On Fri, 31 Aug 2001 12:36:21 -0400 Mike Duncan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Use the black eye dropper on the part of the scan should be 0,0,0.
Yes, but this will usually lose some shadow detail too.
Regards
Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info
Doesn't the LS-4000 have an alternate connection
mode?
At 07:18 PM 09/05/2001, you wrote:
on 9/5/01 7:59 PM, Barbara
Martin Greene at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ed
I just downloaded a trial version. Am hoping it will help to
get less
softening of images when using ICE. I am running a Nikon LS
Art,
PMFJI. I saw Motorola's announcement on their investor pages. Problem
that I see is that gallium arsenide chips were high current devices which
killed off development programs at DEC and others. I imagine the new
generation even in a PC will still require 500-1000W PSUs with large and
On Sun, 2 Sep 2001 09:03:54 -0700 Karl Schulmeisters
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Thanks I've always wondered what the big deal with glass carriers was
because I figured dust would be a hassle, and any glass between the
negative
and the sensor (be it CCD or PhotoPaper) simply serves to
On Sat, 1 Sep 2001 12:52:08 EDT ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I've never used ICE, but I do own a Polaroid SprintScan 4000 and am
perfectly happy with it. I think that people who sing the praises of
ICE are people who have a dust problem
Today I have been scanning BW negs of my own from
= 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.
= Original Message From Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] =
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mike Duncan
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 11:20 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Nikon Scan VS Negative
I agree with the need to capture entire tonal range, but don't agree with
your belief that this cannot be done with Nikonscan. Have you
tried Scanner Extras / Prescan mode / low cont neutral? (on negs only I
think)
Julian
At 13:19 06/09/01, Maris wrote:
There is no set answer one way or
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
Have you tried Scanner Extras / Prescan mode / low cont neutral?
Julian
At 09:44 06/09/01, you wrote:
It is very simple: NS decides to clip a neg scan if the dynamic range
encoded in the neg is more than a certain amount. I don't know what this
amount is, but I can demonstrate a very strong
Tony wrote:
Printing them well is another matter however, best discussed elsewhere.
Not even a wee discussion? Have you seen prints off the Canon S800 yet?
Colin Maddock
I've never seen these options in Nikon Scan 3.0/3.1. Where should I be
looking (I can be blind like this sometimes)?
Jawed
= Original Message From Julian Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] =
Have you tried Scanner Extras / Prescan mode / low cont neutral?
Julian
At 09:44 06/09/01, you
I've just released VueScan7.1.13 for Windows, Mac OS 8/9/X
and Linux. It can be downloaded from:
http://www.hamrick.com/vsm.html
What's new in version 7.1.13
* Significantly faster on Mac OS 8/9/X and Linux
* Added keyboard shortcuts for common functions
* User interface
No,the LS-4000 onlyuses
Firewire.
-Original Message-From: Hersch Nitikman
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 2:43
AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re:
filmscanners: New to Viewscan/Ed HamrickDoesn't the LS-4000 have an alternate connection mode?At
At 9:44 PM -0400 9/5/01, Thomas B. Maugham wrote:
I am using a Canon FS2710 invoked from PS 6.0.1 via the twain driver. My
question is: Should I modify the image using levels, curves, etc. at the
time of the scan or simply perform the scan, save the image as a .psd file,
then make any
A DNA computer I know took a little while to get the software going, but
then turned around and wrote this message :-)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Atherton) wrote:
I want to know when they are going to get those DNA based computers
they've
been working on up and running? (seriously...)
tim a
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
On Sat, 01 Sep 2001 06:44:32 +1200 Ian Boag ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
With the same aim in mind I installed Linux a dual boot. Worked fine
until Nortons offered to fix my polluted boot sector and blew away the
loader
Thanks, that makes me feel better :-)
Regards
Tony Sleep
Austin writes:
That depends on the film format, and what you
mean by poster-sized, and what your expected
quality is.
It's pretty easy to calculate. If the viewing distance is equal to or greater
than 6875 multiplied by the size of a pixel, then the resolution is high enough.
That is
CPUs _multiply_ the external clock these days as the PCB can't carry
nearly so high a rate as the chip can without a lot more expensive
engineering.
