At 09:36 PM 13/07/01 -0600, Frank wrote:
..you are just seeing a shadow effect where the slide
mount is blocking only some of the light path along the edge.
Yup, I took a couple and looked at them under a microscope at low power and
what you describe is definitely what is happening - one side
After one roll of Provia 100F and a earlier suggestion that I can buy it
out-of-date for less than consumer negative film, I think that is the way I
am going to go. I need to find someone locally in Denver that can develop it
for me - the shop I am using sends it out and it takes a week - I hate
You're in Dan Margulis's camp, then? He maintains (and I have no opinion
one way or the other) that 16-bit color are not necessary.
Maris
- Original Message -
From: rafeb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 8:45 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Which Buggy
Though I have barely used NikonScan and know nothing of the HP scanner
software, I think that Vuescan will obtain the maximum information available
from the admittedly foggy and dense film - it's design will do that.You
may have to adjust the gamma and brightness settings to do so, or even by
Mark,
The ascii art reflects the mount and film correctly as I saw it under the
scope. But I still think I am seeing image in the ccc area. However, you may
be correct, and I agree turning it around will prove the point. I didn't
crop anything off of the right side, but vuescan may have...
I
Norman,
For black white film that is very dense, there is something called
farmer's reducer that chemically washes some of the denseness from the film.
Assuming you have color negatives, you might want to investigate if such a
thing works for you too? Maybe someone on the list knows?
Dave B.
Norman wrote:
From a practical, rather than a causative approach, how have folks dealt
with this issue, both in terms of minimizing apparent grain from scans and
in improving (ie: reducing) the appearance of 'grain' in Photoshop?
Norman, your defocussing scheme is undoubtably the fastest way
It uses a 3-row *monochrome* CCD sensor. That's in the
specs on the Nikon website, I believe.
In normal operation it uses all 3 rows, but I believe
that's for speed's sake only.
Three rows at once? It must then change the lighting three times for each
step of the film, and record three
Forget about the HP Photosmart, the way to do is with the Nikon and Vuescan, and
use the multiscan feature (experiment with number of passes). Output your files
in 48bit tif mode so that Photoshop has a chance of adjusting the levels..
expect some noise (grain) in the shadows. Adjust the
Darrell, I had an identical problem some months ago with totally different
software/hardware configurations. By process of elimination, I found the
problem was in the McAfee software upgrade I had added--it was sitting in
the background making endless backups of the scans, running me out of
On Fri, 13 Jul 2001 21:58:08 -0400 Norman Quinn ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
Apparently two rolls of color print film were either fogged by an xray =
machine or poorly developed.=20
The entire roll film is very dense but there are images there.
Urgh! You'd probably do best to use the LS2000
On Sat, 14 Jul 2001 01:17:28 -0400 Dave King ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
If there are no mirrors in either, what would explain better sharpness
in the Imacon (assuming flat film in the Polaroid and Nikon)?
A bigger budget for the lens? ;) - but also the whole point of a curved
film gate is
On Fri, 13 Jul 2001 21:45:56 -0400 rafeb ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I've been making scans in 24-bit color for years, on
about 3 or 4 different film scanners. I don't use
the 48-bit color mode, ever, even on the 8000.
No posterization. I suspect there's another reason
for the
I just think users of certain services should be aware how unreliable
they are, because they will never know that mail has gone missing. Whether
or not any of the affected people ever see this is in the lap of their
mail providers, of course.
554 5.0.0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Service unavailable
Frank wrote:
1. Should I be using cheap film/processing during this learning phase or is
this a bad thing which will cause me to develop bad habits?
Cheap film doesn't act that much differently from ordinary film, except that
the Quality Control isn't as good. The single caution I would make,
On Fri, 13 Jul 2001 18:19:28 -0700 Pat Perez ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
the
most infamous being 3rd party manufacturer video drivers
Yup! Absolutely (one reason why I conservatively stick to Matrox is that -
eventually anyhow - their drivers usually get to be well behaved).
