[filmscanners] Re: [filmscanners_Digest] hi bit
Hi Tom, Why are high bit worksflows harder and take more time? Because of the Photoshop limitations? Wouldn't a 16bit clean program relieve you of these hassles? Hello afx, I think the slowness is primarily due to the glacial speed that the scanner transfers data to the computer. Sometimes ten minutes just to No on my box. Here the scanner is the slow part (FS4000), not the SCSI bus. much faster. The other time consuming part is making the selection, you can't just reach for tools, you have to lasso your area to be fixed up, then apply the feathered selection, then do levels/curves adjustments on the selection. Or else the other way is to use history erase. either takes ten more steps (approximately) compared to using a simple dodge/burn tool. Still, IMHO, it gives a much better result because you can optimize the levels and curves for each section of an image, no limit, you can have everbody's faces, for example, individually leveled and curved and color corrected. Sounds awfully complicated and sort of confirms my theses that the problem is PS not having full 16bit support. I wish i knew of a program that allowed dodging/burning in 16 bit, do you? Not on the Mac, only on the PC (see the other posts) ;-( If PWP where available on the Mac, I would have bought one instead of the Athlon box I am using now. cheers afx -- Andreas Siegert [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: [filmscanners_Digest] hi bit
in excellent condition. Hi bit workflows are much harder to do, take far more time, and use more storage space. However learning them can improve Why are high bit worksflows harder and take more time? Because of the Photoshop limitations? Wouldn't a 16bit clean program relieve you of these hassles? Hello afx, I think the slowness is primarily due to the glacial speed that the scanner transfers data to the computer. Sometimes ten minutes just to get a scan. I have a G4, maybe it is old and slow, maybe new computers are much faster. The other time consuming part is making the selection, you can't just reach for tools, you have to lasso your area to be fixed up, then apply the feathered selection, then do levels/curves adjustments on the selection. Or else the other way is to use history erase. either takes ten more steps (approximately) compared to using a simple dodge/burn tool. Still, IMHO, it gives a much better result because you can optimize the levels and curves for each section of an image, no limit, you can have everbody's faces, for example, individually leveled and curved and color corrected. I wish i knew of a program that allowed dodging/burning in 16 bit, do you? tom Robinson Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: [filmscanners_Digest] hi bit
Tom, PS can! Use levels to make the image darker (or lighter), and then use history brush to burn (or dodge) with opacity control. Simple! Bob Frost. - Original Message - From: HPA [EMAIL PROTECTED] I wish i knew of a program that allowed dodging/burning in 16 bit, do you? Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: [filmscanners_Digest] hi bit
Hi Tom, Hello afx, I think the slowness is primarily due to the glacial speed that the scanner transfers data to the computer. Unless you have a really old scanner that uses a parallel or serial port, I'd doubt that the issue is data transfer from the scanner to the computer. Typically, it is the exposure time that is far longer than the data transfer time. A bulb that is weak, or simply bad exposure, can really reek havoc on exposure time. If you do the simple calculations for, say, a 35mm negative, 16 bits/color at 4kSPI, that gives you 4000 x 6000 x 2 bytes/color x 3 colors bytes to transfer = 144,000,000 bytes. Data is transferred while the scanner is scanning...and any processing is done line by line, as it is sent to the computer. So, Asynchronous SCSI I goes at, let's say, 1.5M bytes/second...so that would take 96 seconds...or one and a half minutes. Say you have 25ms per line scan time, and a 5ns per line overhead, or 30ms per line. There are 6000 lines, so just the scan takes 3 minutes. I'd suggest checking your exposure time if you are getting long scans. There also could be something wrong with your cable/termination/controller. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
