RE: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: supra 400
= Original Message From Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] = Tom wrote: Not an answer, but I had exactly the same problem with Supra 400. Stopped using it even though it is supposed to be 'scanner optimized'. I have a number of supra 400 images that I will need to get decent scans of. Using my SS4000 I get terrible grain aliasing making the quality unacceptable. Odd. I thought Tony said the SS4000 aliased less than 2700ppi scanners. Can someone explain this to me? ISTM that people are seeing grain at 4000ppi and calling it aliasing? I suspect that these 4000dpi scanners really only have 3200dpi's worth of resolution - which is hardly a million miles away from the 2900dpi of something like the LS40, say (which aliases quite strongly with Supra 400). What did that bumper review of scanners conclude about resolution? Pity Mike Duncan didn't get an SS4000... teehee. Actually I suspect that there's a noticeable difference between a 4000dpi scanner whose lens is a little soft versus another whose anti-aliasing filter is badly designed (or not there!). I suspect the Nikon scanners don't have an anti-alias filter (and erm, the optics prolly aren't upto it either) - but there seems to be very little hard information on these things as far as I can tell. I suspect if you want to use Supra 400 you should be over-exposing somewhat, just to keep your shadow detail out of the grain-aliasy bottom. I don't use Supra 400, I only have a friend's odds and sods of Supra 400 that I've scanned as reference. I haven't scanned Supra 400 because I can't buy single rolls, but Fuji Superia 400 scans OK on the LS30. Yes, it's grainy, but it has helped a lot for situations like taking aerial shots from ultralights that vibrate or leave the photographer in the breeze! I want to try Provia 400F to get the same sort of speed which hopefully less apparent grain. Provia 400 (F? are there variants?) scans beautifully - no grain aliasing in shadows on the LS40 (my mate Joel's Provia 400 - he is quite fond of my LS40 for slide scanning - I don't know how he rated it though). But you do get rather less scene dynamic range than with Supra 400, and it seems to me that you should treat it as Kodachrome when scanning (both Nikon Scan and Vuescan (on Image) produce scans that are too blue - the Kodachrome setting of NS seemed to work really well). Jawed
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: supra 400
Jawed Ashraf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the photographer in the breeze! I want to try Provia 400F to get the same sort of speed which hopefully less apparent grain. Provia 400 (F? are there variants?) scans beautifully - no grain aliasing in shadows on the LS40 (my mate Joel's Provia 400 - he is quite fond of my LS40 for slide scanning - I don't know how he rated it though). I've never seen Provia 400 but I doubt it is the same film as 400F. Provia 400F uses the same emulsion technology as Provia 100F which is the finest grained transparency film currently on the market AFAIK. I've tried one roll of 400F and the grain seemed quite acceptable to me. Nothing like the invisible grain of 100F of course. But you do get rather less scene dynamic range than with Supra 400 I'd expect that, but it's reducing apparent grain I'm really after. Superia 400 is OK, and I don't think Supra 400 is worth the higher price in comparison. Rob
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: supra 400
Obviously the Provia films are slides and the Superia are negs, just to clarify. Provia 400 is a miserable film (also sold as Sensia II 400). It is grainy, has poor color, often shifting very cyan, and is too contrasty in bright light, which is the only way to get decent color out of it, which sort of defeats the purpose. Provia 400F is a new beast, and has received very good reviews. I have a few rolls waiting for low light situations, but haven't used them yet. Art Rob Geraghty wrote: Jawed Ashraf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the photographer in the breeze! I want to try Provia 400F to get the same sort of speed which hopefully less apparent grain. Provia 400 (F? are there variants?) scans beautifully - no grain aliasing in shadows on the LS40 (my mate Joel's Provia 400 - he is quite fond of my LS40 for slide scanning - I don't know how he rated it though). I've never seen Provia 400 but I doubt it is the same film as 400F. Provia 400F uses the same emulsion technology as Provia 100F which is the finest grained transparency film currently on the market AFAIK. I've tried one roll of 400F and the grain seemed quite acceptable to me. Nothing like the invisible grain of 100F of course. But you do get rather less scene dynamic range than with Supra 400 I'd expect that, but it's reducing apparent grain I'm really after. Superia 400 is OK, and I don't think Supra 400 is worth the higher price in comparison. Rob
Re: filmscanners: supra 400