It may be
On Sat, 14 Jul 2001 00:18:45 -0400 Austin Franklin
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Nikon gurus... I believe we discussed that the new Nikon MF scanner
uses
LEDs as the light source, but does it use only one CCD row, and switch
each
color on/off and scan each row three times?
AFAIK all
Frank, your small snip must have been too big--it didn't come through. Try
getting it under 100kb (half that would be better).
Re putting neutral density filter over the Scanwit's calibration slot to
fool it into higher exposure, yes it's possible and I've done it. Cranking
up your camera
On Fri, 13 Jul 2001 14:20:59 -0600 Frank Nichols ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
Questions: (from a scanning perspective)
1. Should I be using cheap film/processing during this learning phase
or is
this a bad thing which will cause me to develop bad habits?
2.Should I be sticking to a
Hi Frank--
A nice feature of Denver is they have literally hundreds of very well
maintained-wooded parks - almost every neighborhood has one. So we are
making a list and have challenged ourselves to shoot every park in Denver!
A noble endeavor! :-) Now let me give you *another* reason to buy
on 7/12/01 10:48 PM, Gordon Tassi at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rob: I once had a roll with about 3 frames that looked like they were full of
flyspecks. I ran it through Vuescan to see if it would remove the dust. I
wasn't dust. It was in the emulsion, probably done in the devolempent
At 14:30 14-07-01 +0100, Tony Sleep wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2001 18:19:28 -0700 Pat Perez ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
the
most infamous being 3rd party manufacturer video drivers
Yup! Absolutely (one reason why I conservatively stick to Matrox is that -
eventually anyhow - their drivers
Lynn,
Others received the clip, it was about 36Kb. The problem must be on your
end.
/fn
Frank, your small snip must have been too big--it didn't come
through. Try
getting it under 100kb (half that would be better).
Although I haven't seen it in the flesh either, this sounds like the early
panoramic cameras (Cirkut, Kodak) of 80-90 years ago, updated and
technisized. The Kodak used a swiveling anistigmat lens and slot arrangement
with a curved film back. The Cirkut was unique in that it swiveled the
I as well try to use Matrox whenever I build a system. It helps that I don't
play computer games, as they are sub par for that. One aspect of Matrox'
approach toward drivers is the fact that they continue to get their drivers
certified by Microsoft's certification lab, which means a particular
At 02:30 PM 7/14/01 +0100, Tony Sleep wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2001 18:19:28 -0700 Pat Perez ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
the
most infamous being 3rd party manufacturer video drivers
Yup! Absolutely (one reason why I conservatively stick to Matrox is that -
eventually anyhow - their drivers
At 09:19 AM 7/14/01 -0400, Austin wrote:
How fast can it scan a 6x6 BW?
On a 700 MHz Athlon PC:
2 minutes, 10 seconds with Super Fine Scan OFF.
5 minutes, 15 seconds with Super Fine Scan ON.
If using NS in TWAIN mode, that's about the
extent of it.
However, if using NS in Stand-Alone mode,
How fast can it scan a 6x6 BW?
On a 700 MHz Athlon PC:
2 minutes, 10 seconds with Super Fine Scan OFF.
5 minutes, 15 seconds with Super Fine Scan ON.
FYI, the Leafscan is well under 4 minutes.
Norman Quinn wrote:
Using a Nikon 2000 scanner or a HP Photo smart scanner
and nikon and vuescan software, what would be the best
place to start to extract the images from the film.
I agree with Tony - scan with the LS2000 to 48bit files and use autolevels
in PS to get close to the most
Frank Nichols [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The scariest part so far has been trying to figure out the USM to use.
These are Provia 100F slides scanned at 2700 DPI on my Scanwit and they look
a bit soft. However, where I normally start getting nervous if I use over
150% at 1.2 radius with threshold
Gad, unsharp mask over 100%? I've been using a radius of 2.0 and only 60%.
Is there something I'm seriously missing about USM?