The issue with the speed of electrons is a valid one, which is why CPU
architectures are headed more towards getting more out of every clock
In fact, three bits can represent any dynamic range at all.
That should have been three STATES not bits, can represent... Two bits can
be used represent three states...
On Sat, 1 Sep 2001 21:54:46 +0100 Jawed Ashraf
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I
bought the LS40 for ICE, *specifically* because of scratches which were
driving me barmy.
Yup, it's 95% the goon who sleeves the negs. It is such a boring job it is
generally done under suffrance by the work
On Fri, 31 Aug 2001 09:57:50 -0700 Shough, Dean ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
I expect to wait for the price of the Nikon to
come down or for Polaroid to introduce a new model.
Expect a long wait. Nikon generally seem to manage to keep dealer prices
static until they clear stocks just before
David,
Thank you for correcting me, but can you expand upon this a bit, because
I'm now somewhat confused.
Does the SS4000 CCD have three lines of sensors per color (in effect
nine lines) or does it use one CCD chip with three lines, one for each
color, or am I totally misunderstanding the
On Sat, 1 Sep 2001 15:37:00 -0400 Austin Franklin ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
The SS4k and other scanners like it, can have a dust problem, no
matter how clean your film is going into the scanner. These scanners can
have dust internally...that no matter what you do, save a clean room,
Jawed Ashraf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've never seen these options in Nikon Scan 3.0/3.1. Where should I be
looking (I can be blind like this sometimes)?
= Original Message From Julian Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] =
Have you tried Scanner Extras / Prescan mode / low cont neutral?
On Sun, 02 Sep 2001 17:45:08 -0400 Larry Berman ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
Although we all agree that a 48 bit scan has more data than a 24 bit
scan, perhaps it would be best for the default settings to be left where
they will be compatible with all image programs.
I make a point of
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.
I've posted a number of queries regarding the problem I've had with the loss
of detail due to the softening effect in using Digital ICE with the Nikon
Super coolscan 4000. I was so distressed by this that I was seriously
considering trading it in for the Canon Canonscan FS 4000, which uses FARE
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001 13:51:10 +1000 =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rob=20Geraghty?=
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
It's probably ho hum for the pro photographers on the list, but this is
still exciting for me being able to go into a newsagency and see a photo
I took on the cover of a magazine. Especially when
Austin writes:
That depends on the film format, and what you
mean by poster-sized, and what your expected
quality is.
It's pretty easy to calculate.
Of course it's easy to calculate, but that has nothing to do with your claim
and my comment. You claimed that 2700 spi scan is good
On Sat, 1 Sep 2001 11:02:38 -0500 Gordon Potter ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
Does the scanning software with these scanners allow one to select the
resolution for a scan?
It does, but generally the scanner software simply drops pixels. This is
nothing like as good as scanning at full
Is there a Microtek scanner that is the equivalent to the Scitex Eversmart. And if
so, do you know what it's
max. optical resolution is?
Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC
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
On Fri, 31 Aug 2001 13:24:16 -0400 Barbara Martin Greene
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I checked with Nikon tech support, and
the recommendation was to clean it out with canned air. I did this and
the
result was some reduction in junk, but still lots left over. They
recommended I
On Sun, 2 Sep 2001 09:52:41 -0400 Austin Franklin ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
I'm still hard pressed to believe that software, in this case, can
cause
banding...mostly because some of these scanners don't band with the exact
same software!
Why not? Nikon managed to achieve similar
The SS4k and other scanners like it, can have a dust problem, no
matter how clean your film is going into the scanner. These
scanners can
have dust internally...that no matter what you do, save a clean room,
will
get *some* dust on your perfectly clean film.
I haven't found this
On Mon, 3 Sep 2001 16:06:21 -0700 Chris Hargens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Any suggestions for removing water spots on film?
It depends on which side of the film. If on the base side, gentle cleaning
with a wet, soft fibreless cloth will do it - eg Pentax or Canon
microporous lens cloth
Some weeks ago there was a thread about fogged negs from airport X-rays.
This is to put everyone on notice that if you travel in the US, fogging is a
strong possibility, because it just happened to me on a trip from Cleveland
to Seattle--neither of which are particularly effective smuggling
That depends on the film format, and what you
mean by poster-sized, and what your expected
quality is.
