RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Using Photoshop as the viewer for Vue scan
Herm wrote: How do I do this? Larry writes ... It's under PrefsExternal Viewer (on Windows). You might have to plug in the path to Photoshop.exe. I'm not sure. Check with Ed. I found if I put the 'directory path\photoshp.exe' in the Vuescan dialog, Photoshop would work properly ... it would instead prompt me to open a new file. The best method is to make sure Photoshop is associated with .TIF and .JPG files. If some other program stole your association, re-association is different depending on the version of Windows. If W98, then shift+right-clik the file and your should see open with ... with Win2000, simply right-clik the file and you should see open with. In both cases both dialogs will allow you to always open with whatever program you choose. Do this for both JPGs and TIFs ... you may have to re-boot for it to take effect. But why do you want to open Photoshop immediately? It's a much faster work flow to scan all your images ... I use ACDSee ... ... but ACDSee is not color space savvy(?) A Vuescan TIF embedded with Ektaspace, even AdobeRGB, would look like sh_t ... how do you get your colors right? If PS is already open, it is very quick to get the color right by sending small JPGs to Photoshop as the viewer. shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: Autoexposure problem in Vuescan
Rob writes ... ... The most frustrating thing is that the preview image looks fine, but I can't find a setting which makes the final image look anything like the preview. ... It could be the white balance setting for white% ... try a higher setting which will allow more white pixels for the given gamma setting. hth(?) ... shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: brandnew user queries
David writes ... Yes, it's the polonium version I'm interested in. Search the internet for staticmaster ... BTW ... good choice for going with Vuescan ... archive the raw scans. Presumably, you are considering the Photoshop upgrade from LE to full ... I cannot imagine being without the 16bit tools. shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: NIKON LS 4000 AND D1X
Pat writes ... Keep in mind that just because a sensor is smaller than 24x36mm doesn't make your lenses obsolete. It makes them telephoto, ... I think a better description of how a small CCD uses a 35mm lens, is as if you used a 'doubler' or 'tripler' with the lens. What you get is the lens resolution associated with only using part of its field-of-view. Most would claim this is not a significant issue with Nikkor lenses and only 6M pixels. I also cannot imagine a smaller CCD benefitting from all the light gathering ... I rather imagine the D1 firmware compensating. It would be intersting to compare the EXIF acquisition data with the appropriate exposure settings for the same lens and 35mm film. shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: brandnew user queries
Gregory writes ... Has anyone tried the new air blowers ... They consist of a small pump and a fancy spray can. You pump the cans up when you need more air. Would the air not be dry and might these spray stuff on negatives and slides or might they be OK? ... The air wouldn't be absolutely dry, but it would NOT be 'wet' either. They actually sound like a good idea ... providing more air pressure than a squeeze-bulb, and avoiding some of the problems with the stuff that can come out of pressurized can dusters. Do you have a manufacturer for them?? shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: Vuescan trials
Dana writes ... The reason that either set of mask values gave acceptable images is that 1. The image you were scanning was reasonably balanced (had good whites and blacks), and 2. You had selected (probably) White balance in the color tab, as well as Auto white point and Auto black point. ... Yes ... I figured something like that was going on. As it turns out, the R,G,B mask values all should be near 1.0. Ed's response to the newsgroup implies the scanner, if 'negative' film is indicated, will boost the exposure for blue and green. Vuescan users should note the difference in mask values if the non-exposed film is not measured. If not measured properly, I imagine all other white balance options will not work properly. shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: ReSize, ReSample or ReScan ?
Austin writes ... ... The Piezography driver can use (meaning you get improved results from) data up to around 720 pixels/inch. It really diminishes after 420 though, ... Diminishes according to what? ... getting out your lupe??? Are you ever going to convince us you can see the difference between 2 black pixels spaced 0.0067 and 0.0048 inches apart??? Put these dot pairs on paper, ... hold it 10 away, and then tell us you can see the white space between. All I said was ... if you put criteria in accordance with what average people can see on you image resolutions, then there isn't much point in pushing beyond 300ppi. shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: ReSize, ReSample or ReScan ?
Gordon writes ... ... I have read in several places (including this list) that certain printers are set for lack of a better word or optimized to certain value of DPI. ... Modern printers are definitely approaching fine resolutions. If you put criteria like is common to fine B/W prints on today's printers ... say, 7 lines/mm, ... which equates to ~180 pixel pairs per inch, ... then you realize there isn't much point in sending finer than 300 pixels/in resolutions to your printer. shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: Nikon Scan VS Negative dynamic range
Mike writes ... ... ... Nikon Scan and VueScan apply different mappings depending on settings (slide, negative, ... Yes ... but they do this after acquiring the raw RGB, both of which are very similar and which is a linear CCD acquisition ... anything non-linear can be applied after that, and before being written to a file or application ... but you better have all the RGB data ... and 12bits is necessary to capture 11 f-stops. shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: Nikon Scan VS Negative dynamic range
Tony writes ... On Wed, 5 Sep 2001 23:29:34 -0400 Austin Franklin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Mapping the input data into 8 bit values has nothing to do with the dynamic range of the A/D data Arrgh... not this again! :-) Actually it does, ... ... Correct!!! ... linearity is the keyword, that is, the scanner's driver cannot map the CCD to RGB data non-linearily without losing information. The only method, without losing info, is to map the linear CCD to greater RGB depth. And if you take a the math a bit further you realize 12bit depth is all that is required to cover the most extreme optical densities (... altho there's nothing wrong with having a couple of bits of headroom, as long as the scanner had a true ability to scan OD=3.3 ...) shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: tiff compression
Paul writes ... what do people think about saving my raw scans as LZW tiff's? I am making 48 bit 6x7 scans on Nikon 8000, and they are over 500Mb each, so lossless compression would save a hell of a lot of space, ... The LZW compression will not save you much space because it depends on predictable pixel values (e.g., a lot of white, or some other color, space) ... you save 15% at the most, but admittedly 15% of 500Mb is a lot. Also, for catalogue/ magazine use what sort of RGB file size should I supply, something like a 12 print at 300dpi is still 75Gb uncompresses, which seems big for most magazines My calculation is more like 39Mb for a 24bit RGB, and 78Mb for 48bits. Still, I believe you should be providing 24bit RGB with your working space embedded ... and let the magazine convert to their press's printer (CMYk) space. It is interesting to note ... many stock photo houses will not accept anything smaller than 50Mb (24bit RGB). shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: Sharpness of color chrome vs color negative.
Tony writes ... On Thu, 30 Aug 2001 08:04:39 -0400 Austin Franklin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: What do people have to say about the differences in sharpness between same ASA, same brand chrome vs color negative film? My experience shows that the chrome films are not as sharp as the negative films. I think I would agree, though it wasn't the case a few years ago, when ISO100 slide seemed to be much sharper than col.neg. I think both have improved, but neg has improved more. There isn't much in it though, ... Nikon's book Scanning Essentials (which came with my original LS-10) implies the reversal process for chrome processing has a tendency to reduce the definition and increase the contrast (reduce the latitude). They describe the reversal process as an intermediate step, when all steps have a tendency to increase contrast and lose definition. It goes on to say (keep in mind this text is 7 years old and doesn't take into account new films) ... In general, color negative films have the potential to scan with better results than transparencies, because they have a flatter gamma (lower contrast) and the Dmax is relatively low. Also, the mask colors help to improve color reproduction, the grain size has been diminished for the relative film speed, and the emulsions are considerably sharper ... The text does acknowledge the obvious benefits of trannies, as well as many applications which demand slides. shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 back from service and STILL bands...
Rob wonders ... Moreno wrote: I've also had some banding issues, but if I scan 14 bit, at either 2000 or 4000 dpi, with 1x multisampling, the images are clean. ... I wonder if this is a new variant of the jaggies issue from the earlier scanners? It would at least be part of the troubleshooting effort to determine if the same banding occurs with Vuescan(?) shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: Slightly OT -- Apple Studio Monitor Brightness
Alan writes ... Yes, so you'd think. But the manual is entirely innocent of any instructions on adjusting brightness, and the monitor itself has no sliders or knobs, just a button depicting what appears to be a brightness logo (a sun with rays extending outward), but which, when pressed summons a contrast but no brightness control. Surely there are Mac-ers on this list. Or is there another forum to which I should take this question? You can try the colorsync list, or any others offered at the Apple wwwsite ... http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo shAf :o) - Original Message - From: shAf [EMAIL PROTECTED] The instructions ask you to adjust the 'hardware' brightness and contrast. I'm not familiar with the Apple monitors, but all monitors should provide a means for adjusting the B C ...
Re: filmscanners: Slightly OT -- Apple Studio Monitor Brightness
Alan writes ... ... ..., I've ordered ColorVision's Photocal Spyder. Problem is (and this crops up in Adobe Gamma, too), the instructions tell you to adjust the monitor brightness. ..., but the only monitor control I can find is a software contrast control ... The instructions ask you to adjust the 'hardware' brightness and contrast. I'm not familiar with the Apple monitors, but all monitors should provide a means for adjusting the B C (and numurous other attibutes) via either knobs or buttons on the front of the monitor ... consult your monitor's manual ... return all the software values to their factory defaults and start again. hth ... shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: Beginner Questions
Chris writes ... ... ... 1) I had a dense set of negatives that I scanned using Vuescan's default values with the exception of inputting a 3 as a value for the long exposure time. This gave me a cropped file of around 14 MB, whereas with the default exposure I'm getting cropped files from around 95 - 110 MB. Is my long exposure a short exposure? Changing the exposure all by itself will not affect the file size ... something else must be going on? Check the actual number of pixels with your image editing software. Check the raw (uncropped) scan too. 2) Why are cropped scans (again, using default values) often larger files than uncropped scans? This wouldn't make sense. As long as we're talking about Vuescan, make sure we know what cropping means. Traditionally it means a smaller area of the original image, but with VS it also means any number of things done to the image after the raw (uncropped) scan. 3) Does rotating a scan in Photoshop have a destructive effect on the integrity of the scan? ... Not if the rotation is 90degrees. If the rotate is something other the image will soften. shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: reply regarding Sony 420 G monitor
Pat writes ... ... Someone had asked about the Sony 420 monitor's ability to adjust color channels from the front panel. I answered that my 420GS doesn't but I just noticed that with my new PC, my new video card allows that capability. ... It is hard to imagine this Sony monitor not having the ability to tweak the individual guns (... is this some type of consumer model? ...). The adjustment is usually in the context of manually adjusting the temperature or whitepoint (... e.g., 5500, 6500, etc ...). It is claimed (... probably not noticeably ...), that adjusting the hardware is better than letting software adjust the color look-up-table (ref: Real World PS6) shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: Matrox and Monitor standby
Colin writes ... Rob Geraghty wrote: I have had interuupt problems caused by the SCSI controller and the graphics card insisting on sharing the same interrupt. They are on the same interrupt (11) in my computer, but Windows just does that. They are under the control of PCI IRQ Steering, so it may not matter. You may want to check you mobo's manual with regard to which PCI slots need share IRQs. For example, on my computer the AGP slot shares an IRQ with PCI#1, and the 4 5 slots also share an IRQ ... and Windows cannot do a thing about it. Several types of cards do not like sharing interupts, SCSI controllers being one (... try a different slot ...), and also older NICs. shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: Colour fix problem
Ian Boag writes ... At 16:11 9/06/01 -0700, you wrote: 1. use the eyedropper to sample a midtone that contains the color cast (I used a point on the MIG's fuselage between the wing and the number) 2. fill a new layer with the sampled color and invert the layer (imageadjustinvert) 3. change the layers blend mode to 'color' and reduce opacity to suit (~50%) Bob Wright That was excellent - I feel a bit dumb not thinking of that myself. ... Cheers Ian Boag I was just made aware of another article, part of Bruce Fraser's at CreativePro.com ... http://www.creativepro.com/author/home/40.html ...specifically on this very subject ... Out of Gamut: Color-Correcting Photographs in Photoshop http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/13486.html shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: Scanning 101...A basic question...
