filmscanners: Nikon Coolscan 8000
Hi, I just joined the filmscanner mailing list so maybe my question has already been answered. If so, could someone please drop me a summary. Has anyone tried the Nikon Coolscan 8000 35mm/MF scanner? May I request a review? Thanks, Tom
filmscanners: Superia vs Reala
Hi, > >Which is better (Reala or Superia) > >at the same ISO? Given that I like Reala, > >would I like Superia? Reala is the same emulsion as Fuji uses in their APS films. In order to produce decent results on APS they've had to reduce the grain size dramatically. This is now to the benefit of 35mm film as they are improved by using the same technology. As far as I remember the datasheets for Superia and Reala at the same ISO, Reala is a tad better (sharper). Furthermore, Reala produces natural colors even under florescent light. I don't know it the latter is a result of some knob tweaking in the printing lab or not... Another film you may want to try is Fuji NPC 160. It's a professional high contrast negative film rated at ISO 160. It prints similar to Reala -- it's just 2/3 stop faster. Tom
filmscanners: [OT] Epson printers (Was: Olympus P-400 printer ???)
Hi, >THe 1280 is the US New model for the 1270 >In Europe and Aisa the 1290 is the new 1270 >The 1280/1290 offer max 2880 x 720 and complete edge to edge printing in >many standard sizes. What is the advantage of 2880dpi lengthwise compared to 1440dpi? It seems like it's just the paper that is fed through at half speed... Can you actually tell the difference between the two or do you just have multiple drops of ink mixing into the same spots on the paper? Some people claim that you shouldn't send pictures to the printer using max resolution as this uses too much ink. What's your opinion on this? Thanks, Tom
filmscanners: Which printer to get [maybe OT]
Folks, This may be a bit off topic, but I do believe that you can provide me some useful info on this matter. I'm seriously considering buying either Nikon LS-2000 or LS-4000 for my digital darkroom. Which printer should I get to get the max out of one of these scanners? I'd like to be able to use larger paper sizes than 8.5x11. Maybe 11x17 or A3. And I would like to get a system where I can use archival inks -- like the bottle system Epson's got. What would you recommend? Thanks, Tom
filmscanners: LS-2000 or Coolscan IV??
Folks, I'm thinking of upgrading my ScanWit 2720 to a "real" scanner. I'm quite annoyed that the ScanWit doesn't handle underexposed slides very well. In some cases the colors are WAY! off. I'm thinking of buying a used Nikon LS-2000 or Coolscan IV. The question is just: which one... I probably won't notice the difference between LS-2000's 2700 dpi and Coolscan IV's 2900 dpi. I really don't care if the thing has SCSI or USB interface. Which one is the best buy? Thanks, Tom
filmscanners: The Acer ScanWit Story
Alright, gents and gals, I promised to inform you of the progress in my warranty claim against Acer. So here goes... On previous episodes of The Acer ScanWit Story: - 1) I found that my Acer ScanWit 2720S gave a blue cast on slides (Sensia 100) and magenta cast on negative film (Kodak 100-2). - 2) I called up Acer to get a 48hour hotswap. This happened last Wednesday (a little over a week ago). - 3) Acer screwed up and gave me an incorrect return authorization number which caused them to not ship the replacement scanner. They promised to ship out the scanner on Monday. Furthermore, they would arrange a pick-up of the defective scanner. This happened on Monday. On Tuesday I called up Acer again to get the tracking information. After spending the usual 15-20 minutes on hold, a person answered my call. It turned out that the scanner had not yet shipped. But the customer service rep. would make sure that it happened on the same day. Wednesday morning my favorite Acer customer service rep. calls me (and actually wakes me up... :-)) to inform me that the replacement scanner has shipped out. They sent it FedEx overnight so I got it Wednesday at 2pm. With unlimited excitement I hooked up the scanner and ran a few slides through it. Only to find that the colors were only slightly better than with my "old" scanner. Furthermore, one pixel in the CCD was bad. This caused a magenta line on a white slide. It was obvious that this particular CCD pixel couldn't sense the color green. I spent a significant amount of time that day comparing the two scanners. There was a difference in color rendering but it was not very significant (maybe a few LSBs). But it left me with two options: 1) As I didn't want a scanner with a defective CCD I could send the "new" one back and keep my "old" scanner. Or 2) I could go through the trouble of getting another scanner shipped from Acer to replace the "new", defective, scanner. But today, before I had decided to call Acer, the FedEx dude shows up again. With a third scanner!!! I live in a shared house, and have an approx. 