I just though I'd mention that a number of used and new Polaroid SS4000
scanners have shown up on ebay. One sold (used) for $450 US. There is
also an Microtek Artixscan 4000T for sale over the next few hours.
Some have SCSI cards and software.
For people seeking these units, you might be able
Bits equals available grey levels per pixel
- Original Message -
From: Laurie Solomon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 4:22 PM
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: opinions? Reviews? of Primefilm 1800 ?
Another misconception...though equally as common...the
What color spaces is best to choose for the following purposes:
- printed material, for example a magazine or a photographic book
- stock photography (image bank)
- inkjet
I want to scan my images in the most appropriate color space for the purpose
but don't want to use some exotic ones. I'd
Hi Laurie,
In so far as my use of the two terms in the mistatement, dynamic
range and
density range tend to be used in the literature and manufacturer's specs
synonymously as denoting the same thing (ie. the contrast range),
Yes, I know...(heavy sigh). Marketing people tend not to really
Tomek writes ...
What color spaces is best to choose for the following purposes:
- printed material, for example a magazine or a photographic book
- stock photography (image bank)
- inkjet
I want to scan my images in the most appropriate color space for
the purpose but don't want to use
On Sat, Jun 08, 2002 at 09:43:00AM +0100, dickbo wrote:
Bits equals available grey levels per pixel
- Original Message -
From: Laurie Solomon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 4:22 PM
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: opinions? Reviews? of Primefilm 1800
On Sat, Jun 08, 2002 at 11:41:40AM +0200, Tomek Zakrzewski wrote:
What color spaces is best to choose for the following purposes:
- printed material, for example a magazine or a photographic book
- stock photography (image bank)
- inkjet
I want to scan my images in the most appropriate color
On Sat, 8 Jun 2002 16:17:30 +0100, you wrote:
Personally I do some sharpening for an archival image that may end up going
to different outputs. This is only a minor sharpening to restore the
sharpness of the original which is almost always softened by the scanning
process. Most images will
Probably the artifacts created in the compression process. It would
probably be better to convert to JPG first and then sharpen.
Maris
- Original Message -
From: Ken Durling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 11:05 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Color
It would probably be better to convert to JPG first and then sharpen.
Theoretically maybe; but out of curiosity, how does one do this in actuality
when one would have to first decompress the JPG file before one could carry
out the sharpening operations. Afterwhich, one would then recompress the
On Sat, 8 Jun 2002 11:56:29 -0500, you wrote:
Theoretically maybe; but out of curiosity, how does one do this in actuality
when one would have to first decompress the JPG file before one could carry
out the sharpening operations. Afterwhich, one would then recompress the
file again in its
One pre-press expert in my area recommends ColorMatchRGB instead of
Adobe98 for pre-press work. Is this a Mac vs. PC thing?
Primarily, yes it is both a Mac thing and a preferrential prejudice. From
what I understand, the two are very similar in terms of the gammut that they
cover.
Maris's
On Sat, 8 Jun 2002 11:33:05 -0500, you wrote:
Probably the artifacts created in the compression process. It would
probably be better to convert to JPG first and then sharpen.
But when printing it's best to go direct from the TIFF isn't it? This
is where I run into it. When producing for the
Hi Tony,
Number of bits have two main roles. They do indeed represent the
theoretical
maximum density that a scanner could have if the electrical
components were
up to scratch and could use those bits to their full.
Not true. You can represent ANY density by any number of bits. I
Hi Austin,
Yes I am fully cognizant of the fact that we are talking about optimum
conditions and limits under usually ideal conditions when we talk about
capabilities or capacities and that we are not talking about certainties in
practice under practical concrete empirical conditions.
Thanks.
Bits equals available grey levels per pixel
That is nice; is this also true when one works in color as opposed to
grayscale or black and white? Would I be wrong to generalize this and say
bits equal potentially available tonal levels per pixel in which the tone
can be any hue or color?
However,
Now lets take this scanner and give it an 8-bit CCD to start
with. In a minute we'll give it a 14-bit CCD and see the difference.
Wouldn't that be an 8- (or 14) bit A/D converter, rather than CCD? In other
words, are not CCDs analog devices providing voltages that are converted to
digital
Tony,
Thank you for your lengthy and detailed response. I am posting this just to
let you know that I have not had time to give it the reading and thought it
desearves yet; but I will get back to you when I have had an opportunity to
read and digest it.
I did notice in the headers that under
Sorry - I hadn't read this post when I sent the previous message.
Perhaps you are over-sharpening? Also, are you sharpening just the
Lightness channel or also the color channels?