As part of a rather convoluted sharpening methodology I've developed, my
USM settings are generally in the range of 500/.15 to 1.5/0 ... sounds
weird, I know, but in
At 08:38 AM 7/15/01 +1000, Rob Geraghty wrote:
Fair enough! I just took some photos of coral on the Great Barrier Reef
and underwater photography is a whole new challenge. Some of the
coral near the surface looked slightly bleached to me.
If they're anything like the corals off the
coast of
At 08:28 AM 7/15/01 +1000, Rob wrote:
Gad, unsharp mask over 100%? I've been using a radius of 2.0 and only 60%.
Is there something I'm seriously missing about USM?
Using the USM tool is a black art. Dan Margulis has written
some great articles about using this tool most effectively.
I
No, I think I am using way to much - basing it on my screen preview. I am
running some tests this weekend looking at printouts at various levels.
/fn
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rob Geraghty
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2001 4:28 PM
And then the other side. I have a matroxG400 which causes crashes on a
weekly basis. I have to de-install and re-install the driver and everything
is fine for a while.
David
-Original Message-
From: rafeb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2001 1:12 PM
To:
Can anyone point me to a good/active mailing list for discussions of ink jet
printers (specifically Epson) used to print my scans? That seems off topic
for this list...
/fn
Frank Nichols asked
Can anyone point me to a good/active mailing list for discussions of ink jet
printers (specifically Epson) used to print my scans?
Sign up for the epson-inkjet list at http://www.leben.com/lists/
It is both good and ACTIVE!
Peter Marquis-Kyle
One article is online at http://www.ledet.com/margulis/Sharpen.pdf
Maris
- Original Message -
From: rafeb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2001 6:47 PM
Subject: Re: Unsharp mask was Re: filmscanners: Getting started question
| At 08:28 AM 7/15/01 +1000,
You can sign up at the Epson Inkjet Resources website at
http://home.att.net/~arwomack01/
Maris
- Original Message -
From: Frank Nichols [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Filmscanners@Halftone. Co. Uk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2001 7:35 PM
Subject: filmscanners: Inkjet Printer
Try http://groups.yahoo.com/group/epson-inkjet/
- Original Message -
From: Frank Nichols [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Filmscanners@Halftone. Co. Uk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2001 5:35 PM
Subject: filmscanners: Inkjet Printer List?
Can anyone point me to a good/active mailing
At 06:35 PM 7/14/01 -0600, you wrote:
Can anyone point me to a good/active mailing list for discussions of ink jet
printers (specifically Epson) used to print my scans? That seems off topic
for this list...
www.leben.com has the instructions you need to
join the Epson list. See ya there...
I presume you mean security staff at the entrance to airside rather than
check in staff?
Film must never be left in checked baggage these days, the X-ray machines
they use for that are guaranteed to fog your film.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Geraghty) wrote:
Norman Quinn wrote:
No just the
Could it be dust before the film was processed, leaving chemical spots on
the film?
Those would be just as transparent to IR as the real image...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Geraghty) wrote:
Jim Snyder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It was probably still dust. A lack of cleanliness in a photolab is
--- Norman Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm surprised that there was X-ray fogging, unless
the camera went through
the machine with exposed film in it.
If you do not use high ISO film you can let it through
the X-ray for HANDBAGGAGE safely a few times. But
NEVER leave film in checked
Norman Quinn wrote:No just the film. This is the 1st time I have
had fogged film too.The poor technican at the lab thought his machine
had misdeveloped them, but strips B4 and after mine were
fine.It must be X-ray. I had just returned from a trip.Out of
interest what speed was
Vuescan's settings are so cryptic that I couldn't suggest any concrete
numbers. I would just suggest that after your initial Preview, you start
by increasing the Image brightness to 2 or 3 perhaps, try different Gamma
numbers, uncheck Auto black point and try 0 or some decimal (this I've
never
One article is online at http://www.ledet.com/margulis/Sharpen.pdf
I haven't read enough to know if this guy Margulis knows what he's talking
about or not, but to quote from one of his articles:
Anyone who thinks that if a fine screen is good, than a finer one must be
better is a moron.
47 matches
Mail list logo