Robert writes ... In performing the scan, of negatives, to produce the raw scan aren't scanners/software varying the color channel exposure to remove the negative mask? Even if this exposure variation is based on some sort of measurement of the film done by the scanner, it represents profiling in the general sense. The general sense of the profile is gamma, whitepoint, and gamut. What do these characteristics have to do with measuring and subtracting the specific shade of the mask? Not that I know specifically how its done, but professionals have been doing it for a lot longer than there have been profiles. shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: OT advertising footers
Lynn Allen always includes ... ... Get 250 color bus_ness cards for FRE_! http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/ ... I have absolute no objection to such footers ... quite innocuous really, but I thought you ought to be made aware ... my e-mail client checks for keywords (which I crippled above), and all your e-mail shows up flagged in hot pink. I choose it to be flagged, but many others will configure their software to send such e-mails straight to trash directory. I do realize you must have little control over the footers, but I still thought you should know. shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: Was New Nikon performance, now dust
Dave writes ... It would be useful if you'd do a 2500 dpi and 2700 dpi scan of the same bits of film, to demonstrate the effect you're talking about. Regards, Ed Hamrick ... Or I should say, can someone tell me how to make the files as small as possible without destroying the inherent grain patterns? Simply scan at full res, and then crop a 400x400 pixel area which is representative of what you are trying to show or describe. Save as 8/10 quality JPEG and attach. shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: Infrared scan
Rob writes ... I just tried scanning a slide and outputting a colour TIFF and an IR one. It was very educational. Any sort of mark, scratch or dust spot is utterly black in the IR scan. Some of the image is also visible as is some of the grain, which probably explains why the image is softened by ICE. Exactly ... and the softening can be obvious with the Nikonscan version of ICE. Vuescan's algorithm, on the other hand, turned on dust removal only in the region of what the IR image indicated as total opacity (black). I remember being amazed with Ed's algorithm in the later versions of v.6 ... BUT, it seems to me someone complained about Vuescan's clean function again softening in early versions of v.7. I believe Ed admitted as much and promised a fix. Ed? shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
Dave writes ... The old scanners never did have problems with excessive dust and scratches ... that is, no more than any other scanner. shAf :o) ... my LS-30 without ICE compared to scans on my Agfa T-2500 are quite different in terms of dust and scratches. The Nikon sees stuff that the Agfa does not, quite a bit of stuff in fact. ... Be fair! ... is the extra stuff the Nikon sees ONLY dust scratches? Derek I both recognize the problem with Nikons, dust, scratches and grain being the light source. Its characteristics may be something to avoid, or may be a preference. As we attributed soft and hard images in the past to diffused and point source enlargers, either was a preference. It is also true, with post-scan software, it is easier to make a hard image soft, than it is to make a soft image hard ... but I'll admit removing dust and scratches is a pain in the _ss! shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
Derek writes ... In a sense you could say that the Nikon scanners do add dust and scratches! To be exact any dust and scratches that are there are emphasised because of the LED light source that they use. To say the Nikons add dust and scratches simply because the light source emphasizes them is misleading. If you have a problem with dust and scratches, then you may indeed be unsatisfied with your scans ... but it isn't the scanner's fault, and in fact, the Nikons provide the best solution ... IR dust recognition. Afterall, did we ever blame enhanced Tri-X grain on the point source enlarger we preferred for sharp detail and increased contrast? shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: 24bit - 48bit dilemma Work flow suggestions
Ramesh writes ... ... This is about 24bits 48 bits: Scanner can deliver 36 bits; So I am in a dilemma whether to store the scanner output in 48bit TIFF file or 24bit TIFF file. ... a) Store 36BIT Scanner output in 24 bit TIFF file. Edit this 24bit TIFF file in 8-bit channel in PS. This is easy solution. b) Store 36BIT Scanner output in 48 bit TIFF file. Edit this 48bit TIFF file in 16-bit channel in PS. Then convert 48bit TIFF file to 24 bits. See below ... This is about WorkFlow: I use Win2000. Reason for using BruceRGB is its recommended in Real World of Photoshop. Let me know if its a good choice. RWPS for version 6 would imply differently, but which Bruce chooses to use is dependent on the scanner. He implies he developed BruceRGB in the context of poor scanners, but has since switched to AdobeRGB with newer scanners. If the scan needed a severe adjustment, he would claim BruceRGB is the better 8bit editing space. If the scan is closer to right on ... his preference is AdobeRGB. In the context of PS v.6, I'd suggest you buy his most recent version of RWPS ... there is a lot of good information about how Adobe finally got Photoshop right. In the meantime, you can visit is online articles at: http://www.creativepro.com/author/home/40.html specifically ... http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/9155.html http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/7627.html http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/8582.html ... a) Scan using BruceRGB in VS, Copy to CD1. This I can use for re-editing provided my editing skills improove. b) Edit in BruceRGB using Adobe PS. Copy the ouput to CD2. c) Convert from BruceRGB to sRGB. And convert from TIFF to JPG and store in CD3. My own preference is to assume I do NOT want to scan the film again, and I therefore scan full-res and to a 64bit Vuescan TIFF (includes IR). My preference for a highbit color space happens to be EktaspaceRGB, but that is a subjective preference ... objectively you should scan highbits into a wide gamut (PhotoproRGB, EktaspaceRGB, Adobe Wide ... Photopro and Ektaspace being the better editing spaces). My other preference is to eventually end up in AdobeRGB and I prefer to keep all images in the same area and archived to the same CD. my US$0.02 ... shAf
RE: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
Dave writes ... ... Specifically, I'd like to find out whether scans performed *without* ICE on the new scanners have the same problems with excessive dust and scratches as on the old scanners, ... The old scanners never did have problems with excessive dust and scratches ... that is, no more than any other scanner. shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: Device Profile in VueScan
Maris writes ... From: Ramesh Kumar_C [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Maris V. Lidaka, wrote: | Based on your statement, following is my understanding. | | Minolta will have provided a Profile file, which will be laying some where | in my PC. Vuescan will use this profile when Device RGB is selected in | Color | Color Space. That is correct. Vuescan is not aware of any association any scanner has with any device profile located anywhere on your computer. When you choose device RGB it is up to you to find (or create) that profile and associate it with the scanned RGB values. Otherwise, if you choose one of the other color spaces, Vuescan will convert from the device profile (as determined by Ed Hamrick and built into Vuescan) to that color space. If you choose device RGB, you need to be careful of whether the media chosen is negative, positive or image, before you will be able to appropriately associate (assign) some device profile you may have. I believe image and slide film is straight-forward (assuming you have a manufacturer's device profile), ... negative film is not straight-forward because the RGB values are handled by Vuescan's own profile for the scanner. (my understanding goes back to experience and correspondence with early versions of VS v.7 ... has anything changed?) shAf :o) shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: Device Profile in VueScan
Maris writes ... I am not sure this has changed but I think so - perhaps Ed will answer this. It may have changed when he (not too long ago) added Device Profile option to the color space the menu for this very reason. I believe it picks up the scanner's color profile selection because I had set my Nikon LS-30 for ColorMatch and Vuescan for Device Profile and scanned a negative, and in some fashion I saw that the image was profiled in ColorMatch (I don't have PhotoShop so I'm somewhat at a loss to check for sure). I believe if you would have had Photoshop, you would have found no profile had been associated with the scanned image with device RGB chosen. (How did you determine I saw that the image was profiled in ColorMatch?) The RGB values are intended to belong to the device, but no profile is embedded (note the color space option does NOT refer to any profile ... the option is device RGB). I believe Ed added this option so that, with Photoshop, you could then assign the appropriate profile ... for example a device profile which may have shipped with your Nikon. You could then properly convert to a working space of your choice. However, I have found this doesn't work with negatives, because when subtracting the mask Vuescan unavoidably touches the RGB values with Ed's built-in device profile for the scanner ... therefore you can no longer use the Nikon device profile because it is different than the one Ed built-in. You CAN use the Nikon device profile if you scanned a slide because Ed's profile doesn't come into play. You almost have to have Photoshop to properly play with and evaluate this device RGB option. If you are using a different non-profile savvy image editor, you are probably better off choosing sRGB in Vuescan. shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: VueScan Question
Rob writes ... Walter Bushell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is it necessary to rescan with infrared every time, IOW, when doing multiple scans of the same film is it necessary to do an IR scan every time? If you want to have the cleaning features in Vuescan work, you need the IR channel. Bu there's no need to rescan a frame. Scan it once, produce a raw file then crop from the raw file. Unlike Nikons, doesn't this scanner insist the IR channel scan separately from the RGB scan ... ie, a 2nd pass. I thought the original post was stating, if he wanted 16x RGB passes, it also scanned the IR 16x. There would indeed be no need for this. shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: Enlargements Film Sacnners
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes ... ... we shoot in very poor light. ... Our question is will our scanner provide the ability to crop and enlarge clearly our negatives (say to 11x14), ... My own feeling is ... to enlarge clearly to 11 x 14, you need the entire 35mm film frame ... especially for fast films and because this scanner will tend to enhance the grain. I have, however, seen good results from the included GEM software, but I believe an 11 by 14 might approach good or excellent quality, rather than fine. Since you will get the scanner anyway (I cannot suggest a better one), you'll be able to evaluate your need for another lens. shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: Size differences, JPEG
writes ... Have you noticed that JPEGed flatbed image files are considerably smaller than the same pictures scanned with your filmscanner? ... This could be due to a couple of factors. If there is any tendency for the flatbed to produce a softer image it will compress to a smaller JPEG. Also, film scanners will tend to enhance the film grain, which would be absent in a high resolution print produced with analog methods. The enhanced grain would also increase the JPEG file size. shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: Nikon Coolscan LS4000 - Peppery scans with Fuji chromes
Tan writes ... I seem to have bad luck with scanners. Thank God I bought this locally so I am going to exchange it tomorrow first thing in the morning. Please document the problem by scanning a problem slide with the old unit and its replacement, and then report back to us. On the face of simply examining your wwweb posted example, it is difficult to believe it is the scanner (... the peppering is too random ... location and size ...), and especially when you say it appears to be film specific. By all means ... exchange the scanner. If the retailer accepts it, it would be the best way to troubleshoot it being a scanner problem. If not, I'd begin playing with other slides, and other Fuji slides which have been developed elsewhere. shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: which space?