It's pretty easy to calculate. If the viewing distance is equal to or greater
than 6875 multiplied by the size of a pixel, then the resolution is high enough.
That is _extremely_
--- Lynn Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This definitely pisses me off, and I wrote and sent corroberating pic
to the
(US) FCC in charge--for whatever good that will do.
snip
I'm just coming on--then dropping off again--to warn you all
to use
the lead bags when you travel (as if that
I apologize in advance if this a dumb question
We are considering the Microtek ArtixScan 6000XY. The company's website says that the
'optical resolution' is
6,000 x 2,000 dpi.
My question is: Do I look at the 6000 or the 2000 for the bottom line actual optical
resolution? I always
Phew, I thought a feature had escaped my attention.
No, the Advance Color settings have no effect on the default scan. The
whole of that page is for post processing, e.g. if you press the auto
levels button (the half-black, half-white button) it takes your white point
and black point target
Buy film at your destination, and have it developed there before you return.
Unless you are venturing into the Third World (and even if you are, sometimes),
this will give you photographs just as clean as taking your own film with you in
both directions, and the danger of fogging (or other
I have NS 3.1, and on my system there is a tool palette called Scanner
Extras. If you open this, there is a setting called Prescan Mode which you
can set to Low cont neutral (or hi key or lo key). But note that this
setting only appears if you have Negative selected rather than Positive
for
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
Hmm - maybe this is one of those things that Nikon withheld from LS30 /
LS40 (I have the LS2000).
I dunno, if this is the case it is unnecessary, but a good reason to buy
the more expensive scanner versions, or alternatively to buy
Vuescan. Surprise Surprise!
If I didn't have this
Sorry to hear you have had this problem.
I always avoid the x-ray machines by wearing something with big pockets
(walkers trousers coats are particularly good). I have never had a roll go
through an x-ray machine. Obviously there is a limit to how many you can
carry and you get some funny looks
Hi
all,
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, but what are the drawbacks? can most
programmes decode them if I send them to people
As best I know, because magazines print in four
colours they would require CYMK files not RGB.
- Original Message -
From:
PAUL
GRAHAM
To: Filmscanners@Halftone. Co. Uk
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 5:02
PM
Subject: filmscanners: tiff
compression
Hi
That solution doesn't always work. When we were in Europe (Athens and
Rome) security would not allow us to do anything but run the film
through the scanner. However, I was told that the intensity of the
X-rays of the gate scanner was much less than what is used for checked
baggage. I don't know
I don't think I sent this as it was still in the drafts folder. Apologies
if it's a duplicate.
Anthony wrote:
The publisher didn't whine about receiving a photo
scanned by yourself?
As I mentioned, my brother produces the magazine for the AUF. In order
to reduce costs, he does everything up
On Thu, 6 Sep 2001 22:37:07 +1200 Colin Maddock ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
Not even a wee discussion? Have you seen prints off the Canon S800 yet?
Yes. Bye bye Epson, potentially, by the look of them. But I want to know
about all the gotchas, CM, metamerism etc, rather than just relying on
Well, I've located the palette you're referring to, but all it has in there
is:
-Strip Film Offset (yes I use the evil strip film adaptor)
-Manual Focus Adjustment
-Scanner Extras - which contains a Calibrate button and a Help button
-Scan Bit Depth
So, no sign of this contrast thingie...
You
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001 21:55:30 +0200 Anthony Atkielski
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I was
under the impression (although it is perhaps a myth nowadays) that a
fair number
of publishers want to do their own scans
Not a myth at all, a real problem IME. Usually it is because the repro
house
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, because analogue voltages are mapped linearly by the ADC,
so with
Julian wrote:
Hmm - maybe this is one of those things that Nikon withheld from LS30 /
LS40 (I have the LS2000).
You may be right, but I thought you were still using 2.51. I never looked
for the settings you described when I was still running that version - because
I used Vuescan instead.
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001 13:28:55 -0500 Gordon Potter ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
That would be an average speed of 7
times E10 cm per second or more then twice the speed of light.
So a very, very strong desk will be needed, but it will have worked out the
final image before you've done the
Julian wrote:
setting only appears if you have Negative selected rather
than Positive for your film type - IOW it is not available
for slides. Maybe you were set to slides the day you looked
in there.