Provia 400F is my standard film these days. Great colour, good saturation, terrific scannability. The only problem is that in bright light I need to stop down more than I might like (gee, it's too fast - what a shame :-). For shooting available light on slides, there's nothing like it. It's the Tri-X of slide films. I had high hopes for Supra 400, and I get very nice chemical prints from it. But it's hopeless in my LS-4000 due to the grain aliasing. I shoot a lot of available-light stuff, so the toe of the curve is very important to me. Given that it's impossible to overexpose the shadows in some of the stuff I do, the only remedy is dragging up the black point in PS and losing a ton of shadow detail. Given how good Provia 400F is, how easily it scans, and the fact that slides are self-proofing, I see no reason to shoot high-speed colour neg any more. Paul -Original Message- From: Arthur Entlich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 11:38 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: supra 400 Obviously the Provia films are slides and the Superia are negs, just to clarify. Provia 400 is a miserable film (also sold as Sensia II 400). It is grainy, has poor color, often shifting very cyan, and is too contrasty in bright light, which is the only way to get decent color out of it, which sort of defeats the purpose. Provia 400F is a new beast, and has received very good reviews. I have a few rolls waiting for low light situations, but haven't used them yet. Art
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: supra 400
Provia 400F is a new beast, and has received very good eviews. I have a few rolls waiting for low light situations, but haven't used them yet. Deservedly so , it behaves just like the 100F with very fine grain , just 2 stops faster.. I've had a magazine cover published with a pic shot using this film. Steve
RE: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: supra 400
Well I stand corrected then - it was 400F that Joel brought round. It still tends to blue (cyan if you prefer since I suspect that's technically correct) when scanned, though. Definitely not miserable. Jawed -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich Sent: 06 September 2001 16:38 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: supra 400 Obviously the Provia films are slides and the Superia are negs, just to clarify. Provia 400 is a miserable film (also sold as Sensia II 400). It is grainy, has poor color, often shifting very cyan, and is too contrasty in bright light, which is the only way to get decent color out of it, which sort of defeats the purpose. Provia 400F is a new beast, and has received very good reviews. I have a few rolls waiting for low light situations, but haven't used them yet. Art Rob Geraghty wrote: Jawed Ashraf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the photographer in the breeze! I want to try Provia 400F to get the same sort of speed which hopefully less apparent grain. Provia 400 (F? are there variants?) scans beautifully - no grain aliasing in shadows on the LS40 (my mate Joel's Provia 400 - he is quite fond of my LS40 for slide scanning - I don't know how he rated it though). I've never seen Provia 400 but I doubt it is the same film as 400F. Provia 400F uses the same emulsion technology as Provia 100F which is the finest grained transparency film currently on the market AFAIK. I've tried one roll of 400F and the grain seemed quite acceptable to me. Nothing like the invisible grain of 100F of course. But you do get rather less scene dynamic range than with Supra 400 I'd expect that, but it's reducing apparent grain I'm really after. Superia 400 is OK, and I don't think Supra 400 is worth the higher price in comparison. Rob
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: supra 400
On Thu, 6 Sep 2001 10:08:20 +1000 =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rob=20Geraghty?= ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Odd. I thought Tony said the SS4000 aliased less than 2700ppi scanners. Can someone explain this to me? ISTM that people are seeing grain at 4000ppi and calling it aliasing? It is utterly dependent on the film - not only grain size, but the sharpness of individual dye clouds or grains, and the degree to which they overlap. I have no grain aliasing at all that I can see with Fuji Superia 100, 400, 800, but have seen some with rather overexposed 200. I don't use Kodak colour neg much, but never saw any problems with PJM640 or 400. In general, the higher the pixel density the less often you will encounter grain aliasing and the less destructive will be its effects. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
filmscanners: supra 400
I have a number of supra 400 images that I will need to get decent scans of. Using my SS4000 I get terrible grain aliasing making the quality unacceptable. I was thinking that I would have to bite the bullet and get drum scans made, but it occurs to me that if aliasing is an interference pattern based on ccd size a smaller ccd cell size might solve the problem. Has anyone had good results with this film with a 2750 (or whatever) dpi scanner, especially the Nikon? j
Re: filmscanners: supra 400