pg writes ... ... when I get raw scans from a scanner.. eg Nikon 4000, they don't come in any 'space', right? Yes no ... there is no color space embedded, but every bitmap of RGB values belong to a color space ... you only need figure out which one. so should I assign (convert) them to a particular one? isn't that wacking the data right off the bat? Assigning will not change the RGB data ... it is the method of choice for finding which color space your raw RGB scans belong to. PS6 will allow you to assign color spaces with the preview turned on. Simply go thru all color spaces on your computer, and make note of which color spaces make your scanned RGB look correct. Hopefully, you'll end up with a couple to experiment more with. Essentially, you want to experiment with many scanned images while picking the correct space ... assuming the correct space exist on your computer ... and I'm assuming Nikon gave you one! You will be judging primarily color saturation, but if the reds look good, then inspect green blue. I would assume Nikon provided you with the correct device profile, and hopefully the assignment should prove obvious. Not having any experience with your scanner, you should have a collection of Nikon device profiles, which you should probably make sure they're in the correct directory so that PS can find them (... if they're in a Nikon directory, then create copies in your winNT\...\color directory (... shucks ... I'm not on my NT computer ... search for *.icm files to know exactly where the 'color' directory is ... important: do NOT move the Nikon ICM files, create copies!!! ...) ... anyway ... assigning one of these Nikon profiles should be on the mark. (Hint ... I have no experience (yet!) with Nikonscan 3 (... btw ... let us know if you are using Vuescan ... advice would be different! ...), but scanning with CMS off with Nikonscan 2.5 still delivered a gamma inappropriate for what should be raw data ... you need to set application gamma to '1'. If you are using Vuescan, assigning one of the Nikon ICM profiles works for slides only (... I may have some additional info if you are using negatives with Vuescan ...) if so, which one are most folks using - Adobe RGB or Ektaspace? or another? Most are using AdobeRGB as the working space, but you shoudn't assign this space. You should assign the appropriate device color space and then convert to AdobeRGB. This will wack your data ... but it is necessary if you want to work with AdobeRGB, and you do NOT want your device space to be your working space. Bruce Fraser has some excellent advice here for scanner space reccommendations: http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/8582.html Personally ... I use Vuescan with my LS-2000 and with negatives. I have a device space for assigning, but it isn't better than simply asking Vuescan for a specific space. I choose to archive and work initially with 12bits in Ektaspace, but these are eventually converted to 8bits and AdobeRGB. I am however anxious to try Nikonscan v.3 ... but it won't be 'til after I've moved lockstock to Newfoundland in July. shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: OK, Vuescan is driving me nuts
Lynn writes ... Rob wrote: Am I the only one who has problems with the crop outline in Vuescan? clip ... I'm probably being a bit of a Philistine here, but I've never let Vuescan be the Last Call for my images-- I suppose I am with Lynn ... afterall, whether you use Vuescan to crop, or not, it still scans the entire frame, simply delivering what's within the area to the cropped file. Lynn I would suggest much better editing tools are available after the scan ... save yourself a headache and use them. (... which, of course, isn't to say Ed should be getting your feedback ... if VS offers area cropping is should be relatively easy to use ...) shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: OK, Vuescan is driving me nuts
Jeffrey writes ... I suppose I am with Lynn ... afterall, whether you use Vuescan to crop, or not, it still scans the entire frame, simply delivering what's within the area to the cropped file. The problem is the little slivers of black border that are left cause it to calculate the scan exposure incorrectly. To avoid this, I have to crop the image ever so slightly and Vuescan's cropping tool makes this inconvenient. Wouldn't the Vuescan buffer variable solve this problem ... leastwize, I thought that it was its purpose ... set it once ... don't worry about the exposure again(?) shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: Stellar ghosts and Nikon Coolscan IVED (LS40)
Harry writes ... Yes, it makes a difference... I did some further testing last night. I turned the slide 90 degrees, and sure enough the ghost rotated 90 degrees in repect to the stars (that is if you keep the orientation of the stars fixed) = so clearly due to the scanner and not the slide. To me this implies the problem is with respect to the film ... a problem with the scanner, yes ... but the problem rotates with the film. If I were to guess, and try something different ... I would snip off the sprocket holes ... possibly all those edges are the source for the internal relections(???) shAf :o)
filmscanners: the Lehto effect (was Stellar ghosts ...)
Harry writes ... On Fri, 11 May 2001, shAf wrote: To me this implies the problem is with respect to the film ... The slides are framed. The ghost does not rotate with the film (it rotates in respect to the stars) - am I choosing the right words here? ... Ok! ... I thought after I wrote I may have misunderstood. Thanx especially for bringing this phenomenon to light (so to speak), and troubleshooting it properly ... and since you have duplicated a very similar effect with another scanner ... it becomes a general phenomenon we all should be aware of (... altho the effect is probably insignificant for normally exposed films ...). Still ... as general as the effect might be, we might refer to it after this as the Lehto effect (... just tell us how to pronounce it G ...) But clarify for us ... (1) the effect is always outward from the middle ... and perpendicular to how the film is scanned? ... or is it always on a specific side? ... (2) Are you scanning slides or negatives??, and can you duplicate this problem with the other film type? ... (3) Can you duplicate the effect with a pinhole?? shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: Book on Image Editing/Colour Correction
Dale asks ... Do you have the ISBN number for real World PhotoShop 6? Thank you 0-201-72199-6 shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: Book on Image Editing/Colour Correction
Ramesh writes ... I am novice in Scanning and Image Editing/Colour Correction (Using PS). I have little/confusing theoritical knowledge about RGB, gamma and colourspace:-). I am new to Photoshop too.I am thinking of buying a book which concentrates more on the Image Editing/ Colour Correction (Using PS) and has little theory about RGB, gamma and colourspace. The book has to be practical(with illustrations) and should give steps to do PS. The book you want is Bruce Fraser's Dave Blatner's Real World Photoshop 6 ... very readable and in depth coverage of color spaces and color correction. I browsed in amazon.com and read the reviews ... Inside Photo Shop 6, I have no experience with this one. Adobe Photoshop 6.0 for Photographers, Martin Evening is very readable, lots of good technique, but doesn't go as far as RW PS6 for explaining color spaces and color adjustment. Professional Photoshop 6: The Classic Guide to Color Correction Dan Margulis isn't as readable, but this would be your reference for corrections and adjustments in a CMYK working space (not RGB!!!) myUS$0.02 ... shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: Paintshop Pro
Rob writes ... ... I was trying to remember the neatest features which PSP 7 has over Photoshop. Two which are extremely useful are: 1) The ability to rotate an image a fraction of a degree ... Not true ... I just pulled up an old image with a non-level horizon, and with the ruler tool drew a line across the horizon. Now Image=rotate_canvas=arbitrary indicates the exact rotation necessary to make the horizon horizontal ... to a hundredth of a degree! shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: VueScan Long Exposure Pass
Steve writes ... OK ed I've coughed upo my $40 as I can't get Siverfast to behave but I am less than convinced that long exposure isn't a useful option. I've redone my tests and you can see the results at (refresh if necessary) : ... You can keep your existing installation of Vuescan (with long exposure) if you simply register it once you have the Reg# ... I believe you can simply enter the number in the help=about dialog box. Regarding Ed's present fix for over-saturated reds, I haven't noticed this problem ... but I use color space options which may undersaturate all colors (which is ok with me), but I also notice you are scanning E6 ... so the reds upgrade doesn't refer to you, and you can keep your current version. Also, with regard to long exposure, keep in mind it requires a second pass and perfect registration with the first. The ghosting exhibited at your wwwsite may be because it registered properly for one scan and not another(?) shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: Scan for television screen
Maris writes ... My son needs some photos scanned for display on an American television (NOT a monitor). TVs I am aware have screens measured in lines per inch but not dpi. Question: What dpi should my resulting image be for display on a 21 TV? It may depend on how you display the image on an NTSC monitor. For example, if I send my 2nd video out to my TV, it somehow compensates for the TV having fewer lines vertical, and what should be square is actually square. On the other hand, if pixels were converted to lines, then the TV would be missing top and bottom lines. I remember the Amiga which was designed for NTSC having a pixel resolution of 640 by 400, but since a normal TV's aspect ratio is 4:3 like a computer monitor, I believe you should scan 640 by 480 ... if this provides too many vertical lines for a TV, then change its image size to 640 by 400 with the keep aspect ratio turned off ... this should make squares true on a TV ... hopefully. HTH ... shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: LS4000 and sharpness
Asael writes ... ... Considering that a 6X9 frame is so much larger than a 35mm, I wonder whether the LS8000 will have a major problem getting the entire frame in focus. ... Not a problem ... the lens don't work from the center outward, the optics move with the scan. shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: Nikonscan3.0 and LSIII
Ed writes ... In a message dated 4/27/2001 7:43:30 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I found by accident that there is a huge difference between 48-bit 2700 ppi scans on my LS-30 (where that should have been more than enough) and 64-bit, 2700 ppi settings. I looked at the code, and I think I can see the problem. I've added this to my list of things to fix. Thanks for finding this. Not wanting to reply with an obvious observation, I would have thought picking the 64bit option simply enabled scanning the IR, and there for Hersch's improved dust removal. Can you elaborate on what you found? Is this a problem with the LS-30 only? shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: LS4000 and sharpness
Ed writes ... In a message dated 4/28/2001 6:39:14 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This raises an interesting question. Is there any way to set the focus location in vuescan? It focuses in the center of the scan region. I'll look into this some more when I get a loaner LS-4000 from Nikon, hopefully in the next week or so. It would seem a user could crop a small rectangle and ask for a manual focus ... then crop preferentially and scan with automatic focus disabled(?) I've never been able to verify if this works ... even while my LS-2000 goes through the motions, the manual focus number doesn't update. This is one of the few features I like about Nikonscan ... an ability to zoom in, ask for a preview, ask for a focus, and ask again for a preview. You get to realize visual and numeric feedback, and the preview scans take only seconds. The visual feedback and previews aren't all that necessary ... you simply learn to trust the focusing, and I expect it would add considerable programming. The numeric feedback IS very useful, allowing you to realize differences from one area of the film and another, and therefore to average the numbers (or pick a preference) and enter the number in the manual focus dialog box. shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: LS4000 and sharpness
Tom Scales writes ... But should you really have to do that? Isn't that adding a lot of manual intervention to compensate for a design flaw? I'm really interested in the LS4000, but I never have to go to this trouble with my SS4000. Was it a design flaw or a tradeoff? I won't claim to know for sure ... except to point out we've always been confronted with similar tradeoffs. The best enlargers have always offered diffused illumination or better contrast with point source illumination. However, to take best advantage of point source illumination and potential edge sharpness we needed better resolution. And then, we were confronted with a need for glass carriers because of the ^inherent^ loss of depth of focus (a law of physics). With regard to SS4000 vs LS-4000, there are analogies here. A choice of illumination, the optimum optics and a subsequent need for decreased depth-of-focus. For a buyer the question which remains is which type of illumination suits your exposures and films best. Independent of the need for IR, an educated guess would be, for negatives and better color gamut, you might opt for increased edge contrast and the Nikon (and flat film) ... but for an all around better solution, negatives or slides, the Polaroid. What remains is an A-B comparison for both print film and a slide, of the same 2mm area, Nikon vs Polaroid (... Tony? ...) my US$0.02 ... shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: Nikonscan3.0 and LSIII