150 sq ft room. The entire floor of my room was covered in packaging materials, scanners, manuals, and God knows what. I have some cool pictures of all three scanners sitting atop each other on my computer. But the good news is that the scanner that arrived today actually works!! Colors are a bit better than the first scanner and the CCD chip works. I called Acer, spent 20 minutes on hold, and agreed with the customer service rep., who for some reason recognized my name :-)), to ship the two scanners back to Acer. They will arrange a pick-up on Tuesday. Fortunately the last scanner arrived in a box big enough to hold two scanners. Conclusion: The CCD in the first scanner might have had a slight color bias. But I think it was working alright. (All this for nothin'...) I think I'm starting to realize how much photo labs can change color levels when they print a photo. On well-exposed pictures the scanner delivers scans that are pretty close to the print. But with certain exposures (like sunset pictures) the prints are much better. I don't know exactly what causes this. Either it's the scanners auto exposure algorithm or it's the lab guys playing around with the settings on the printer. I cannot explain what could cause a color and intensity shift on my Sensia slides. Acer's tech support mentioned that some chemicals used in developing of the film could cause effects like the ones I was experiencing. Maybe that's it... Because the Provia 100F slides, I just got back from the lab (a different lab than the one I used for Sensia), scans *very* close to the way I remember the picture in real-life. From my experience this far, I conclude that Acer ScanWit is a really good scanner for well exposed pictures. But be prepared to fiddle a bit in photoshop before you get your "alternatively" exposed pictures just right. Acer Tech. Support is really good. They answer their phone *very* fast and seem pretty competent. Acer customer service, on the other hand, sucks!!! They put you on hold for 15-20 minutes, screw up, and don't really seem like they know what they are doing. But when they finally pull their shit together you end up with a reasonable solution. A happy ending after all. Now I just hope that Acer has told UPS to pick up the package on Tuesday... That's the Acer ScanWit story. Due to the large email flow, I think I will sign off the list. Thanks for your help with diagnosing the problems and for explanations of gamma and other things. Take care, Tom
Re: filmscanners: VueScan suggestion
Hi Ed, >There's generally no problem with saving an .ini file from one >version to the next. Occasionally I change some options, but >this seldom causes a problem with saved .ini files. You could include program version information in the ini file. If you later add/modify options, make a ini conversion routine that converts the old ini to the new format setting new options to default values. Just a suggestion. That's what I always do. Tom
Re: filmscanners: VueScan suggestion
Hi, > > There are so many variables [in] VueScan that I always > > seem to forget at least one of the crucial settings > >I have this problem too. And new installs from Ed Hamrick's amazingly >frequent upgrades seem to overwrite some of my settings. > >One thing that would help (listening, Ed?) would be for new installs to >respect my settings from previous versions -- e.g., color space (I like >Adobe RGB, new installs reset to SRGB) and several others. Can't you just save your favorite setup as MyFavoriteSetup.ini using the save option in the file menu? Tom
filmscanners: This Gamma thing version 2.0
Hi Gang, No, I will not seize fire. My questions keep popping up and I demand answers!! :-)) Alright. This mysterious gamma controls the way colors are displayed on the monitor through some exponential function of some kind. Fine! Here I am. Spending hours trying to get the gamma just right so that all my pictures will look great on any platform. And then I hit the print button... Then what?? In short: How does the gamma setting affect the output when the image is printed out on paper? Should I have two different files: One with gamma=1 for printing, and one with gamma=2.2 for web publishing? Thanks, Tom
RE: filmscanners: This Gamma Thing...?
Hi Henry, >>Here is Giorgianni and Madden's definition from "Digital Color Management": >>"Exponent of a power-law equation relating CRT luminance to control-signal >>voltage". Also, "The slope of the straight-line portion of a CRT >>characteristic curve relating log luminance to log voltage." Anyhow, that's >>why if you play with it, it changes the appearances of images on the screen. >>You're basically changing the voltage applied to the phosphors given a >>certain digital input value, thus changing the luminance. You're changing >>the shape of the curve of RGB value vs. voltage applied. > >I bet that will satisfy his curiosity and teach him not to ask questions. >:-) <-- By the way, notice the smiley face -- I'm only joking. ROTFL!! I happen to be an electrical engineer. It didn't frighten me one bit... :-)) BTW: I'm reading that gamma guide Maris dropped a link to. It's pretty good. I'm learning stuff. Tom
RE: filmscanners: This Gamma Thing...?
