I am always typing faster than I am thinking.
I am scanning almost all negs, the latest roll is Kodak Royal 400. I did play with
various film base settings, some have distinctly different casts than others, but non
I played with were better than generic. Ed has explained this tries to
Rob Wrote:
AFAIK Vuescan's film type settings are limited by the profiles released
for PhotoCD. So if there's no PhotoCD profile for Superia, there's none
in Vuescan. The profile for Reala should be very close - they use the same
emulsion technology.
Thanks. Yes, the Reala 100(Japan) gives
On Tue, 17 Jul 2001 20:11:27 -0400 Austin Franklin
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
DMax is of no value what so ever unless there is a DMin associated with
it
(and vice versa).
Hmm, I don't want to sound like a tiresome pedant who gets all worked up
over precise use of language, but (to be
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tony Sleep
Sent: 17 July 2001 23:33
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: T400CN was filmscanners: Grain, Noise, et al
Tony,
What speed do you rate your T400CN ? I have just finished testing XP2 rated
400
It should have read, and we like to incorporate it into our machines.
And it is moving into both our machines and their programming. Often in
areas where physical devices need to be moved through a continuous
range, an example would be auto focus devices where the programming
makes assumption
On Tue, 17 Jul 2001 21:40:02 -0700 Arthur Entlich ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
Nikon is having to deal with me. I own a lot of their stuff, and it
has and does continue to breakdown (after it was serviced by them, BTW).
Ah, now I understand : legitimate user feedback, therefore :)
Regards
On Tue, 17 Jul 2001 23:46:27 - Lynn Allen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Pissing contest. Admittedly funny, but it takes up Tony's bandwidth.
So did that:) So did this:)
Regards
Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info
comparisons
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001 13:27:46 +1000 Julian Robinson
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
**In any case as we know and has already been discussed many times on
this list, the **quoted** dynamic range is usually based on the num of
A/D bits and so is not related to either Dmax OR Dmin in any case!
At 09:37 PM 7/17/01 -0700, Art wrote:
From my read on this,
I don't give a rat's ass about your observations
on this topic, Art. I can browse the internet as
well as the next Tom, Dick or Harry, and don't need
your help to form my opinions on such matters.
Have you owned a Nikon scanner?
I played with my exposures to see how the film would react to slight
under-exposure in an attempt to heighten the contrast a bit but only went
under by 1/2 stop. The film's latitude must be very wide as I couldn't
really detect any difference from 'properly' exposed shots.
RE: the pink cast on
They can't really think I wanted that, can they?
They may not have a choice. I'd guess that most minilabs would only have
colour paper, and it's just not possible to get true greyscale on colour
paper.
Well, we'll see. I finally got hold of a phone number for the Kodak lab.
After I call the
My replacement 8000 was humming right along and I thought I was home free
but I scanned a slide with lots of deep blue/purple sky and sure enough,
banding galore. I have a tag to send it back to Nikon but I'm a bit
skeptical that it will make much difference at this point. If my wife were
not
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001 13:27:46 +1000 Julian Robinson
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
**In any case as we know and has already been discussed many times on
this list, the **quoted** dynamic range is usually based on the num of
A/D bits and so is not related to either Dmax OR Dmin in any case!
It should have read, and we like to incorporate it into our machines.
And it is moving into both our machines and their programming. Often in
areas where physical devices need to be moved through a continuous
range, an example would be auto focus devices where the programming
makes
Hi!
My replacement 8000 was humming right along and I thought I was home free
but I scanned a slide with lots of deep blue/purple sky and sure enough,
banding galore. I have a tag to send it back to Nikon but I'm a bit
skeptical that it will make much difference at this point. If my wife
Jeff..
You might try the BULBMAN @ 1-800-648-1163..I've had excellent luck with
them in the past on other types of bulb replacements..
Eddie Wiseman
- Original Message -
From: Jeff Weir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 11:04 AM
Subject: filmscanners:
Steven Chambers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What speed do you rate your T400CN ?
I've been rating mine at EI250. The lack of grain is astounding.
Rob
I have a Sprint Scan 45 that is in need of a replacement bulb/tube. Is there
a supplier other than Polaroid that carries this particular lamp. The lamp
is 3.5mm in diameter and roughly 22.5cm long. There is wires connected on
both ends that travels into a 5 pin connector that inserts into the
I have a Sprint Scan 45 that is in need of a replacement
bulb/tube.