Bob Shomler writes ... Ed made some changes to IR cleaning between Vuescan 6.7.5 and the 7.0 series. I find many instances of incomplete scratch cleaning from LS-30 in 7.x that are completely removed using 6.7.5. Still true with 7.0.14. ... ... I sent Ed a note a month ago describing this along with an example. ... It seems to me Ed also made a change during that period of versions, the result being his IR dust removal had absolutely no effect on areas of the image where no dust was present (no softening). Have you also compared those areas??? shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: Profiling negative films
Alan writes ... Due to the variation in mask on negative films from batch to batch and development to develope of individual rolls, a profile like is done with an IT-8 on slide film doesn't work too well. BUT it occurred to me on film scanners that do NOT have the ability to vary their exposure that perhaps profiling the IT-8 and then taking a RAW scan from VueScan through this profile and then back into VueScan might produce a more consistant image? I believe you may be of the mistaken notion that a profile is mostly about getting the color right. Certainly, this is a big part of it and makes subsequent correction easier ... however, the most important aspect of a scanner's device profile is the color gamut it is capable of, to a degree independent of getting the color right. The gamut is important because it isn't something we can easily evaluate ... not until we've put the RGB data through extreme adjustments and then finally to hardcopy do we ultimately realize the scanner didn't capture something that was on film. You have to present the scanner with a special color target for profiling its color capabilities. A Kodak Q60e is a good start, but I've heard you need something other than one of the dupes generally distributed. Still, if Ed properly measures the scanner's color capability and therefore makes RGB data representative of the color which was on film, then you are more than halfway there ... what remains is simply color correction. Which isn't to say Ed has a few issues to work out. Ed may have more to say, but I believe his evaluation of Q60 target results only in a matrix-type profile, which, generally is a simplification of a device profile. Still, what you pay for Vuescan doesn't warrant any more than a simplified determination of the scanner's color capabilities ... and what Ed provides, short of getting the color exactly right, will get you past 99% of every film exposure ... slide or negative. my US$0.02 ... shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: Profiling negative films
Ed writes ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ... Ed may have more to say, but I believe his evaluation of Q60 target results only in a matrix-type profile, which, generally is a simplification of a device profile. As long as the sensor is linear, there's nothing that can even theoretically be more accurate than a 3x3 matrix transform. This is what VueScan uses. ... Just to clarify ... does a simple 3x3 matrix profile allow for the capture of each R,G B channel having a different linearity? shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: Profiling negative films
Ed writes ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ... Just to clarify ... does a simple 3x3 matrix profile allow for the capture of each R,G B channel having a different linearity? I don't know what different linearity means. The 3x3 matrix transform assumes that each CCD channel's value is linearly related to the number of photons that hits it. So, there are no other issues which would affect the how well a linear matrix fits the characteristics of a scanner. I'd wonder if besides CCD linearity, there'd be other issues like how efficient a particular dye responds to illumination (linear?), or absorption effects within the film (linear?). Granted, either of these characteristics would most appropriately be associated with the film, and shouldn't be associated with the scanner's profile ... but I'd still wonder if there wasn't something else associated with the scanner which might affect the linearity of each channel(?) My curiosity stems from 2 profiles I have ... (1) a 3-D LUT supposedly associated with the scanner, and (2) a matrix simplification of this same profile. My experiments with #2 would imply it is very close to what Vuescan believes the scanner is capable of. Yet, profile #1 implies a much larger gamut(?) If I am to believe profile #1 is accurate (I am not confident of this), it would imply a simplification of it to a matrix-type results in a profile which is not accurate ... which implies something very different between a scanner's LUT-type profile and its simplified matrix-type conjugate. I can provide you with both of these profiles if you like. shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: Nikon 4000 ED Review Part III
Ed writes ... To Nikon's credit, they did support the LS-30 and LS-2000 in NikonScan 3.0. This not only makes for happier customers (and word of mouth from happy customers is a powerful marketing technique) but it also reduces their support load (assuming there are fewer bugs in NikonScan 3.0). I believe this is a significant move on Nikon's part for improving what is already a dismal relationships with its customers. It is significant because they didn't have to add SCSI support to this version of NS, originally intended for USB and firewire. I suspect the reason they didn't add GEM and ROC support to NikonScan 3.0 is because they would have had to pay ASF licensing royalties and because this would have given LS-30 and LS-2000 users less motivation to upgrade. If Nikon were clever, they'd charge for a software upgrade key to make GEM and ROC work with the LS-30 and LS-2000. ... I agree whole-heartedly here. The group of users of the last generation of Nikon hardware would have gladly paid for the upgrade, if they understood the issue of also having to pay ASF. Regarding a software key, thay can still offer an upgrade path to NS.v3.1 (... hint, hint ...) But, I may still continue using VS (... welcome back, btw ...) my US$0.02 ... shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 4000 ED Review Part III
Jules writes ... - Original Message - From: "shAf" [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... What's the deal with ICE^3 support for the new Nikon scanners only?? If Nikon offers NS3 for the LS-2000, why not offer the full deal??? i'd love to get ICE^3 for my LS-2000. it's typical for companies to try and force current owners to upgrade their hardware through this sort of methods. i wouldn't be surprised if someone doesn't hack a way to use ICE^3, since it's all just software anyway. I can imagine this tactic as well ... but they'd make more $$ and more people happy if they charged us for the NS3 upgrade ... but without more freedom with regard to scanning into more appropriate color space, I may just stay with Vuescan. my US$0.02 ... shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: Nikon D1x and LS4000
Mikael writes ... ... Conclusion; ED 4000 scanner resolution are not better then the Nikon D1X out at the sides and corner of the test pictures. (I think the camera have more resolution in some struktures) ... I have always been impressed with the D1, but never able to overcome the discomfort for paying so much money for a camera which would be worth only half as much a year later. Nikon provides absolutely no upgrade path for the D1 ... for example, upgradeable CCD resolution. Sorry for going off-topic ... but for the money, the Horseman "Digiflex" http://horsemanusa.com/toppage.html offers Nikon MF users the best digital upgrade path (... although still very spendy ...), and will use the lenses we all have invested in. shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: Nikon 4000 ED Review Part III
Dieder writes ... ... A few comments about NikonScan 3.0. --- I am impressed at the accuracy of the colour that is available now. ... Which color spaces are you scanning into? Which "wide gamut" color spaces does NS3 offer?? shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: Nikon 4000 ED Review Part III
Jack writes ... ... It is amazing what Digital ROC can do for under and over exposed images! Scenes with washed our color come alive! They don't have to be old and faded, but when they are, the color comes back better than the original. The color appears more accurate also. Try it. I think you'll like it. hello again Jack :o) What's the deal with ICE^3 support for the new Nikon scanners only?? If Nikon offers NS3 for the LS-2000, why not offer the full deal??? shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: Subject: 4000 ED and updating IEEE 1394 driver in 98 SE
Leo writes ... ... The problem i have,is that after having successfully installed the included firewire interface i have been unable to update the driver for 98SE. When i try to run 242975USA8.EXE,it says i have the wrong operating system for the update!!! Under my "general tab" in "system properties" it says my windows version is :MS win98 4.10.1998,which as far as i know is 98SE. ... It should explicidly imply Window 98 "Second Edition" 4.10.A ... and I cannot find any mention of firewire support for Windows 98 at the M$ knowledgebase :-( shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: Newbie Question LS2000 w/Vuescan
Tony writes ... ..., I am using my LS2000 with Vuescan and when I do a scan it does not load it into Photoshop. If Photoshop is not running it will start it up but the picture is not imported. ... It sounds like VS PS are set up properly, but you can try turning the "default viewer" off, and pointing VS specifically at Photoshop, including the path (e.g., "c:\program files\adobe\photoshop6\photoshp.exe") HTH ... shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: Kodak Q60 Calibration
Tony writes ... On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 21:50:19 -0500 Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I'll draw some flack from this you I can point you to, without recommending or disparaging the site, http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/calibration/kodak_q60/index.htm This looks fascinating. I don't see anything to disparage - it's only Timo's fundamentalist views on gamma I find odd, and they aren't an issue here. ... I won't disparage Timo's wwwsite either. No doubt he's trying to be helpful and there is good information there. Although somewhat off-topic, if you are at curious about the controversy regarding this guy, there is a very interesting and informational debate going on between Timo and Bruce Fraser at the Adobe "color managament" forum. It will give you insight into Timo's character and argumentative style, which is what most people have a problem with ... he is simply argumentative. Sorry I don't have a URL for the forum ... it seems to be broken this morning ... go to the Adobe wwwsite = tech support = forums = color management (you will have to register). There are two subjects, and you can spot them easy ... each have approximently 50 posts. shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: Coolscan IV
Douglas writes ... ... Nikon Scan 3.0 has worked without the crashes that some have complained of. Nikon Scan wors flawlessly on my system - my OS is Win 98SE. I think this says more for the maturity of the device drivers for this OS, than the Nikon programmers, although they certainly have been given plenty of time to mature too. Let's keep an eye on some of the particulars ... if someone else posts a problem, maybe we can figure out what's different between your computer and theirs. E.G., what type of hardware controls your scanner ... USB, firewire, SCSI? So far the Coolscan IV has been very satisfying. Vuescan has not performed any better that Nikon Scan 3.0. Nikon Scan seems to scan color negatives better than Vuescan. Someone else has posted experiencing problems with focussing their new Nikon ... as if the sensor had a VERY shallow depth of focus, that is, VERY sensitive to film flatness. What has your experience been?? The analog gain in Nikon Scan is better that using Vuescan multi passes for dark slides. ... NS "analog gain" would be more analogous with Vuescan's manual control of "exposure". Also, let us know what color space profiles NS allow you to choose from ... which is primarly why I scan with VS ... for wide gamut options, "Adobe wide" is a terrible highbit editing space (altho it is well understood and there shouldn't be any problem in converting from there to another). But, it would be better if NS allowed for choosing the LS-40's own device space, a specific ICM file, or creating 'raw' RGB. shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: high res wwwsites
cinu writes ... ... I would really appreciate if any of you could point me to a site which has a few pictures scanned on some of the real expensive (600$)scanners at high resolutions (=2700dpi). Although many wwwsites may present images which were originally scanned at PPI2700, they will be reduced in resolution and made appropriate for wwweb presentation. The best site for posted comparisons is probably Tony's site: http://www.halftone.co.uk/ ... follow the "film scanner's" link to "scanner reviews". Another good site on the general topic is: http://www.scantips.com HTH ... shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan color spaces (long)
Mark writes ...