Sorry Julian - when I looked last night I had the slide adapter in the LS30
so that's
--- Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've never understood why photographers lug hundreds of rolls of film
around the
world when film and development are available practically everywhere
on the
planet. What's so special about film and development at home?
Because you don't know
--- Dana Trout [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That solution doesn't always work. When we were in Europe (Athens and
Rome) security would not allow us to do anything but run the film
through the scanner. However, I was told that the intensity of the
X-rays of the gate scanner was much less than
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
I have a Canon Australia supplied test print from the S800.
The flesh tones in the sample (a girl swimming underwater) tend in a rather
ugly way towards orange*, and dark areas show noticable striping when
viewed closely (just like my Epson when a jet is clogged!). I checked a
number of
Why not just get the film developed in Athens and Rome?
- Original Message -
From: Dana Trout [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 01:09
Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
That solution doesn't always work. When we were in Europe (Athens
My understanding is that it is true. The x-ray levels used
on checked luggage would be excessive exposure for the gate staff. I
would still be hesitant with 800+ speed film, but 'normal' film should be
OK, if they won't accept a hand search.
Hersch
At 04:55 PM 09/06/2001, you wrote:
--- Dana
Use the lower of the two resolutions. If you need resolution in the axis of the
low resolution, the high resolution in another axis won't help.
- Original Message -
From: SKID Photography [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: scanner group [EMAIL PROTECTED]; scanner group UK
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:
Rob writes:
The printers demand 300dpi ...
They may demand it, but they don't need it. That's around 200 lpi for printing,
and virtually no one is printing with screens that fine. Even good magazines
are at around 150 lpi, as far as I know.
... and scanning at 2700ppi off 35mm film won't
Robert writes:
Because you don't know how well they have
stored the film.
What reason is there to believe that it would be stored any worse than at home?
And how do you know how well film is stored at home?
How much difference does improper storage make? And what do you consider
improper
I am new to this list and would appreciate some advice on selecting a film scanner.
The high-end(4000 dpi) is beyond my budget.
I wish to make prints mainly in 8x10 format, with perhaps 11x14 at some later date.
My printer is an HP932C Deskjet.
My computer is just one year old with a 20 Gig
Anthony wrote:
Rob writes:
The printers demand 300dpi ...
They may demand it, but they don't need it. That's
around 200 lpi for printing, and virtually no one is
printing with screens that fine. Even good magazines
are at around 150 lpi, as far as I know.
I thought the lpi was half the
Probably the best deal going in a film scanner is the Polaroid SprintScan
4000. BH currently has it for $900 and last I looked, there was a $200
rebate from Polaroid. The rebate might have expired by not though. David?
I paid between $1500 and $1600 for mine about 18 months ago.
Larry
I
on 9/6/01 6:39 PM, Anthony Atkielski at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's so special about film and development at home?
you know how it'll turn out
--
John Brownlow
http://www.pinkheadedbug.com
Jawed,
You using a Mac? You really using 3.1? It doesn't appear in the manual -
dare I say it! Care to send a screen dump? Maybe it understands older
scanners - maybe older scanners don't have Analog Gain so the contrast
thingie is exclusively for them.
Maybe Nikon thought that the Analog
--- Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Robert writes:
Because you don't know how well they have
stored the film.
What reason is there to believe that it would be stored any worse
than at home?
And how do you know how well film is stored at home?
Because I've seen it many times
Hersch wrote:
My understanding is that it is true. The x-ray levels
used on checked luggage would be excessive exposure
for the gate staff. I would still be hesitant with
800+ speed film, but 'normal' film should be OK, if
they won't accept a hand search.
The problem I experienced when
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! :-)
And that's because it's a misunderstanding of how the system works!
Actually it does, because analogue voltages are mapped linearly
by the ADC,
so with 8bits
Not to beat a dead horse or start an argument; but with respect to buying
film on location, I would certainly take into account the purposes of the
photography.
If it is just snap shots, then there may not be any reason not to buy film
on location as long as you get it from a respected and known
How about a third as expensive. I've hauled film around in my carry-on
lugage for years and to all parts of the world including Russa, East Africa,
and China and never had a problem although sometimes the film was scanned
eight to twelve times before I got it home. Thats for ISO 100 to 400 film.
78 matches
Mail list logo