I have had great results scanning Sura 400 with both a Canon 2710 and Minolta Scan Elite. I really like this as my general purpose film, in fact. Pat --- John Matturri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a number of supra 400 images that I will need to get decent scans of. Using my SS4000 I get terrible grain aliasing making the quality unacceptable. I was thinking that I would have to bite the bullet and get drum scans made, but it occurs to me that if aliasing is an interference pattern based on ccd size a smaller ccd cell size might solve the problem. Has anyone had good results with this film with a 2750 (or whatever) dpi scanner, especially the Nikon? j __ Do You Yahoo!? Get email alerts NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger http://im.yahoo.com
Re: filmscanners: supra 400
Not an answer, but I had exactly the same problem with Supra 400. Stopped using it even though it is supposed to be 'scanner optimized'. Tom I have a number of supra 400 images that I will need to get decent scans of. Using my SS4000 I get terrible grain aliasing making the quality unacceptable. I was thinking that I would have to bite the bullet and get drum scans made, but it occurs to me that if aliasing is an interference pattern based on ccd size a smaller ccd cell size might solve the problem. Has anyone had good results with this film with a 2750 (or whatever) dpi scanner, especially the Nikon? j
Re: filmscanners: supra 400
I have the Nikon LS-30 (2700spi) and my results have been fair though not poor. Maris - Original Message - From: John Matturri [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 11:18 AM Subject: filmscanners: supra 400 | I have a number of supra 400 images that I will need to get | decent scans of. Using my SS4000 I get terrible grain | aliasing making the quality unacceptable. I was thinking | that I would have to bite the bullet and get drum scans | made, but it occurs to me that if aliasing is an | interference pattern based on ccd size a smaller ccd cell | size might solve the problem. Has anyone had good results | with this film with a 2750 (or whatever) dpi scanner, | especially the Nikon? | | j | |
Re: filmscanners: supra 400
Don't quote me, but I recall reading somewhere that by 'scanner optimized' Kodak meant that it is better protected against processing lab scratches. Maris - Original Message - From: Tom Scales [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 1:49 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: supra 400 | Not an answer, but I had exactly the same problem with Supra 400. Stopped | using it even though it is supposed to be 'scanner optimized'. | | Tom | | I have a number of supra 400 images that I will need to get | decent scans of. Using my SS4000 I get terrible grain | aliasing making the quality unacceptable. I was thinking | that I would have to bite the bullet and get drum scans | made, but it occurs to me that if aliasing is an | interference pattern based on ccd size a smaller ccd cell | size might solve the problem. Has anyone had good results | with this film with a 2750 (or whatever) dpi scanner, | especially the Nikon? | | j | | |
filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: supra 400
Tom wrote: Not an answer, but I had exactly the same problem with Supra 400. Stopped using it even though it is supposed to be 'scanner optimized'. I have a number of supra 400 images that I will need to get decent scans of. Using my SS4000 I get terrible grain aliasing making the quality unacceptable. Odd. I thought Tony said the SS4000 aliased less than 2700ppi scanners. Can someone explain this to me? ISTM that people are seeing grain at 4000ppi and calling it aliasing? I haven't scanned Supra 400 because I can't buy single rolls, but Fuji Superia 400 scans OK on the LS30. Yes, it's grainy, but it has helped a lot for situations like taking aerial shots from ultralights that vibrate or leave the photographer in the breeze! I want to try Provia 400F to get the same sort of speed which hopefully less apparent grain. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
RE: filmscanners: Supra 400 shadows
CCD resolution? Not a clue, but the optical resolution of the Scan Dual II is something like 2820. Norm Unsworth, Owner CS Golf (formerly Clark Systems Custom Golf) Outstanding Quality and Value in Custom Golf Equipment 609 641 5712 Please send email to me at: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit our Web Site at http://members.home.net/csgolf -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of John Matturri Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 2:25 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Supra 400 shadows Not to add to the weight of this thread but with a Minolta Scan Dual II I experience the same kinds of 'noise (just using this term generically - please, no corrections about whether I'm using the right term) in the dark areas as others describe when scanning Supra 400. Fortunately, when it's in most dark areas where detail is not importantly I can blur it out sufficiently in PS. Norm Unsworth, Owner What's the ccd resolution of the scanner? I was hoping that the grain aliasing, if that's really it is, was somehow 'tuned' to the size of a 4000 dpi scanner implying that you could avoid the problem either by resolving the grain (not possible with current ccd scanners) or by going below the treshold with a 2750 or whatever scanner. John M.