From: "shAf" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 4:45 PM
... This is
speculation on my part, but I don't believe Ed uses a "conversion
engine", rather a mathematical matrix transform. ...
Micheal,
It is of no use to speculate, better ask Ed if you want to know.
Vuescan
does something to the raw scanner RGB to convert it to the known
color
spaces like Adobe RGB. It is probably not the usable ICC Color
Management
procedure. If it works its oke. If it is not Vuesan always have the
"Device
RGB" option. Thats why this option can be important.
Fair enough. Ed informs me "device RGB" isn't really when the
medium is a negative. Therefore, "device RGB" is truly scanner space
only when the media is a positive. This news naturally begged the
question, "when its a scan of a negative, then what is 'device RGB'"?
Is it at all useful?? Unfortunately, Ed didn't instill too much
confidence in what he thought "negative/device RGB" would be. Quoting
...
If the scanner's device color space is close
to sRGB, then you'll getsRGB out the other end.
The farther the device color space is from sRGB,
the more awful the resulting image will look.
... Therefore without a tag or some other knowledge, its
usefulness would certainly require you find a color space which would
match.
My speculation can only be applied to the Nikon LS-2000 (possibly
the LS-30), for which Ektaspace is a very good beginning, but if it
isn't for your "device RGB", I might have a better match, which should
be considered a better approximation only, and only for the Nikons
mentioned.
Still, you're probably better off trusting Ed's characterization
for your scanner ("close to sRGB" or not), and simply asking for the
desired color space.
shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: Vuescan color spaces (long)
Mark writes ... From: "shAf" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "film scanner list" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 5:55 AM What is more ... Ed informs me there is no such internal color space as "VS RGB"... Vuescan simply carries scanned RGB from the device to any of the selectable "color spaces". The scanners are characterized, recognized if on line, or selectble from the "device|mode" list if scanning from a raw file. How is the the conversion from the raw scanner RGB to a selectable "color Spaces" like Adobe RGB taken place? In ICC colormanagement you need two profiles (and a conversion engine), a source and a target profile, Which source profile does Vuescan use? Or is Vuescan just assigning a color space to the raw scanner RGB? ... Vuescan does not simply assign ... if it did, each image given a different color space would appear different in Photoshop ... rather, they all appear exactly the same, so Vuescan is doing something right. The source profile has the to be the "characterization" I mention above. It is most likely a simple matrix type profile as determined by Ed, which also takes into account selectable film type. This is speculation on my part, but I don't believe Ed uses a "conversion engine", rather a mathematical matrix transform. If he created LUT type device profiles I believe he'd need a conversion engine (Adobe, Kodak, etc). I wish it were the latter because LUT (3D) device profiles can accommodate a larger and more accurate device gamut. shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan: device RGB
Mark writes ... From: "shAf" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 8:23 PM ALSO ... Ed informs me no transformation takes place at all if the color space "device RGB" is chosen. What do you mean by this? Is "device RGB" not VS RGB (PCD color space), but the raw scanner/film RGB? Yes ... shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: film flatness in Nikon 4000
Mikael writes ... What i have found out when i tested the scanner do that I don't agree with all text above from Nikon. Why do i have better resolution over the whole picture with a old Polaroid 35+ scanner I'm curious about the Nikon software. Are relying on automatic focus? And, will it focus better if you choose to zoom in and manually focus on a specific area?? What do you find at corners, edges and center?? shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: Vuescan: device RGB
Tony writes ... On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 21:01:09 -0800 shAf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: ... so Ektaspace is an easily accepted compromise. Ektaspace is also respected for its editabilty, and its wide gamut is very suitable for highbit editing. Its gamut is also sufficiently wide for archiving. Actually I think you're spot on here, and the space used *is* Ektaspace - at least according to my overcrowded memory of previous discussions. ... I'm not inclined to believe it *is* Ektaspace ... leastwise, I claimed it was "most like" ektaspace, but I did see some differences ... essentially spot on, but reds were perceivably slightly different. I am rather inclined to believe it *is* PCD RGB, that is, Bruce Fraser has implied the two color spaces are very much alike. Something else has just occurred to me. My "test" was based on a fresh installation of VS7 while my LS-2000 is now put away. That is, my test was based on a previously acquired "raw" scan 64bit TIFF, and VS7 had no way of knowing which scanner scanned it(???!!!) This shouldn't change my conclusions regarding the color capacity of VS RGB, but it does raise the question as to WHEN the scanner characterization's transform is applied and when VS RGB enters the picture (so to speak). Is the "scanned" RGB data truely "raw"? Does the transform take place only if "device=scanner"? ... and no transform takes place if "device=disk"?? There being no difference for selecting "scanner" versus "disk" would only be true if the scanner transform (scanner_RGB=VS_RGB) were applied to the "raw" data. Maybe it is, but I was under a different impression. This is where I miss Ed on this forum :-( shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: Vuescan: device RGB
shAf previously writes ... Something else has just occurred to me. My "test" was based on a fresh installation of VS7 while my LS-2000 is now put away. That is, my test was based on a previously acquired "raw" scan 64bit TIFF, and VS7 had no way of knowing which scanner scanned it. WRONG!!! I could have selected my scanner from a list for 'device mode'. I still don't think this will change my conclusions, but it may change something with regard to using the "device" space I have for my LS-2000. ALSO ... Ed informs me no transformation takes place at all if the color space "device RGB" is chosen. Both of these developments together ^may^ change my conclusions. ... stay tuned ... shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: OT - Dicky returns to form..
Dicky writes ... A head in the sand approach is not untypical for an American, all you have to do is listen to George Wobbly Bush on global warming. ... Actually, and entirely off-topic, I might just suggest that the moderator chuck off this list every member of the USA'ish persuasion until such time as they learn the true meaning of the term "International Agreement". Fuck the USA and all in her, that's what I say. I have to admit being more than embarrassed my the country's international policies sometimes ... but no more embarrassed than this list including Mr Dicky as one of my film scanning peers. I may have little control over republical policies, but I hope my vote gets counted again towards removing this jerk from the film scanner's list. shAf :o) my apologies to the list for yet another off-topic post ...