Hi, >Here is Giorgianni and Madden's definition from "Digital Color Management": >"Exponent of a power-law equation relating CRT luminance to control-signal >voltage". OK. I thought the relationship between luminance and control voltage was linear. But I guess that if it was linear the viewer wouldn't see a linear relationship. The change in luminance corresponding to a viewer seeing the color as "twice as bright" is probably some logarithmic thing. Like with the volume button on a stereo... Thanks for the explanation. Now I just need to get some kind of idea of a good value for gamma. Windows defaults to 2.2. My scanner software defaults to 1.4. If I change the scanner software to gamma=2.2 images look WAY too bright... Why the difference? Tom
filmscanners: The K in CMYK
Hello List, Just out of old fashioned curiosity: What does the K in CMYK stand for? Tom
filmscanners: This Gamma Thing...?
Hi, I've learned a new word today: Gamma. It's something with the way monitors show images, but what exactly is it?? I notice that my scanner software has a gamma adjustment and playing with it I noticed that it changes the way the image appear on the screen. But what exactly is this mysterious gamma thing? My scanner software defaults to gamma=1.4. It this an optimal value? If not, what is a better value? I'd appreciate some scientific facts about this gamma. Thanks, Tom
Re: filmscanners: VueScan 6.6 Available
Hi Dale, > Sure does. If you haven't tried the program I suggest you download it and >give it a try. Clean woks very well on my old HP PhotoSmart scanner. I have bought a copy of the program. But I was a little more obsessed getting the colors right with my scanner that turned out not to work than to try the cleaning options. That's why I asked. Tom
RE: filmscanners: Encoding/compression Was:CD storage
Hi, >Not exactly. GIF only allows 256 colours or 256 shades of grey. It uses >(I think) LZW compression internally so it is lossless as far as editing >is concerned but if you save a 24bit image to a GIF you *WILL* lose colour >data. GIFs are significantly smaller because you are going from 3 colour >channels to 1. Oops. Forgot about the limited color space of GIFs... :-) Tom
Re: filmscanners: VueScan 6.6 Available
Hi Ed, >>The key insight came when I learned about Sigma filters. I was >>amazed at how well the final algorithm worked. I can probably >>tweak it some more, but it works quite well now. I'd recommend >>using the "Clean" setting instead of "Scrub" or "Scour" since >>it seems to work well and is quite fast. Does that image cleaning stuff work with scanners without an IR channel? Tom
filmscanners: Encoding/compression Was:CD storage
Hi, >Hi everyone,If you are storing lots of images its worth using Photoshops >LZW compression,If you have Photoshop that is .It will save a fair bit >of space and wont degrade your hard won image like Jpeg does. I would assume that LZW is a sort of runlength encoding or otherwise non-destructive compression. There is no reason not to use it. Otherwise I believe GIF is a compressed bitmap format. You don't loose any quality by exporting to GIF, but your files get significantly smaller than with TIFF/BMP. Tom
Re: filmscanners: Acer Scanwit 2720 problems
Hi again, >it sounds like you have a bad lamp or ccd sensor, I get good results from >mine. >I prefer to use Vuescan. Let us know how Acer does with service. Well, after receiving some help and second opinions from someone who contacted me off list, I have come to the conclusion that the scanner is bad. I tried my Fuji Sensia 100 slides and consistently got a blue cast on the pictures. I tried Kodak Gold and Royal Gold (emulsions 100-2 RA and 100-6) and got a magenta cast on pictures. Adjusting monitor gamma or color/curve tools did not help. So I called Acer. Their customer service is very good. After a few selections in the automated menu system I got someone to talk to immediately! She had to put me on hold a few times to get straight answers to my questions, but I'd rather wait for a few minutes than get wrong information. Very good. The person I talked to tried to solve the problem by asking questions like, what OS I run, which films I've tried, have you tried this and that, etc. We agreed on that the scanner probably was bad so I should send it back. No problem at all. Based on the serial number she could tell when the scanner was made and that I was eligible for the 48 hour hotswap deal. No paperwork. Very smooth!! There was one catch, though: The 48 hour hotswap is not really a 48 hour hotswap in the sense that you will have a new scanner within 48 hours. Acer will send out a new scanner within 48 hours. That's what it is. This is still FAR better than having to wait for weeks and weeks for an ordinary warranty claim to come through. I also have to pay for the shipping of the defective scanner to Acer. But they only wanted the scanner itself back. I get to keep the film holders, cables, etc... When making that 48 hour hotswap Acer also needs credit card info. Just in case you don't return the old scanner... I hope this solves my little problem... I'll let you know when the new scanner arrives. Tom
Re: filmscanners: Acer Scanwit 2720 problems