Re: filmscanners: Supra 400 shadows
I recently had my Minolta Dual II replaced by Minolta, after only owning it a week. The second one has lower noise in the shadow areas than the first. The first had a lot of green noise in the dense areas (on slides) which I noted lessened quite a bit using Vuescan. I haven't tested the new one with Vuescan yet. Since I'm discussing this, I'll make a brief comment which concerns me. Overall, I like this scanner. It is both sharper and has better overall dynamic range than the HP S-20 I replaced. However, a few things give me pause. One, the apparent quality control is spotty. The machines appear to vary in terms of the degree of noise they make mechanically and optically, and I suspect this has to do with general wide tolerances in the manufacturing process. More important, however, is my first one had many bad elements in the CCD. I was unable to determine if this is a matter of physically bad CCD elements or dirt in the unit, or defective filters over the CCD, or bad calibration or what. The first unit had between 3 and 5 bad sensors per color. The unit I received which replaced it still has some bad sensors. This time one or two per color, but this is not acceptable, especially out of box. In my case, Minolta covered air shipping both ways on the first exchange, but I do not know how gracious they will be if I make a second request. For now, due to need for the unit, I am holding onto it, but I do not believe ANY elements should be mis-calibrated or respond incorrectly in a CCD chip. I am hopeful this is just a production run problem which will be corrected, because otherwise, the scanner is good value. The manual is unfortunately translated from Japanese (I assume) and has numerous vague or not fully comprehensible sentences and phrases. I haven't had a good chance to put the scanner through it's paces, due to other commitments, but I hope to shortly. Art Norman Unsworth wrote: Not to add to the weight of this thread but with a Minolta Scan Dual II I experience the same kinds of 'noise (just using this term generically - please, no corrections about whether I'm using the right term) in the dark areas as others describe when scanning Supra 400. Fortunately, when it's in most dark areas where detail is not importantly I can blur it out sufficiently in PS.
filmscanners: Provia 400 was Re: filmscanners: Supra 400 shadows
I have heard some horrible reviews of this film. Of course, it will surely come up short if comparing it to Provia 100F. I'd love to open up my world 2 stops in a decent manner. Buy a roll and give it a try. I've only tried 400F the once, but I was impressed by it. I thought the colour was fine, and the grain wasn't too bad for 400ASA. Anyone expecting the lack of grain seen in 100F is being unrealistic and will be disappointed. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
RE: filmscanners: Supra 400 shadows
Ah-hah! That makes perfect sense. The speckles are too bright and pure to come from the film itself. It's reasonable to assume they're an electronic artifact, and aliasing is the likely culprit. That also explains why boosting the black point will reduce them but not eliminate them. They're so bright that you need to throw away a lot of shadow detail to hide them. Thanks, Tony. That still leaves the question of what to do about them - short of waiting for a 6000 dpi scanner, of course. Paul -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 12:18 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Supra 400 shadows On Wed, 1 Aug 2001 11:44:30 -0700 Paul Chefurka ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I have the exact same problem with Supra 400 - red and green speckles in the shadows. Like you, I can't get them to disappear without blowing away a lot of shadow detail. I don't know if a drum scan would solve this or not - I've seen the same problem on both my SS4000 and my new LS-4000, so I have my doubts. This is likely to be grain aliasing. Where exposure is slight, there aren't many dye clouds (grains), and if they are of a size to alias individual pixels or small groups, false colour is the outcome. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Supra 400 shadows
To deal with the noise, you might try converting to LAB and then using the median filter on the A and B channels - this should not lose any detail. Maris - Original Message - From: John Matturri [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 8:20 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Supra 400 shadows | | I've been having good results using Supra 400 (SS4000, Vuescan, current | | 7.1.7) except for the noise-like areas in dark parts of the image. At | | times I can partially compensate for this by setting the black point but | | only at the cost of losing shadow detail that at times is needed for the | | image (and often still not really getting an adequately clean shadow | | areas). Any suggestions about how best to deal with this problem? | | Keep the shadow detail and deal with it in post-scan processing with | Photoshop or you software of choice. | | Mark | | Any suggestions? | | I do generally set the black and white points in vuescan wide allowing | me room to set them in photoshop. I can get rid of some of the problem | that way, but lose shadow detail. I've also selected the affected | shadows and despeckled, which works kinda ok for backgrounds (as I guess | would a gaussian blur) but is not good when you need the shadow image to | retain its sharpness. I've also tried to select the affected area and do | a replace color on red or other speckeled pixels and then manipulate | them into the background. These techniques improve the situation but not | really to my satisfaction. | | Has anyone not had the shadow speckling with this film? It doesn't seem | to be ccd noise so is it a grain interaction? (If so, there's up for a | hi-res drum scan that might fully resolve the grain, I guess.) | | John M. | | |
RE: filmscanners: Supra 400 shadows
Not to add to the weight of this thread but with a Minolta Scan Dual II I experience the same kinds of 'noise (just using this term generically - please, no corrections about whether I'm using the right term) in the dark areas as others describe when scanning Supra 400. Fortunately, when it's in most dark areas where detail is not importantly I can blur it out sufficiently in PS. Norm Unsworth, Owner CS Golf (formerly Clark Systems Custom Golf) Outstanding Quality and Value in Custom Golf Equipment 609 641 5712 Please send email to me at: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit our Web Site at http://members.home.net/csgolf -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of JimD Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 6:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Supra 400 shadows I've experienced similar 'speckles' with Supra 400 and Royal Gold 4000 with my SS4000. Since this is the only scanner I've ever used I don't know if what I assume to be noise is something that happens with all scanners or is unique to the SS4000. I've become quite fond of Provia 100F. It is sharp as a tack and a joy to scan. Of course it does suffer in the exposure latitude department. I'm still using negative films but am shifting more to transparency film based on ease of scanning and the knock your socks off quality of Provia. -JimD At 11:44 AM 8/1/01 -0700, you wrote: I have the exact same problem with Supra 400 - red and green speckles in the shadows. Like you, I can't get them to disappear without blowing away a lot of shadow detail. I don't know if a drum scan would solve this or not - I've seen the same problem on both my SS4000 and my new LS-4000, so I have my doubts. My (admittedly drastic) solution has been to stop using Supra 400. I've switched entirely to Provia 400F slide film, and I find it scans just beautifully. Paul Chefurka -Original Message- From: John Matturri [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 10:34 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: Supra 400 shadows I've been having good results using Supra 400 (SS4000, Vuescan, current 7.1.7) except for the noise-like areas in dark parts of the image. At times I can partially compensate for this by setting the black point but only at the cost of losing shadow detail that at times is needed for the image (and often still not really getting an adequately clean shadow areas). Any suggestions about how best to deal with this problem? If push comes to shove and I really need to use an image with this problem can I be more or less confident that a drum scan would solve the problem? John M.
Re: filmscanners: Supra 400 shadows
In a message dated 08/01/2001 2:43:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My (admittedly drastic) solution has been to stop using Supra 400. I've switched entirely to Provia 400F slide film, and I find it scans just beautifully. I have heard some horrible reviews of this film. Of course, it will surely come up short if comparing it to Provia 100F. I'd love to open up my world 2 stops in a decent manner. Ed
Re: filmscanners: Supra 400 shadows
I have the exact same problem with Supra 400 - red and green speckles in the shadows. Like you, I can't get them to disappear without blowing away a lot of shadow detail. I don't know if a drum scan would solve this or not - I've seen the same problem on both my SS4000 and my new LS-4000, so I have my doubts. This is likely to be grain aliasing. Where exposure is slight, there aren't many dye clouds (grains), and if they are of a size to alias individual pixels or small groups, false colour is the outcome. Regards Tony Sleep This is what my hunch was. I at first thought that the fact that the problem also exists when the scan is 2000 dpi counted against that theory, but given the ccd size is the same at both settings I think that that doesn't hold up. Ed Hamrick asked me to send a raw scan but if it is grain aliasing I'm not sure that there will be much that can be done in software. On the other hand, if push comes to shove I would think that a higher resolution drum scan would resolve the grain and solve the problem (unfortunately at a monetary cost). John M.