filmscanners: Vuescan color spaces (long)
... having asked you to "stay tuned", I'm getting back to you. However, what I've experimented with has led me into considerable thought ... my apologies for this post's length :o) First ... my conclusions remain the same ... Vuescan will ultimately yield more color capacity (gamut) than most of you will ever need. My experiments imply a gamut for which Ektaspace, AdobeRGB and all others (except ProPhotoRGB and Adobe Wide gamut) are very viable working spaces subsequent to scanning with Vuescan. Vuescan is unique thanks to Ed Hamrick's philosophy for scan control and providing for such experimentation. What is more ... Ed informs me there is no such internal color space as "VS RGB"... Vuescan simply carries scanned RGB from the device to any of the selectable "color spaces". The scanners are characterized, recognized if on line, or selectble from the "device|mode" list if scanning from a raw file. Yet, there is room for improvement. In the same sense we would all like to sell our 2700dpi scanner and purchase 4000dpi, we are ignoring another property of increasing the detail ... that being COLOR. On one hand, I claim VS provides you with plenty of color ... but I do see evidence for improvement. Bruce Fraser, in different contexts, has stated Ektaspace is generally capable, but he also qualifies with actually seen real life examples where the gamut exceeds Ektaspace. Therefore, we might ask more of scanning software for color, ... analogous to asking more of the hardware for DPI resolution. Skip this paragraph if you know what I'm talking about. There are two types of color profiles ... "device dependent" (generally referred to as "device profiles"), and "device independent" (generally referred to as "working color spaces" ... e.g., AdobeRGB, sRGB). Working color spaces are simply defined ... R-G-B primaries, gamma and white point ... converting from one to another can be reduced to a simple mathematical matrix operation. Device profiles, on the other hand, are complex ... said to be 3-dimensional ... or look-up table defined ... no mathematical transformation is simple. Photoshop v.6 has a new capability ... it will simplify a 3-D device profile to a supposedly equivelent color space. For example, I have a 3-D LUT Nikon_wide device profile (identified by its large file size, 480kb) provided with the Nikon software. (We all take Nikon CMS with a grain of salt, but maybe the person who created this profile knew what he was doing and the NikonScan software people did not.) In any case ... when I assign this profile to a Vuescan "color space=device RGB" image, it becomes obviously oversaturated. ( ... ok, ok ... assume I've done something totally inappropriate ... read on ...) Recall, PS6 will "simplify" a device profile. If I do this with "Nikon_wide", PS6 saves "simplified Nikon_wide" ... and it is indeed simplified ... it is now 1kb in size. Now, what happens if I assign this simplified profile to my "color space=device RGB" image??? It is NOT over-saturated and it looks identical to my Vuescan "color space=Ektaspace" image!!! What does this tell us? For one, it implies a simplified device profile is nowhere equivelent to the original. It also tells "me" (if I believe my Nikon supplied device profile), I am not capturing all of the gamut capable from my scanner with Vuescan. It also implies Vuescan impliments scanner profiles at the "simplified" level. BUT ... before you ask Ed for improved color gamut in version 8, be prepared to ask Ed for a lot of work AND for most likely paying him a lot more than $40. Ed will likely have to license Adobe Color Engine or the Kodak equivelent ... not to mention hire PR and support personnel. It would mean in my mind "VS Pro". Lastly ... don't get me wrong ... even if I don't get what I want, I'll continue using VS ... that is, I won't get it elsewhere ... even with Nikonscan or Silverfast. I also don't know what I'm talking about with respect what "VS Pro" may demand from Ed ... all I know is how to experiment with the fundamentals of color spaces, "working" and "device dependent". shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: Vuescan: device RGB
Tony writes ... The raw scan is in an unspecified device space, scanner RGB. Ed's transform, applied during the production of the Crop file, munges that against his characterisation and the result is a scan with altered data values within Vuescan's working space (which I previously said I thought was maybe sRGB, but as has been pointed out it ain't, it's Kodak's PCD space - ... That's more comforting. For taking a raw scan, from any scanner, and into the variety of color spaces Vuescan offers, I assume Ed is assuming (1) a specific scanner may have the potential for delivering a wide gamut of color ... (2) a transform from that gamut to any internal color space can squash that gamut, and you'll never get it back. That being said, and altho I trust Ed, I know little about PCD RGB, and there seems to be little available regarding comparisons with the common working spaces (if comparisons can be made ... some of what I've found would imply apples and oranges). I will assume, until I realize otherwise, VS's internal space is sufficient for 1 2. shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: Vuescan: device RGB
Richard writes ... There is a lot that doesn't add up - - regarding PCD "space", and VS using PhotoCD "space". 1. You will note that you cannot do a profile conversion (profile to profile) in Photoshop ... 2. PhotoCD format - - and their ICC profiles ARE proprietary, ... 3. If you examine each PhotoCD ICC profile, you will see a number of CLUT listing, and the sources are labeled "secret". That word. ... 4. You can open a PhotoCD - ... you cannot embed (or format) Kodak's space. Probably the reason I found so little info regarding the color capacity of PhotoCD space when I visited Kodak this morning ... plent of info, yes ... but nothing to relate it in terms we use in the normal context of profiles. Still, the transforms were easily downloaded, and I didn't have to sign or accept anything. Presumably Ed knows what he's doing, has permission, and simply anything remotely associated with embedding PCD RGB. 5. If VS uses PhotoCD, what is he (Ed) using for tables, if the CLUTS are proprietary? ... In an (off-list) correspondence with me Ed championed sRGB ... I cannot imagine he is using sRGB as an intermediate color space ... it would then make any sense to offer other color spaces as sRGB is the smallest. Someone will simply have to ask him. 6. The scanner has its own RGB color response, ... Most modernscanners have RGB responses far in excess of the media they scan, ... ... In fact, the Nikon LS1000 has a gamut,or color response that well exceeds Ekta Space; ... Interesting! PS6 allows for rough comparisons of the LUT-type profiles included with the LS-2000. "Nikon_wide" was only a bit bigger than Ektaspace (if you can believe the trismusthus intercept PS6 calculates being a fair comparison). According to Bruce Fraser, PCD RGB isn't much larger either, but definitely large enough to not clip scanner space (debatably), and to offer lossless conversions to most working spaces (the exception being ProPhoto, which according to Bruce is quite a bit larger than PCD RGB) 7. ... 8. All Kodak PhotoCD profiles exhibit very unusual gamut profiles, in either L.a.b., Yxy, or XYZ space. The are all complex. ... I don't know why Ed would even consider these spaces - - unless for PR reasons. When you say "all the PCD profiles", wouldn't Ed simply be using the most appropriate one. And, wouldn't this one offer a standard model for mathematically converting to from??? 9. If VS is using some sort of "space" which alters the RGB values, and then doesn't "tag" the resulting image - you never know how much distortion has been introduced from "real" values. After looking into it only a little bit, I came away believing PCD RGB is sufficiently large and well defined to be used as an intermediate space. Vuescan does tag the images it exports in a variety of working spaces (including ProPhoto and Ektaspace), the only offering it doesn't tag is "device RGB" ... and it should be easy to see if it is anything remotely resembling sRGB. I'm quite curious ... I would ask VS for an sRGB image, and Ektaspace image, and the "device RGB" image. Depending on which resembled which, as you assigned the working space to dRGB with PS6, it should be obvious. shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan: device RGB
Richard writes ... Yes it is large. It will encompass Ekta Space (almost), which is the definition of E6 Ektachrome media, and thus E6 gamut. I'm posting th results of my little test regarding the capacity of Vuescan's gamut, "device RGB" (... whatever it is ...) First ... some prelims ... I scanned an image into sRGB space 1st just for getting the colors approximately correct on my gamma=2.2 monitor ... and then loaded it into Photoshop 6. Next ... I scanned another image, without changing anything, into a wide gamut space, ProphotoRGB (gamma=1.8) ... and loaded it into Photoshop. Both of these "appear" identical, so there is nothing wrong with my monitor compensation. Second ... I scan having chosen "device RGB" which doesn't embed any profile, but is supposed to be Vuescan's color space. I can choose to "assign" any profile to it, and the profile which makes it appear like the others will give us an idea of "Vuescan RGB" color space. If I assign a profile and it appears over-saturated, then VS RGB has a smaller gamut than what I assigned, and vice versa if it appears under-saturated. The result is VS RGB is somewhere inbetween ProPhotoRGB and sRGB, and most like EktaspaceRGB. Unfortunately, VS RGB is a smaller gamut than what Nikon believes belongs to the LS-2000 ... if I assign "Nikon_wide" the over-saturation is obvious. Fortunately, and as Richard stated before (at least with respect to Nikons), the scanner's gamut is designed to exceed that of the media ... so Ektaspace is an easily accepted compromise. Ektaspace is also respected for its editabilty, and its wide gamut is very suitable for highbit editing. Its gamut is also sufficiently wide for archiving. The downside of VS RGB, besides being smaller than some scanners' device spaces, is that it is significantly smaller than "Adobe wide gamut" and ProPhotoRGB. That is, you get nothing by choosing these two color space options ... unless you like a lot of headroom for serious Photoshop adjustments ... but the "beyond gamut" results of such adjustments cannot be seen in monitor space, so what's the use(?) The good news is VS RGB is sufficiently large. No one should complain for lack of gamut ... no matter what the application post scan. It is also sufficiently large for some serious and creative highbit adjustments. On the other hand, if Ed wanted to extend Vuescan's market into professional work, he might want to consider a different internal color space for Vuescan 'Pro'. my US$0.02
RE: filmscanners: Vuescan: device RGB
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tony Sleep Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 5:23 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Vuescan: "device RGB" On Tue, 27 Mar 2001 19:15:35 -0800 shAf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: but while we all recognize with kudos the advantages of VS, we need to also recognize its weakness and lack of scanner characterization. Vuescan uses a hard-coded tristimulus transform derived from empirical testing of each scanner supported, though this is presumably not the case for scanners which happen to be supported just 'cos they understand SCSI commands for another model. ... I understand Ed being wary ... At one time I was under the impression he was characterizing the scanners Vuescan supported, but you seem to claim some scanners are not characterized. For example, did he take the time to chacterize the LS-40, for which he added support in a single day?? If he offers a color space option which is "implied" to belong to the device, this is important to know. I need to play with this option ... I simply opened VS yesterday to inspect the help file and look and feel of the v.7 GUI. If I catch the gist of current users of this option, I may well end up in the color space I want by "assigning" the 3-D LUT profile upon opening ... altho it would have been better to go straight to it via a "color space = 'none'" option so I could take advantage of IR cleaning. I'm harping about imperceivable effects of one implimentation of CM versus another more rigorous ... still, I rather know for sure because I'm otherwise inadequately evaluating how well it works in monitor space (as it is presented in Photoshop). I'll see if he hasn't responded to a similar query at the comp.periphs.scanners newsgroup. (... nope ...) shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: Color saturation with Vuescan
Tony writes ... On Tue, 27 Mar 2001 19:31:32 -0800 (PST) Jon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: sRGB seems to give more saturated image than AdobeRGB when scanning with Vuescan, although I don't know why. I believe Vuescan probably still only really works to sRGB internally, so when you select a wider output space such as AdobeRGB, sRGB gamut occupies a subset of that space. It is important to realize if the observation is "more saturated as viewed with Vuescan" OR "as viewed with Photoshop". If the observation is with respect to Vuescan, sRGB or AdobeRGB data is viewed in monitor space, in which case AdobeRGB will naturally appear less saturated, and sRGB be appear more correct because it is a psuedo-monitor space. If you scan into a variety of color spaces, and view them all with PS6, they should all appear the same (PS6 being the necessary software, you cannot do all co-existingly with PS5). shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan: device RGB
Rob writes ... Mark wrote: I think it is a nice option. Because you are able to use the scannerprofiles (neg. and trans.) that came with your scannersoftware when you bought the scanner. How do you use scanner profiles with Vuescan? Presumably ... the color space option, "device RGB", is intended for this ... and you would also need Photoshop 6 ... for either (1) assigning the scanner profile of choice ... or (2) opening the scanned image into the device space. Only PS6 allows a device space to be the working space (but who would want to), or the ability for "assigning" an image to a color space. One still nagging question I still have about the "device RGB" option is two differing opinions on how it works. One post, from the user who claimed to have asked for it, claims no transformation takes place and therefore the RGB space is inherently the scanner space. This is the way it should work ... and you would simply assign the scanner profile once it is in Photoshop. However ... Tony seems to be under the impression, for those scanners which have been chracterized, Vuescan will transform the scanned RGB data into "device RGB". (Tony ... correct me if I'm wrong ... I think this is what your 'step-by-step' Vuescan method implied. This implimentation of "device RGB" makes me itchy, because while it is in Ed's evalutated "device RGB" space, it is NOT in the same RGB space as implied by a manufacturer supplied, or 3rd party calibration, device color space. To impose (assign) one on top of the other makes me uncomfortable ... I certainly am more comfortable with the scanned image inheriting the device space because nothing was done to it (... not implying the 'raw' scan' because we are still trying to use Vuescan's cropping tools ...) ...) shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan: device RGB
Tony writes ... On Tue, 27 Mar 2001 11:43:54 -0800 shAf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I'm harping about imperceivable effects of one implimentation of CM versus another more rigorous ... Last time someone said that of VS, ISTR Ed took exception and pointed out VS does no more and no less than ICM, except not give you a tag. I meant it only in the context of what you seemed to imply ... VS offering only trismuthus matrix tranformations. It is apparently something quite rigorous to impliment and tranform 3-dimensional LUT-type device profiles. I believe Ed would have to license the Adobe or Kodak rendering engines to offer this. As you noted I expect a lot for $40 ... but not really ... I only want an understanding of Ed's implimentations, and strive for clearing up any confusions. For example ... to ask for AdobeRGB from VS, and then see the image in VS's window is terribly confusing ... that is, until you understand why. shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan: device RGB
Rob writes ...