I would be curious what the replacement cost is, if you would be so kind to
post it...
I can and will!
Lawrence
Could You publish any image on your site with visible banding? I'm very
curious how it looks like.
--
Marcin M. Nagraba
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Znudzilo Ci sie logo w komorce?
Wgraj nowe [ http://komorki.onet.pl/dodatki.html ]
...the problem is that the only logical reference when Dmax is quoted on
its own is against full transparency, as you state - i.e. no
film, nothing
in the way of the path betw the light source and the detector.
IMHO (and I don't really want to get into this discussion *at all*), it
would
DMax *does* have a particular meaning in photography and it ain't
'dynamic range'. It is an absolute value of opacity - a densitometric
measurement relative only to the illuminant intensity unimpeded by film.
Yes, film and paper can be measured by a calibrated densitometer, but what
you are
Norman wrote:
I played with my exposures to see how the film would react to slight
under-exposure in an attempt to heighten the contrast a bit but only went
under by 1/2 stop. The film's latitude must be very wide as I couldn't
really detect any difference from 'properly' exposed shots.
I once
Hi, Tony--
Turns out we were both trying to throw water on a grass fire, so to speak.
I've made apologies all round, and apologize to you, as well. :-)
Best regards--Lynn Allen
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tony Sleep)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: filmscanners:
Here's an example of the banding. http://www.lwsphoto.com/banding.htm It
is EXACTLY the same as my previous 8000 had done.
Lawrence
**In any case as we know and has already been discussed many times on
this list, the **quoted** dynamic range is usually based on the num of
A/D bits and so is not related to either Dmax OR Dmin in any case!
Once one manufacture starts doing this the others would be crazy not to
follow
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001 12:37:35 +0100 Steven Chambers
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
What speed do you rate your T400CN ? I have just finished testing XP2
rated
400 - 50 ASA.
ISO400 works well for me, although I'll increase it a bit if shadow detail
is the priority.
I don't much like what
Number of bits? Did we forget to mention that the14 bits is
internally only?
And that the last 2 bits are extrapolated from our 12 bit ADC?
Or that the
system has so much noise that we could have used a 10 bit ADC?
That's an interesting issue. A design can use a 12 bit ADC, and take
Title: RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...
That's exactly the same as the banding I was getting.
Paul Wilson
-Original Message-
From: Lawrence Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 12:00 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001 08:18:17 -0400 rafeb ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
It's not my job to refute your unfounded
statements. You made the statement; YOU
provide the facts to back them up.
Not wishing to pour petrol on troubled waters, but Nikon does have some
'previous' :-
(i)the
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001 08:53:03 -0400 Lawrence Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
My replacement 8000 was humming right along and I thought I was home free
but I scanned a slide with lots of deep blue/purple sky and sure enough,
banding galore.
Do you think this is just showing banding which
Tony,
I think it is happening everywhere but is most obvious in the blue regions.
Lawrence
Do you think this is just showing banding which is happening
generally but
hard to see, or is it just in this area?
Regards
Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio
Is there an archive for this mailing list? If so, what's the URL?
Title: RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...
It's
really annoying. Rafe said his looked different. Do you still have
your SS120?
Lawrence
That's exactly the same as the banding I was getting.
Paul Wilson
I have checked and it is mostly in the blue channel. I notified tech
support of this but they continue to pretend that my problems are not
widespread. Bullsh*t...
Lawrence
You should check your individual channels in PS (make sure you
have them set
to display in grayscale in the
Lynn,
Actually we probably both had the same problem - if you don't specify with
the lab their machine will automatically print each exposure as close to the
'right' print they can. I've taken to stipulating that they use no
compensation on any prints. When I got my most recent camera (Nikon
On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, rafeb wrote:
Yes, but given the dearth of reasonably priced MF
scanners, the Epson 1640 really is a pretty remarkable
value.
Forgive what is probably a stupid question, but what's MF mean?
--
Terry Carroll | Denied.
Santa Clara, CA | Baltimore
Title: RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...
Actually, I sent it back. Mainly because I
decided that Digital ICE was well worth it for me. The SS120 did not have
any banding like that but I felt it was also not quite as sharp as the
Nikon.