RE: filmscanners: Supra 400 shadows
I have the exact same problem with Supra 400 - red and green speckles in the shadows. Like you, I can't get them to disappear without blowing away a lot of shadow detail. I don't know if a drum scan would solve this or not - I've seen the same problem on both my SS4000 and my new LS-4000, so I have my doubts. My (admittedly drastic) solution has been to stop using Supra 400. I've switched entirely to Provia 400F slide film, and I find it scans just beautifully. Paul Chefurka -Original Message- From: John Matturri [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 10:34 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: Supra 400 shadows I've been having good results using Supra 400 (SS4000, Vuescan, current 7.1.7) except for the noise-like areas in dark parts of the image. At times I can partially compensate for this by setting the black point but only at the cost of losing shadow detail that at times is needed for the image (and often still not really getting an adequately clean shadow areas). Any suggestions about how best to deal with this problem? If push comes to shove and I really need to use an image with this problem can I be more or less confident that a drum scan would solve the problem? John M.
Re: filmscanners: Supra 400 shadows
- Original Message - From: John Matturri [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 9:33 AM Subject: filmscanners: Supra 400 shadows | I've been having good results using Supra 400 (SS4000, Vuescan, current | 7.1.7) except for the noise-like areas in dark parts of the image. At | times I can partially compensate for this by setting the black point but | only at the cost of losing shadow detail that at times is needed for the | image (and often still not really getting an adequately clean shadow | areas). Any suggestions about how best to deal with this problem? Keep the shadow detail and deal with it in post-scan processing with Photoshop or you software of choice. | If push comes to shove and I really need to use an image with this | problem can I be more or less confident that a drum scan would solve the | problem? I don't know - hopefully someone else can answer. Maris
RE: filmscanners: Supra 400 shadows
I've experienced similar 'speckles' with Supra 400 and Royal Gold 4000 with my SS4000. Since this is the only scanner I've ever used I don't know if what I assume to be noise is something that happens with all scanners or is unique to the SS4000. I've become quite fond of Provia 100F. It is sharp as a tack and a joy to scan. Of course it does suffer in the exposure latitude department. I'm still using negative films but am shifting more to transparency film based on ease of scanning and the knock your socks off quality of Provia. -JimD At 11:44 AM 8/1/01 -0700, you wrote: I have the exact same problem with Supra 400 - red and green speckles in the shadows. Like you, I can't get them to disappear without blowing away a lot of shadow detail. I don't know if a drum scan would solve this or not - I've seen the same problem on both my SS4000 and my new LS-4000, so I have my doubts. My (admittedly drastic) solution has been to stop using Supra 400. I've switched entirely to Provia 400F slide film, and I find it scans just beautifully. Paul Chefurka -Original Message- From: John Matturri [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 10:34 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: Supra 400 shadows I've been having good results using Supra 400 (SS4000, Vuescan, current 7.1.7) except for the noise-like areas in dark parts of the image. At times I can partially compensate for this by setting the black point but only at the cost of losing shadow detail that at times is needed for the image (and often still not really getting an adequately clean shadow areas). Any suggestions about how best to deal with this problem? If push comes to shove and I really need to use an image with this problem can I be more or less confident that a drum scan would solve the problem? John M.
Re: filmscanners: Supra 400 shadows
I've become quite fond of Provia 100F. It is sharp as a tack and a joy to scan. Of course it does suffer in the exposure latitude department. I'm still using negative films but am shifting more to transparency film based on ease of scanning and the knock your socks off quality of Provia. -JimD Yeah, Provia is my usual film, though I was hoping to shift to negative for latitude reasons. Also for some thing I need to go to 400 and Provia 400 is pricey, especially for big shoots. John M.
Re: filmscanners: Supra 400 shadows
| I've been having good results using Supra 400 (SS4000, Vuescan, current | 7.1.7) except for the noise-like areas in dark parts of the image. At | times I can partially compensate for this by setting the black point but | only at the cost of losing shadow detail that at times is needed for the | image (and often still not really getting an adequately clean shadow | areas). Any suggestions about how best to deal with this problem? Keep the shadow detail and deal with it in post-scan processing with Photoshop or you software of choice. Mark Any suggestions? I do generally set the black and white points in vuescan wide allowing me room to set them in photoshop. I can get rid of some of the problem that way, but lose shadow detail. I've also selected the affected shadows and despeckled, which works kinda ok for backgrounds (as I guess would a gaussian blur) but is not good when you need the shadow image to retain its sharpness. I've also tried to select the affected area and do a replace color on red or other speckeled pixels and then manipulate them into the background. These techniques improve the situation but not really to my satisfaction. Has anyone not had the shadow speckling with this film? It doesn't seem to be ccd noise so is it a grain interaction? (If so, there's up for a hi-res drum scan that might fully resolve the grain, I guess.) John M.