Maris
- Original Message -
From: Ken Durling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, June
On Sat, Jun 08, 2002 at 10:42:39AM -0700, M. Denis Hill wrote:
Now lets take this scanner and give it an 8-bit CCD to start
with. In a minute we'll give it a 14-bit CCD and see the difference.
Wouldn't that be an 8- (or 14) bit A/D converter, rather than CCD? In other
words, are not CCDs
Yes - definitely TIFF for printing, but sharpen after you resize.
I'm not familiar with Vuescan's for print output setting, since I output
to PS anyway.
Maris
- Original Message -
From: Ken Durling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 11:55 AM
Subject:
Tony,
The number of scanner bits is a necessary but not sufficient
requirement for
seeing densities at a scanner's theoretical dmax (i.e. log 2^bit-depth).
Number of bits have two main roles. They do indeed represent the
theoretical
maximum density that a scanner could have if the
Austin,
I find this conversation fascinating and hope you will stay the course with all
my (possibly naiive responses.) I'm no expert at all but I have ideas that I
thought were true and I'd like to work them through with you whatever the
outcome...
On Sat, Jun 08, 2002 at 01:18:17PM -0400,
- Original Message -
From: Laurie Solomon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 6:44 PM
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: opinions? Reviews? of Primefilm 1800 ?
Bits equals available grey levels per pixel
That is nice; is this also true when one works in
Alas, either I am misunderstanding you or I am terribly confused; both
options are entirely possible.
I would convert and sharpen before compressing
If you convert any file format to a JPG format, are you not coverting and
compressing at the same time? I did not think that in fact they are
Ok, that makes more sense to me now. However, since the sharpened JPG file
upon opening by an user may then need to be resized and sharpening is
dependent on the image size, you have a problem. It will then need to be
resharpened for it new size which may result in artfacts being produced
since
At this point it's moot since Ken said he resizes in TIFF and sharpens, but
I think you are correct - conversion from TIFF to JPG reduces file size and
apparently compresses, I would think to Maximum quality. Sharpening at that
point was what I was suggesting, before saving as a more-compressed
I am using windows 98, firmware 1.4, which I downloaded about 3 weeks ago,
pointing the temp files to a second hard drive with many Gb of space. I am
using a stand alone version.
Insight 5.5 would not start at all.
I have been struggling with this for some time, and on the suspicion that
there
This could point to a PC hardware problem. Can you load the software on an
other PC and check if that is also unstable when using the scanner.
Sometimes RAM and Motherboard problems just happen at the worst of times.
You have loaded the latest video drivers available I assume.
Eddie
-
I find this conversation fascinating and hope you will stay the
course with all
my (possibly naiive responses.) I'm no expert at all but I have
ideas that I
thought were true and I'd like to work them through with you whatever the
outcome...
Hi Tony,
I'll do my best ;-)
On Sat, Jun 08,
Depending on the current levels, so you have the devices original density
range which, I would suggest is non linear in that for equal variations in
illuminamnt you will not get a simlar variation in current except probably
somewhere in the middle of the devices sensitivity range.
At the
That is corect except hue and colour mean the same thing
That is why I used the term or rather than and; I thought I would give
you a choice. :-)
As for the rest of your comments, thank you; they were more along the lines
of what I was seeking. Although a bit more technical than I had hoped
At this point it's moot
True, especially with regard to the original basis for the discussion. :-)
However, it may not be moot with respect to spin-off issues. :-)
conversion from TIFF to JPG reduces file size and
apparently compresses, I would think to Maximum quality. Sharpening at
that
Density values are
absolute values, just like one foot is an absolute value. They have
meaning
in and of them selves. Someone decided what the exact length of one foot
is
(within a tolerance of course), as well as density values.
Just as a point of levity did not Einstein's theory of
True enough, but if the image requires sharpening? JPG is not a good
format, I know, but it is very useful and in fact necessary for the web. I
would think it better to convert to JPG and then sharpen rather than sharpen
in TIFF and then convert. I haven't tested but I think it would result in
On Sat, 8 Jun 2002 21:36:38 -0500, you wrote:
True enough, but if the image requires sharpening? JPG is not a good
format, I know, but it is very useful and in fact necessary for the web. I
would think it better to convert to JPG and then sharpen rather than sharpen
in TIFF and then convert.
Tony,
Number of bits have two main roles. They do indeed represent the
theoretical
maximum density that a scanner could have if the electrical components were
.up to scratch and could use those bits to their full. More importantly
though the number of bits determine with what resolution the
37 matches
Mail list logo