Er, doesn't PS 5.5 allow you to say what profile the
image is coming from when the image is untagged?
Yes ... but it seems to me that list of profiles is particular to
working spaces, excluding device profiles ... or maybe I'm wrong. If
so, then it should work for PS5 as well.
Does "Device RGB" invert a negative, or is the output
still raw and without the mask removed?
Altho I haven't had a chance to play with this option, that would
seem to be it's purpose ... so you can fully process ("crop") and
leave the RGB data in the color space it was scanned into.
shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: scanning/photoshop workstation (long)
Paul wrote: ... ok: from what I understand the max RAM controllable on a windows board is set by the chipset ... ... and the OS. That is, Win2k doesn't seem to want to give up more than 2Gb to any task, unless Frank is correct about Win2k server. I also believe I read somewhere this same limitation may be limited to the Photoshop task, but not PS's implimentation of virtual memory ... that is, you can designate a number of virtual drives, all of which cannot donate any more than 2Gb each. Another thing to consider is the reality of what is demanded of the finished project. That is, while the front end of the modern scanning workflow ... the ever increasing demand for memory and storage ... increases, the demand at the hardcopy end of the workflow hasn't. Even while Epson has, over the last 5 years, gone from 720dpi to 2880dpi, the required resolution (and file size) has not changed one bit ... it is still 240ppi! I certainly don't have a problem with researching the best hardware, but I would be careful about sacrificing $$ as you approach diminishing returns. I don't know about others, but I can get caught up in this "hardware" trend sometimes to the extent my holiday $$ are sacrificed. My experience is, you'll spend twice as much to only end up with an extra 10% of extra computing power. Still, you cannont ignore some hardwares you'll definitely need ... working storage space and archiving storage space/media. my $0.02 ... shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan: device RGB
Goerf writes ... shAf wrote: Has anyone figured out how to use this color space option?? ... I'm the one who has requested for this space. Choosing this device space will disable all color space conversions in Vuescan (like raw) but allows you to perform the light/heavy/medium filtering on it, which is not possible on the raw output. ... I see ... but it is a strange implimentation ... especially when it is in the context of color profiles, leading to possible confusion. If the option were labeled 'none' it would be better. Ed has been not necessily close-mouthed about his implimentation of color spaces, but he hasn't been clear either. I belive he doesn't impliment the characteristics of each scanner he supports. Vuescan can control them, but there is no recognition of the "color" the scanner is capable of. For example, I believe Rob's recent post of colormatchRGB into AdobeRGB seemingly being accurate is an example of this ... that is, it is an work-around interpretation of his scanner's color space into his working space which seems to work. The proper implimentation would be a proper characterization of the scanner's color space into working space. (Rob ... if you are reading this, instead of Colormatch, you might want to try EktaspaceRGB into your working space, which I determined to be very close to the device profile provided by Nikon. Alternatively, you might try the "device RGB" option, and then convert from "%_NKWide_CPS.icm" to your working space when you open the file in Photoshop. I won't claim it will be the subjectively perfect scan you're looking for, but I might suggest it'll cure the overly-saturated reds you're experiencing.) I also admit I need to play with the above suggestion and with VS v.7 ... I am unfortunately in the middle of selling a house and moving across north america ... and it just so happens my scanner has taken a back seat and has been put away ...~sigh~... In any case, I imagine Vuescan will continue to get good marks for controlling the scan acquisition, but VS will also continue to cause confusion in the arena of serious Photoshop users who want to strictly adhere to proper implimentation of device profiles and working color spaces. As you say ... Ed claims this would be a difficult implimemntation ... but while we all recognize with kudos the advantages of VS, we need to also recognize its weakness and lack of scanner characterization. my US$0.02 ... shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: Colormatch RGB
Rob writes ... While scanning various colour negatives using Vuescan, I became frustrated by the lack of colour saturation when using Adobe RGB and (believe it or not) sRGB as the colour space. I found that if I scan using Colormatch RGB then open the file in Photoshop *without* doing a profile conversion (and yes, I know this is "against the rules"), the colours end up much closer to the correct saturation and requires a lot less mucking around. My only frustration with this is that reds seem to behave strangely. ... Other people have said they use Colormatch RGB as a matter of course - but I don't think I would, due to this behaviour. ... ... Anyone like to make any comments? How can we comment when you even admit you load ColormatchRGB data "against the rules"?? BTW ... you say you bring your VS scan into PS w/o conversion, but you don't say which RGB space you bring it into ... AdobeRGB? The maverick behaviour and unpredictability of reds is most likely due to ColormatchRGB being edited in some other color space, ans we cannot comment 'less we know which. But I'll probably still reccommend you "play by the rules". I have also noticed what you describe (when playing by the rules). When you "play by the riles", one thing you can depend on VS for is not to deliver an oversaturated image, and sometimes (or commonly) undersaturated. I believe this is a good thing ... primarily because you can depend on all your RGB data being editable. That is, I imagine why your saturated reds are not editable is because their values are heavily weighted towards the bright end of the histogram ... possibly even clipped at 255 ... or your working color space has these red values spread over too few editable values. If they were undersaturated, you could at least depend their values being editable. I appreciate VS especially for the editability of the RGB data it captures. However, and I admit, the subsequent image is usually not what I subjectively wanted ... but I always scan highbits into Photoshop and create what I subjectively want there. But, and to get back to your question, I "play by the rules", and I believe if you did too, you'd at least be able to edit your reds. shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: Color Calibration
Michael writes ... I shoot mostly architecture ... exteriors are pretty easy to scan and get the color close enuf ... however when it comes to interiors, it is whole different story.. ... what I am thinking of doing is making up 3 large (say 12"x12") panels, one white, one 18% gray, one white, attaching a color bar underneath and sticking that in the main light area of each different view, ... Many will tell you, nailing a neutral shade will be the best place to start ... as if all you needed was the gray and white cards. shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Maris writes ... And is it really a gamma control, or just a contrast or brightness control? ... Easily tested ... if it brightens blackpoint, it is a brightness control ... if blackpoint doesn't change but whitepoint does, it is contrast ... if neither Bp or Wp change, it controls gamma (... altho you can wonder if it is a true gamma power function ...) shAf :o) | | Does the Matrox G450 have a setting for changing the monitor's gamma? | | Yes, but not numerically. It is a WYSISYG control. | | Frank Paris
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan 7 and PS 6.01
Andreas writes ... I used Photoshop6 as an external viewer in Vuescan. The scans have been opened in PS without problems. Since a few days, maybe since Vuescan 7 or PS update 6.01 , in PS the new file dialogue opens up after scanning and asks for the filesize and mode. I don't know if it's exactly the same symptom as what I've experienced or not ... but I usually scan "memory" and create a 1/4 res JPEG for viewing in Photoshop. Usually, the JPEG opens up into PS no problem, but occassionally I see PS's "openfile" dialog box instead. However, I've experienced this relatively infrequent behaviour since early versions of VS6 and PS6.00 ... and because it's so infrequent, I haven't noticed a common thread and reported it. system: Win98se, VS6.7.4, PS6.01 shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: LS-30 Profile
Ken writes ... I found the following icc profiles, among others, in the Nikon LS-30 profiles folder: NKLS2000LS30 N NKLS2000LS30 N SDC NKLS2000LS30 P NKLS2000LS30 P SDC NKAdobe Anyone know the differences and/or can anyone recommend which one would be the best choice to use? Or is there a better choice elsewhere? I am using AdobeRGB workspace. Thanks. "Best choice to use" for what purpose would be my 1st question ... that is, I've never found any of these particularly useful as a "from" space to working space conversion. 'N' 'P' refer to positive vs negative, but I have no idea what the 'SDC' refers to. If you have Photoshop 6, you can load any of these as your working space ... and with the preview turned on ... preview a "typical" scan for evaluating which offers the truest color ... but you have to first load some type of raw scan into PS6 without any profile conversion so that you would be previewing the raw RGB data in each of these color spaces. PS6 RGB setup can also let you see rough definitions for these color spaces. That is, load one as your workspace, and while in the setup dialog, then choose "custom" from the list, and it will show you these definitions as if you wanted to modify them. Write them down (R,G,B primaries, whitepoint temperature, gamma) ... cancel, and then proceed with another. These definitions are simplistic ... that is, PS6 seems to calculate the 3-dimensional profile where it intersects the 2-D plane usually used for defining working space ... but it is a rough estimate of the color capacity of the profile ... quite useful only for simple comparisons. HTH ... shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: What appears in Vuescan preview (was: analog gain)
Bob writes ... I don't know about the 'analog gain', but I previewed 3 times last night, on the same image, and none of them picked up the 'clean' function. ..., but the final scan came out beautifully clean. It would be nice if the 'clean' functions worked on the preview, ... It used to. The Restore colors, Clean and Sharpen functions were changed in Vuescan 6.6.1 to only change (show result in) the scan, not show in the preview display. There was a good bit of discussion near that time on the utility of the preview. I recall that Ed wrote that its only purpose was for cropping, not to evaluate ... How can you expect the clean function to work correctly and predictably, unless VS scanned at high res for the preview. I don't believe anyone wants this ... the preview scan should be quick and dirty (... so to speak ...*smile*...) Here is what you can do however. Crop the preview as necessary ... and do a "scan device" and write no files ... subsequent "scan memory" commands will show you how effective the "clean" (and other parameters) are affecting the scan. If you are scanning into a color space much different from your monitor, the next thing to do is write a 1/4 res JPEG with ICM embedded and view it in Photoshop (or some other ICM savvy software). If the color is finally perfect ... NOW you can "scan memory" to a full res TIFF with the ICM embedded. shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: I got a Nikon LS-40 on Loan
Avi33 writes ... The DMAX of the LS-40 will be 3.6 instead of the 3.0 DMAX in the LS-30. ... Unfortunately, it is up for debate what any Dmax is for the Nikon scanners. That is, their Dmax specification seems to be simply what the bit depth is capable of storing, and may have absolutely nothing to to do with its true sensitivity or accuracy, or signal-over-noise. I am however, optimistic for these new Nikons ... Ed seems to believe they have improved in this respect ... he didn't mention the typical LED noise the Nikons are noted for. shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: analog gain (nikon ls-2000) and negative film