Hi Peter, >If you haven't already seen it, take a look at this site: >http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Review.htm Seen that one. That's one of the rewievs that made me buy this scanner. I'm getting nowhere near his results. However, I don't know if his images are a result of hours of curve fitting and knob tweaking. I haven't contacted Acer, yet as I decided to test the new driver software first. The results are slightly better with the new software but still not good at all. I'll call Acer tomorrow and see if that 48hour hot-swap warranty thing really is its money's worth. Tom
RE: filmscanners: Acer Scanwit 2720 problems
Hi, Oops... I think my first mail got out twice. >I sent it back and got a Nikon LS30. The thing you should >realise is that scanning film is a lot harder than scanning >a print - there's a *lot* less data in a print than on the >film. Which is why film scanners have a very high optical resolution. >You ought to be able to get 10x8 quality out of the Scanwit >since it is (I think) 2700dpi. You may need to do some >sharpening after scanning though. The ScanWit is 2700dpi optically. >Have you tried Vuescan? Yep. Same sad result. After posting my mail on the list I surfed the web for a while. On the Dutch Acer site I found un updated version of the driver software. For some wierd reason it is unavailable from the American site... Anyway, if someone is interested in updating their software here is the link: ftp://ftp.acercm.nl/scanner/drivers/2700dpi/mirafoto2.zip The new software seems to give a lot better results with slide film. With print film the results are the same (at least with the only trouble-picture I tried). I have yet to compare the new scans against the slides. I will do that tomorrow. Tom
filmscanners: Acer Scanwit 2720 problems
Hi List, I'm experiencing some problems with the Acer ScanWit I bought two weeks ago. Before I call Acer I figured that it might be wise to check if others have the same problems I have... When scanning negs (Fuji Realla, NPC, and NPS) the results are OK -- not excellent but not bad either. The scans are a little cooler in color compared to the prints. A few scans were directly bad. A picture of a Pacific beach on an overcast day showed the grey sand rendered with a green tone to it. When scanning slides (Fuji Sensia 100) the results are directly BAD! All slides have a cool, bluish, cast to them. Especially one taken in the twilight is very blue. Not just a cast! A significant blue bias. All of my test slides does not have that large a contrast range in them. There is maybe 1-2 stops difference in exposure between the lightest and the darkest parts. Yet, on the scan the "darker" parts come out almost black, whereas the "lighter" parts come out mid tone. I have a slide that's purposely underexposed one stop. The darker parts of that one comes out nearly black with a very blue cast. I compared all the slide scans to the picture I get when viewing the slide on a Kodak projector. I've tried using both the bundled Photoshop/Mirascan driver and Ed Hamrick's VueScan (with *several* different settings). Same sad results. The reason why I bought this scanner was that I've heard a lot of great things about it. On mailing lists and Internet reviews it seems to rule. But this far I'm not too impressed with it. Do I just have a bad scanner or is it a general problem? If it is indeed a problem, what's the solution? I expect to get at least the same quality scan as when I scan a 4x6 print on a flatbed scanner. Am I expecting too much? Thanks, Tom
filmscanners: Acer Scanwit 2720 problems
Hi List, I'm experiencing some problems with the Acer ScanWit I bought two weeks ago. Before I call Acer I figured that it might be wise to check if others have the same problems I have... When scanning negs (Fuji Realla, NPC, and NPS) the results are OK -- not excellent but not bad either. The scans are a little cooler in color compared to the prints. A few scans were directly bad. A picture of a Pacific beach on an overcast day showed the grey sand rendered with a green tone to it. When scanning slides (Fuji Sensia 100) the results are directly BAD! All slides have a cool, bluish, cast to them. Especially one taken in the twilight is very blue. Not just a cast! A significant blue bias. All of my test slides does not have that large a contrast range in them. There is maybe 1-2 stops difference in exposure between the lightest and the darkest parts. Yet, on the scan the "darker" parts come out almost black, whereas the "lighter" parts come out mid tone. I have a slide that's purposely underexposed one stop. The darker parts of that one comes out nearly black with a very blue cast. I compared all the slide scans to the picture I get when viewing the slide on a Kodak projector. I've tried using both the bundled Photoshop/Mirascan driver and Ed Hamrick's VueScan (with *several* different settings). Same sad results. The reason why I bought this scanner was that I've heard a lot of great things about it. On mailing lists and Internet reviews it seems to rule. But this far I'm not too impressed with it. Do I just have a bad scanner or is it a general problem? If it is indeed a problem, what's the solution? I expect to get at least the same quality scan as when I scan a 4x6 print on a flatbed scanner. Am I expecting too much? Thanks, Tom