Paul Wilson
-Original
Here's archive the url
http://phi.res.cse.dmu.ac.uk/Filmscan/
Norman Unsworth
Is there an archive for this mailing list? If so, what's the URL?
May I just jump in here briefly and make an observation about the way Nikon
Scan 3.x works when scanning negatives?:
Negatives plainly have quite a high DMin. The curious thing is that Nikon
Scan doesn't tweak the black point at all when doing a default scan (ROC/GEM
off) so that the black
I bought my first scanner, the Primefilm 1800, cos it is cheap (£120). And
the LS40 because it is the cheapest with ICE-cubed (I'm now using all 3
parts of it, and I'm doing almost no editing in PS, except for cropping and
basic exposure curves).
I've always thought of myself as relatively
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Lawrence Smith wrote:
RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...It's really annoying.
Rafe said his looked different. Do you still have your SS120?
Lawrence
That's exactly the same as the banding I was getting.
Paul Wilson
The banding
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Terry Carroll wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, rafeb wrote:
Yes, but given the dearth of reasonably priced MF
scanners, the Epson 1640 really is a pretty remarkable
value.
Forgive what is probably a stupid question, but what's MF mean?
On this list, it means
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Tony Sleep wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001 08:18:17 -0400 rafeb ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
It's not my job to refute your unfounded
statements. You made the statement; YOU
provide the facts to back them up.
Not wishing to pour petrol on troubled waters, but
Seems pretty slight to me - but I've already surmised that I am not in the
same league of perfectionism as everyone else round here (hey, I own an
LS40 - and my most expensive camera component ever (SLR body, lens, flash,
etc) is my Canon PS).
What magnification are we looking at in the zoom?
MF = Medium Format (120 roll film sizes, typically)
Stan
===
Photography by Stan McQueen: http://www.smcqueen.com
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Jawed Ashraf wrote:
May I just jump in here briefly and make an observation about the way Nikon
Scan 3.x works when scanning negatives?:
Negatives plainly have quite a high DMin. The curious thing is that Nikon
Scan doesn't tweak the black point at all when doing a
Title: RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...
I'm not sure when I'll be receiving my new 8000. It's on backorder and I got a price of $2800, so I'm willing to wait. However, I'll be trying the same slides that caused banding in the first place and I'll report as soon as I
Peter Marquis-Kyle wrote:
Kerry Thompson wrote
I recently installed a LS-30 on a new Win 2000 professional system. The
computer recognizes the scanner at startup but does not seem to install a
driver for it. Each startup the computer again recognizes the scanner and
begins the new hardware
Lawrence Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As my prints sell for hundreds of $ they need to be perfect.
Preston wonders:
If your scans need to be perfect, why are you trying to scan them on a
$3,000 scanner? Send them out to someone who has a high-end drum scanner or
even a high-end flat-bed
I do that as well. However, not all slides/negs need to be done that way.
Clearly there is a point of diminishing returns. BTW, I've had crappy drum
scans too. Really depends on the operator. My point was that they need to
be free of things like visible banding that make them look like
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Lawrence Smith wrote:
Seems pretty slight to me -
Perhaps but it shows up in prints. As my prints sell for hundreds of $ they
need to be perfect.
What magnification are we looking at in the zoom?
About 66%
Somebody was talking
about making the 8000
I agree - I was just about to write as much.
I don't really know how big a 645 neg is, but the thought of a 4000 dpi scan
across two or three inches (guess) of film makes the mind boggle. Hmm, are
you prints 36 inches square? Crikey
Lawrence, have you verified that you *need* to do
And as final thought, 30 minutes per image of scanning costs you real
time/money. Whatever saving you're achieving by not using
third-party drum
scanning is offset by you having to sit around feeding negs. What hourly
rate do you put on your time in the digital darkroom?
The digital
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Raphael Bustin wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Terry Carroll wrote:
Forgive what is probably a stupid question, but what's MF mean?
On this list, it means medium-format. Elsewhere, it might mean
something entirely different g
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Stan McQueen wrote:
MF
Interesting article. It actually makes me want to go on such a workshop.
Jawed
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Lawrence Smith
Sent: 19 July 2001 01:47
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding
At 01:20 AM 7/19/01 +0100, Jawed wrote:
I agree - I was just about to write as much.
