Though the data points are not interpolated, the color value of each point MAY be arrived at by interpolation, if the algorithm uses interpolation. It is not necessary to use interpolation to arrive at the color information for each pixel. You could take the four color values, combine them and apply them to each of the four pixels...that isn't interpolating. Hah, that approach produces so terrible image quality, especially along edges, that I don't even consider it for anything where image quality is of any importance. Or would you use a nearest neighbor approach to size up your image? People don't even want linear interpolation but bi-cubic interpolation, etc. Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
Re: filmscanners: (anti)compression?
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, my Photoshop 6.0 (on a PC) doesn't offer any compressed TIFF file formats. When doing a Save-as for a 48-bit file, I was given three choices: TIFF(*.TIF), Ras(*.RAW), and Photoshop(*.PSD,*.PDD) Hm, I have many more choices o PS6.0 on a PC. Maybe you have not chosen certain formats during installation. Anyway, I think even if so as you can chose tiff you should also be able to use compression, i.e. after you hit the save button a dialog asks you for the byte order format (little of big endian) and a checkbox where you can chose if you want LZW or not. Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
Re: filmscanners: Anyone having problems with Scan@leben?
Same problem here with the epson list. My emails just don't get through. Robert --- Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If anyone else is on the scan@leben list... are you having problems? All my messages to it bounced yesterday and I got no mail from it today. Code red strikes? Art __ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
Re: filmscanners: Canon FS4000 vs. Nikon LS4000
--- Barbara White [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Where does one find information on the LS40? It's not on the Nikon website. I think that was a typo. It's LS4000 vs. Coolscan IV. The later has 'only' 2900dpi vs 4000dpi for the LS4000. Also Nikon does not mention a Firewire interface for the IV. Finally, the LS4000 allows multi-scanning and has a higher dynamic range (according to the specs). Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
Re: filmscanners: artificial light
--- Tony Sleep [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: new flatbed I noticed that a frame exposed in tungsten lighting is totally lemon yellow on the scan. Is it coorrectable as in standard photographic process? Yes, only better. And flourescents. Wonderful! :) The best thing is still to use corresponding film or a correction filter to do a rough correction. Otherwise, some of the film layers will be underexposed. Which ones depends on the light source. The rest can be fixed in PS. Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
RE: filmscanners: Polaroid SS4000 ext. warranty and Bulk Slide Fe eder
--- Hemingway, David J [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: be sure to order the free brush to clean the sensor. Are you saying that there is a brush to clean the sensor=CCD? How would you do that? Opening the scanner? Wouldn't you do more damage then any good? Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
Re: filmscanners: On A More Positive Note
--- tflash [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The blue channel of the pad lock image shows what appears to be jpeg artifacts, but none of the other channels do. I know the blue channel is typically the noisiest channel of a scan, but I forget why. Isn't it because the CCD elements are least sensitive to blue light? If so that is a hardware thing. But jpeg is a software thing, so why would it also show up predominantly in the blue channel? Is that typical of jpegs, or was it just a fluke or coincidence here? Actually, you see the jpeg artifacts clearly in all channels and the picture itself. Nevertheless, it is the clearest in the blue channel, followed by the red with green showing the least artifacts. The reason why green probably shows the least artifacts is because JPEG stores the data in YCbCr with Cb and Cr downsampled by 2 (- 1/4 the data points compared to Y). The reason why you see more artifact in the blue channel then the red channel might be what you have mentioned in your message. Not really sure about that, though. Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Re: filmscanners: Scratch the Gear Teeth Theory
--- Pat Perez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is a wild-ass guess, but maybe memory at the byte level isn't being accessed or allocated or released properly, and what appears as a band is the result of regular 'overflows'. I don't think that is the problem. If there would be overflow you would see completely wrong values as the MSB will be cut off. If the error accumulates over multiple pixels until it overflows the pixel values would gradually increase and then fall a lot. If memory is not properly accessed you probably would get an assertion or at least similar errors in all pixels (assuming you write only for example 8-bits in a 12-bit word with the 4 LSBs not initialized), etc. Unfortunately, I do not have the email with the scan anymore but it seemed to me that the banding happens at constant pixel spacing. Therefore, I do not believe that it is a problem with the CCD itself because it's quite unlikely that the sensors are bad in a equal spacing. One thing I could imagine is the amplifier. In order to reduce noise due to fast read-out times and to allow somewhat faster scanning there might be more then 1 amplifier per CCD