Jules writes ... there's one thing that's really perplexing to me. why is analog gain adjustement of the nikon ls-2000 not available for negative film (both vuescan and nikonscan seem to ignore it when scanning negative film)? ... It has been a long time since I quit using NS and switched to VS, but it seems to me you are correct regarding NS. However, it seems to be "analog gain" was offered only if you used a certain feeder. Leastwize, I remember options being different if you used the "film strip feeder" versus the "film strip holder" ... and I've forgotten which was what. I'd certainly suggest using the more versatile VS, but if you're curious about the NS options and which holder is being used ... check it out and get back to us ... altho why certain options disappear shall remain a mystery (... altho, one reason may be because altering the alalog gain may affect the subtraction of the orange mask(?) ...) shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: Graphics Cards
Rob writes ... "Colin Maddock" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyone want to buy a 32MB NVIDIA GeForce2 MX 4X AGPGraphics Card??? You said you were getting rid of this card to replace it with a two head one, as I remember, but otherwise would you recommend the GeForce2 MX card, from some manufacturer or another, for we filmscanner people? It's capable of using custom ICM profiles, so it should be fine. ... Since when did video cards or their drivers become capable of CM, or need to be ICM aware? Rather, the video card and its driver, simply need make available the color LUT so CM characterization/calibration softwares like Adobe Gamma can modify it. shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: Graphics Cards
Rob writes ... Does it matter how it's done? The point is that some cards *cannot* adjust the gamma to give a correct display. ... You mean they don't make their CLUT available for ^any^ software's ability to adjust it, which hasn't much to do with CM. CM takes over simply because the CLUT is available to be adjusted, and while (e.g) Matrox may provide a utility for gamma adjustment, it isn't needed as far as Adobe Gamma is concerned ... all it worries about is access to the CLUT. I am aware of video cards which do not provide for CLUT access, but you really have to be cheap and be unlucky to find one. Access to the CLUT can be as much a capability of the OS, as well ... e.g., NT4 provided no means for video card manufacturers to provide the means for (e.g.) Adobe Gamma's making adjustment of gamma (or whitepoint) ... but Adobe Gamma did work with NT4, by characterizing the display and letting Photoshop know what colors and gamma were available. shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: OT: burning cd's/easy cd creator
Jules_C writes ... Has 'Easy CD Creator' been taken over by another company? I thought it was done by adaptek (sp?) but I got an offer from roxio for the new version 5 that is coming out ... It would depend on what you use CD burning for. I did notice CD Creator 5 included many utilities aimed at the music enthusiast ... but for $50 is a lot to pay for what is already available for free (... see www.analogx.com ...). For archiving image files, EZC v.4 was the one to have because it had a on/off switch for verifying file integrity after the write. shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: Keeping messages On Topic
Ed writes ... Similarly, people who have support questions about VueScan should e-mail me directly, not post the questions to the whole group. A lot of the traffic on this newsgroup related to VueScan shouldn't really be sent to the whole group, but to me directly. ... Some of it, certainly ... but if I can respectfully disagree ... many bug reports, rather than being specific to VS, may be specific to a scanner, and if I report a problem but someone else implies ..."works fine with my scanner", then I hope a community effort helps more. Keep in mind too ... and for example, I've suggested a number of things I like to see, but it's been my peers which may have suggested a more common workflow. In any case ... I believe many of the questions concerning VS belong here (... altho I might suggest you start your own list ...), BUT you are absolutely correct with respect to the deluge of graphics cards and OS posts lately ... some of which I'm also guilty of. shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan scan from disk option
Ed writes ... ... Unfortunately, VueScan always does the color space conversion, so this isn't really practical. I suppose I could add a color space of "Device" which left the pixels in the device's color space. Is this what you're looking for? I'd be careful about calling it "device's color space" ... someone will assume you are writing the TIF/JPEG to the device's color space, i.e., the scanner's color space (this option is likely to show up on your list of color spaces, despite the device being the scanner or the disk). A color space option of "none" would seem more appropriate, or possibly a "color space conversion" on/off switch. Which brings up a question ... if the device is a scanner, does Vuescan absolutely need a "to" color space ... which is to ask, when VS converts from "raw" to "crop=corrected", is there such color space as "generic"? I ask because it surprises me your list of color spaces has never listed "none" or provided an on/off switch. shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan scan from scanner option
Alan writes ... shAf wrote: A very good color space option you may want to eventually offer is an actual color space specific to the scanner. For example, what if the scanner manufacturer provided a look-up table (LUT) type profile for the scanner ... wouldn't it be a good option to have for being able to convert to that profile and archive it(?). Not _convert to that profile_, I think, because the data starts out that way, doesn't it? Rather, just embed that profile, right? That's true ... 'cept I am at least curious about how Vuescan goes from "scannerRGB" to "workingspaceRGB" ... that is, Ed somehow makes Vuescan independent of any scanner manufacturer's device profile, such that if you wanted your scan in that space you'd need ask Vuescan for it. I'm also curious if Ed can allow Vuescan to accommodate and embed a "LUT-type" profile. This is an option I'm not all that hot about, but simply seemed a logical extention to allowing flexibility to the list of color space options. I'm quite content to scan into EktaspaceRGB and archive, but I do have a LUT profile for my LS-2000. shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: Anyone using Win2K? Does is manage color like W98SE?
Frank writes ... Photoshop is really not a consumer-level product, and truly does benefit from Windows 2000. ... According to threads at the Adobe forum, this fact is highly dependent on how well Win2k runs with your hardware drivers, and marginal at best. Win98se is better supported in this respect. And to truely get the HD speed from Win2k for matching the drivers available for Win98, you'd need turn off the overhead required by NTFS security, that is install it on FAT32 formatted drives. shAf :o)
filmscanners: PS 6.01 available (officially)
Adobe has officially announced PS6.01 http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/main.html ... ... and I notice the file size is exactly the same as the "unofficial" release (leastwize, the install for Windows). I am awaiting the official word on any need to update again. shAf :o)
filmscanners: FW: 6.01 update available
Just received from the man ... shAf :o) -Original Message- From: Marc Pawliger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] From: "shAf" [EMAIL PROTECTED] William writes ... The photoshop update is officially at http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/880a.htm I see the file size is exactly the same as the "unofficial" release, while it seems to me I read the post from Marc Paliger, the official update might require a clean install of PS6 and a 2nd install of the update. What is the "official" word?? You must be talking about the official Windows 6.0.1 update. The official Mac 6.0.1 update IS different from the previous one. The 6.0.1 update continued to be extensively tested after the first "unofficial" release (the one that did not have any announcement, web pages, etc, but was only available via a not-too-well-hidden FTP link on ftp.adobe.com). Mac Photoshop 6.0.1 required a few further changes. Anyone who used the unofficial updater needs to uninstall the "old 6.0.1" (just deleted it off your machine), reinstall 6.0 from CD, then apply this official 6.0.1 update. Windows Photoshop 6.0.1 did not require further changes, so the official updater turns out to be unchanged from the previously posted "unofficial" one. --marc
RE: filmscanners: Color management
Lynn writes ... I've heard (but haven't seen it written definitively) that when Photoshop installs, it sets up its own color management system. Does this new color management: o 1)take over or supplant Windows' color management? Windows does not manage color, but does recognize ICM profiles and associates the preferred profiles with the hardware. For example, if Adobe Gamma creates an monitor profile and associates it with the display, Windows actually does nothing with it. It is up to Adobe Gamma loader to modify the display look-up table, and Photoshop to make use of it. Other ICM savvy software and hardware drivers (printers) would work the same way. o 2)take over color management in other programs (if any)? No ... but other softwares, not being "display compensation" savvy, would use the Windows color look-up table which has been modified by Adobe Gamma loader. o 3)affect peripherals, like printers or scanners? ... as I said above, Windows will associate the ICM with the hardware, but it is the hardware driver which makes use of it. o 4)reset the monitor? Adobe Gamma loader does this ... o 5)affect other programs, e.g.Vuescan, when PS is not running? Other software would need be ICM savvy and make use of the monitor profile. very few sotwares actually do this. But also make note of what I said in #2 ... Adobe Gamma loaded modifies the display colors which are available to all softwares. HTH ... shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: OT: Co-processors Amiga
Autin writes ... Amiga had the patents on the co-processors, I find no patents given to Amiga for any co-processors. ... The patents were probably awarded to the small group from Los Gatos who invented the Amiga ... Commodore simply took over later and proceeded to provide no support. :o) shAf
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea
Larry writes ... What if you're sitting with a small pile of slides to scan, all taken by different people at different times? ... This is an example of a situation, for which trying to make VS easy to use, must drive Ed nuts. How to anticipate what is easy, considering one user who scans nothing but Ektachrome, and another who sees individual projects spanning clients or a history of chromes and negatives. I realize some of my suggestions implied leaving some Vuescan users at a disadvantage because they couldn't afford a display which made VS easier to lay out and present. This wasn't my intention ... except to acknowledge even professionals are recognizing Ed's efforts. It is up to Ed regarding my next suggestion ... but I wonder if it isn't time for "Vuescan Pro" ... not that I'm suggesting "Vuescan" remain as is, but if Ed wanted to consider another version, which put demands on the desktop landscape, our hardware, as well as his endevours, I hope I'd be the 1st user asked to pay for the upgrade. shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea
Lynn writes ... shAF wrote, re Tabs: Since any session, is entirely dedicated to a particular roll of film That's true for photographers with filmstrips, but not for archivers with slides and/or negs from many shoots mixed together, ... I agree with you ... I should have qualified my statement with something like "usually" or "commonly" ... and I even have a backlog of differing films to get at one of these days ... and it is probably becoming more common that people who take on a variety of clientel are becoming VS users. I am sure Ed took my "definitive" statement with a grain of salt, and I'm sure I'll be happy with however he makes V.7 better. shAf :o)