I don't really know how big a 645 neg is, but the thought of a 4000 dpi scan
across two or three inches (guess) of film makes the mind boggle. Hmm, are
you prints 36 inches square? Crikey
I'm not Lawrence,
If your scans need to be perfect, why are you trying to scan them on a
$3,000 scanner? Send them out to someone who has a high-end drum
scanner or
even a high-end flat-bed (like a Scitex Eversmart). Those scans will be
perfect. There is a reason why some scanners cost $500, some
cost
A quick measurement of those teeth on the 8000 ED
film holders shows 8 teeth per inch (0.125 pitch.)
OTOH, the banding that I've seen has a period (width)
of about 30-35 pixels, which is well under 0.01 at 4000 dpi.
Scratch that theory.
rafe b.
I've found something out. Thanks to Howard Slavitt who suggested to me that
the issue might actually be with the profile conversion I tried some various
settings. Heres what I have discovered. If I make individual adjustments
to the RGB channels in Nikonscan the banding appears. If I make no
I've found something out. Thanks to Howard Slavitt who suggested
to me that
the issue might actually be with the profile conversion I tried
some various
settings. Heres what I have discovered. If I make individual adjustments
to the RGB channels in Nikonscan the banding appears. If I
on 7/18/01 2:55 PM, Terry Carroll at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, rafeb wrote:
Yes, but given the dearth of reasonably priced MF
scanners, the Epson 1640 really is a pretty remarkable
value.
Forgive what is probably a stupid question, but what's MF mean?
Medium
I've posted a few small scans from my 8000 ED at:
http://www.channel1.com/users/rafeb/scanner_test4.htm
(Photos of shed, and snow-covered boats.)
These might explain why some of us are pretty
excited about this machine, in spite of all the
negative talk 'round here.
This was a totally
Lawrence Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lawrence wonders why he detects a bit of an attitude in your reply. I'm
sure they are many others on this list whose work sells for as much or more
than mine does. If you doubt that I am being truthful, I'd be happy to send
you to a location where you
What I didn't understand from the linked images is that under magnification
it appeared that there was some sharpening halos around some objects, while
the image overall looked a bit soft?
(Also, if that is banding, then that appears to be the same problem I am
working on with our Scanwits - I
I am not involved with this thread, and I don't have a Nikon. I do have a
low end (Acer Scanwit) and want to comment on this attitude.
I don't think anyone questions that you get what you pay for and $3,000 is
certainly not going to compete with $30,000. However, basic functionality
should be
This is a wild-ass guess, but maybe memory at the byte level isn't being
accessed or allocated or released properly, and what appears as a band is
the result of regular 'overflows'.
- Original Message -
From: Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've found something out. Thanks to
Well,
Thanks for all the suggestions.
I have altered my work habits a little based on them. For now I am going to
be shooting Fugi HG 100 most of the time until I feel I have most the
variables under predictable control. (I will still shoot a roll of Provia
100F occasionally, just for the
Lawrence wrote:
settings. Heres what I have discovered. If I make individual adjustments
to the RGB channels in Nikonscan the banding appears.
Does the banding occur in Vuescan output?
Rob
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
I didn't think vuescan supports this scanner yet..
Lawrence
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rob Geraghty
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 11:43 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Scratch the Gear Teeth
Well, just when you think you've made progress the scanner fools you. On
further testing I started getting bands without making any adjustments.
This is one strange machine. One thing is consistent however, the banding
is much worse at 16x. at 1x it is essentially invisible.
Lawrence
I've
on 7/18/01 11:11 PM, rafeb wrote:
I've posted a few small scans from my 8000 ED at:
http://www.channel1.com/users/rafeb/scanner_test4.htm
Rafe,
I looked at your scans in PS, and they are impressive, but one thing I saw
raises a somewhat generic question for me.
The blue channel of the pad
This makes it sound more like a software issue. I would further bet that the
number of pixels between band peaks is evenly divisible by 8. It also makes
me think I was on the right track with my earlier guess. It sounds like the
samples aren't completely being reset to zero before another sample
I didn't think vuescan supports this scanner yet..
Pity - it would be a useful comparison. Maybe someone should send Ed a
SCSI command dump?
Rob
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
74 matches
Mail list logo