line. Assuming they use 32 amplifiers, i.e. pixel x goes to amplifier 'x MOD 32' and assuming that the gain for one of these amplifiers is off then you would see such banding. That's a pretty wild guess, though. The original poster said that he saw the banding only when adjustment were done. Have all other parameters been the same? For example I have heard some issues with multi-scanning on Polaroid scanners which could lead to soft images. If I remember correctly Nikon scanners have some HW support for multi-scanning. So instead of soft images an artifact could be banding. Hint: Wild guess!!! One thing you could check is if the banding always happens at the same place. For example do a scan of a picture that has some clear sharp lines. Scan it and record where the banding happens relative to this line. Repeat it to check for consistency. Then move the picture to be scanned a little bit within the holder. If the banding does change relative to the line it is quite likely a HW issue. Otherwise it could be, but doesn't have to be, a SW issue. Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
RE: filmscanners: image samples of digital artifacts
--- Dan Honemann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One thing I've always been curious about is what causes the topographical map type of lines you see in the blue sky portion of this image: The old JPEG (not JPEG 2000) does code three channels Y, Cr, Cb. The channels Cr and Cb are downsampled. Then each channel is divided in blocks of 8x8. For each such block you do a Discret Cosinus Transform (DCT), devide each of the 64 resulting values by one of 64 numbers defined by the quantization table (higher frequency values are divided by higher numbers then low frequency values), and then Huffman (arithmetic coding is also possible but is less common) entropy encoded. This is true for lossy compression. Now if you do a high compression you divide the values after the DCT by higher factors so you get more 0s. Because of that the transition of one 8x8 block becomes less smooth and you see 8x8 block in the final image. Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Re: filmscanners: fogged film
--- Norman Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm surprised that there was X-ray fogging, unless the camera went through the machine with exposed film in it. If you do not use high ISO film you can let it through the X-ray for HANDBAGGAGE safely a few times. But NEVER leave film in checked baggage as some airports have X-ray machines that can visibly damage it. The same applies for film that you leave in the camera (which you probably don't check in) and unexposed film. Only developed film is safe. Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 4000 $200 rebate
--- Hemingway, David J [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The following link will give the details of the $200 end user rebate for the Sprintscan 4000. The coupon can be downloaded via this link. David David, You do a really great job on this mailing list. Too bad I haven't joined it any earlier because I did have some serious problems, which took several months to resolve via your regular customer service, with my SS4000. But then I haven't heard anything better about Nikon's customer service... Sorry if this is off-topic but input like that should be appreciated. Robert PS: Is PolaColor 5.0 already online to download? __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Re: filmscanners: Figuring out size resolution
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There's another value that has to do with how many dpi the printer actually prints on paper, such as 1440 dpi. But that value is printer specific. Good to point that out. My Epson 2000P doesn't even let me set that value. It gives me a choice of printing at photo quality speed or high speed and adjusts the number of dots on the paper accordingly. We probably don't have the same driver. Anyway, with my driver in the 'main' field of the print dialog I can chose between 'automatic' and 'custom'. Automatic only lets me chose between 'quality' and 'fast'. When I chose 'custom' and configure the settings I can specify the dpi incl. other settings. My recommendation is that you tell your printer to print on paper at the highest number of dots per inch your printer is capable of (1440?) so as to get the best photo quality and that you send the image to the printer at 300 dpi. That's exactly what I do. But the highest resolution might not always be the best setting depending on the paper used. On some (cheaper) paper I seem to get worse result with the max setting. Most printers are happy if they are fed data at a density of 300 dpi. With less than that the print quality suffers. With more dpi than that, it's just a waste of good pixels and the print quality isn't any better than if 300 dpi were used. I've read on this list that some of the cheaper printers don't improve past about 240 dpi and there are some that don't stop improving until you pass 360 dpi. But a good rule of thumb is to use something close to 300 dpi. But, suppose you want to an 8x12 print. Divide 4000 by 8 (or 6000 by 12) and you find that you'll be sending 500 dpi to the printer. That's more dpi than you really need, but it won't hurt anything. I am not sure about that. If you send more dpi the printer (software?) has to downsample it. You might get better results if you let photoshop doing that. One reason for my thinking is that PS has better algorithms. But more important the sharpening should be done on the final resolution. So if you have too many dpi you first do sharpening and then downsampling instead of downsampling and then sharpening. I have to admit though that I never made any tests but always first downsample to 300dpi. One other reason why to keep the size of the printed data down is to reduce the amount of data that has to be processed and sent to the printer. (I've heard on this list that using more dpi than necessary uses more ink, but I don't think that's true. Maybe someone on the list can enlighten me.) Well, not sure about that but there might be some truth in that statement. When you set the printer to higher dpi it will print more pixels per inch. On one hand this will increase quality because now the printer can use more micro pixels to generate one pixel (the printer uses CMYK to produce 1 pixel. Some printers add another two colors which does increase accurecy further. Imagine you have a color that is between C and M. If you have an additional color that represents the value between C and M you need only one single micro-pixel. If you don't have it you need a C and M micro-pixel.). On the other hand printing more micro-pixels will use up more ink IF the droplet size is kept the same. Maybe the printer actually does decrease the droplet size for higher dpi but I have the impression this does not happen in a linear (or x^2) ratio. One indication might be that on regular paper the paper gets more 'currly' with higher dpi because it seems to get more wet (more ink). Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Re: filmscanners: SS120 reviews
David, The review mentions PolaColor 5.0. Is this software available for download on any of Polaroid's webpages? I still can find PC4.5 only. Robert --- Hemingway, David J [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A couple of Sprintscan 120 reviews have been posted on the Polaroid UK web site. http://home.polaroid.co.uk/sprintscan/reviews.htm http://home.polaroid.co.uk/sprintscan/reviews.htm David __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
RE: filmscanners: Digicams again was Re: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dimage 7 camera
Frank, Memory has increased at a rate of about 2 every 1.5 years. There is good reason to believe that this will not change a lot during the next few years to come. Even with new technologies being developed (if it succeeds and can be used for imagers) it takes years to get it ready for production. Technologie is developing really fast but one can also overestimate it. Well, if you have a 4x6 or even 8x10 imager then you definitely don't have super small lenses anymore as you have predicted. I agree that sensitivity can be increased a bit. Nevertheless, you cannot ignor the law of physics. You just do need a certain amount of light (even with ideal sensitivity) the get a good enough exposure. Also I do not see any new technique on the horizon (certainly not one that could take an idea to production within 5 years) that would allow no noise. And noise is everywhere, not only in the imager itself. With the sensitivity (+exposure) and the noise give the SNR is given as well. So my opinion about the above also applies to the SNR. Anyway, it is my strong opinion that we won't have anything close to 1 GPixel in 5 years of less. You have your strong opinion and so I will leave it at this. Robert --- Frank Nichols [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Robert, I understand your hesitancy, however, you make several assumptions that I didnt. 1. SNR remains at todays levels. 2. Sensitivity remains at todays levels. 3. The array would be small - why not a 4 x 6 with a 10x increase in density? that would require about 1.5GPixels (If I didn't slip a decimal point.) Or even an 8x10? In RAM/CPU technology - a simliar technology - the increase over the years has not just occurred in dimensions, but in performance (speed), power requirements, etc. __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
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: Digicams again was Re: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dimage 7 camera
--- Frank Nichols [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Based on the advances in RAM technology over the past 10 years I am predicting a 1Giga Pixel camera in the not too distant future (5 years or less). The significance of this camera will be a drastic reduction is the required size of lenses by using software digital zooming - this will be driven by your complaint and the relative expsense of these heavy long lenses of today.Note that ten years ago a couple of meg of ram was expensive and huge - today I have 1 GB of ram in my PC and it cost me $200 ($US). Assuming that density for memory increases by a factor of 2 every 18 months you will have less then 2*2*2*2=16 times more in 5 years. Assuming that CMOS sensors scale at the same rate we will have 16MPixel*16=256MPixel in 6 years. That is considerable less then 1 GPixel and is still on the high side. Even if it would be possible to get 1 GPixel I still don't think we would have get it. The problem is that the more pixels you squeeze in the same area the smaller the size of the pixel gets. Kind of like getting an extremly slow film. So in order to get a usable output you would need very long exposure times. If you don't then your SNR (Signal-to-Noise-Ratio) will be very low resulting in bad images. That is even more true if you want to decrease the size of the imager. But that's not all. With such high resolution the requirement for lenses will be extremly high. If you really want to take avantage of a GPixel imager whose size is fairly small then you will need lenses with huge lpmm. For all these reasons and many more I do not believe we will get 1 GPixel in 5 years or less. Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
