One way to (sorry for the term) visualize this is to think of the original
Technicolor process, which is created from three black and white negatives
exposed through a single lens, split by (I assume) a prism.
Technicolor is a
monochrome film process yielding color results (and the best
A 6M pixel camera, assume 2000 x 3000, will give you a very
nice 8x10-11x14,
but that's about the limits unless you use Genuine Fractals you
won't get
very good looking images above that. For general reception
(candid) shots,
a digital 35mm equivalent should work OK, but I certainly
So from a photographic perspective, a Pixel, is the whole Quad -
I certainly disagree with that...
Well, I agree with it.
Lets see this from a basic perspective. Image a chip with just 4 sensors,
two green, one red and one blue.
A camera manufacturer (and you I assume) would see this
Only the color information is shared amongst multiple pixels
NOT the edge information. That does not make the four pixels one pixel.
Do the geometry. Each of the four sensors is capable of sensing an
entirely unique section of the image. Why is that so hard to
understand?
Because it
--- Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Third, the 6 megapixel resolution is an interpolated resolution.
That is not true. The luminance information in one shot digital
cameras is
NOT interpolated (except in the Fuji cameras), only the chrominance.
Color
information
...The digital camera gives you only 6M*8bit/channel=6Mbytes...
6Mpixels *8bits/channel *3channels = 144Mbytes. This assumes 3
bytes/pixel
it may be higher if bit deepth per channel is greater than 8.
Bob Wright
Er, no. That would be 144M BITS, not bytes, which is 24M Bytes...
From: Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...The digital camera gives you only 6M*8bit/channel=6Mbytes...
6Mpixels *8bits/channel *3channels = 144Mbytes. This assumes 3
bytes/pixel
it may be higher if bit deepth per channel is greater than 8.
Bob Wright
Er
And while it does not address my point at all there
are more then the two 'dimensions' you mentioned, i.e. time, etc.
It certainly does address your point, you may not understand why though.
There are not any other dimensions than I stated (positional and value) to
the data you get from a
--- Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are not any other dimensions than I stated (positional and
value) to
the data you get from a digital camera.
Well, you did get off-topic so I took the right to go off-topic as
well.
I was only commenting on what I believed
My conclusion is that Agfa Arcus 1200 has much more dynamic range, less
noise in shadows
How did you conclude that?
But I have also observed that neither Epson nor Agfa are good enough for
scanning negatives. The denser parts of the emulsion are too big a barrier
for the CCD elements of
It's dmax is 3,2 and it really shows.
For scanning NEGATIVES?
If a manufacturer was to list an lpi speck using the same method they
list dpi specks, they would simply be i/2 the dpi or ppi number.
It's actually a range. If everything is lined up right the scanner CAN
resolve a line of the same width as one sensor's width. If everything is
lined up
That hardly applies. Architecture, and art, are not engineering, and
require no basic understanding of mechanics.
Actually, I know a some architects whole would not only disagree, but
would be insulted by that statement.
I didn't say that all architects didn't have an understanding of
Thanks, Ed! I learned something about hardware from you today ;-)
I wonder if Ed is a Mechanical Engineer or not? Maybe you shouldn't
trust him? ;-)
Art
I don't care if Ed is a burger flipper at McDonald's, he know what he's
talking about ;-)
Negative film made into prints which was exposed to tungsten lighting,
without correction would come out lemon yellow
What about BW negative film or tungsten color film?
;-)
Actually, Nikon LS2000 and LS30 and I suspect all the newer 35mm
models, at least, move the scanning unit (CCD, lens and lighting
source and any mirrors), and not the film.
This does probably allow for more accurate scans in multi-pass
situations.
Why would that be?
Given: That the stepper mechanism is accurate, and not just a piece of
trash...
Then: It would not matter whether the copy is moved or the
scanning head is
moved.
I don't fully agree. One can design a very precise metal screw or other
method for moving the CCD head assembly, in
Clearly the film has to be in SOME kind of carrier,
whatever the scanner brand. Austin's Leaf uses
aluminum carriers (Beseler) but all the scanners
I've owned have plastic-molded film holders of
varying complexity. Frankly, I feel a bit more
comfortable with my negatives up against
Using a microswitch or an optical sensor to detect the
zero position is less accurate than the resolution of
most scanners, which makes multi-pass multi-scanning
impractical with these scanners.
I disagree. They don't have to re-home for each pass. Once home as
ascertained, and then the
Someone has made a claim that he can get 15 stops of latitude out of BW
negative film. Specifically TMax 100. Here's my understanding:
Since stops are either 1/2 the amount of light, or 2x the amount of light,
15 stops would be 2**15, or 32768:1, which is a dynamic range of 4.5. My
experience
Also since the 8000 presumably has a heavier scanning head than
the smaller
scanners (more ccd etc), the mechanical constraints are more
serious and it
may therefore be the most sensitive to such things and which
may not show
up as problems on their 35mm scanners.
This scanner
I don't know how heavy the ED 8000 is, but these days most electronics
have minimal heft to them and aren't very solid.
Somewhat true, but power supplies can still be quite heavy. It is 19.8 lbs.
Not really light, but certainly not all that heavy.
Your suggestion of putting it on a solid
Can anyone give a reasonable explanation of how resonance can manifest it
self in the actual data from the scanner being incorrect? Resonance
certainly could cause micro distortion, but that is not what I believe we're
seeing. I'm not convinced it's resonance, but certainly can't rule it out.
Been a bad couple of days for film scanners.
I got an email off-list asking for help on
a SS 4000 crash... as if I'd know what to do g
I guess some people get pretty desperate ;-)
Except it's a Firewire connection, not SCSI.
Same issue. If the shield is connected at both ends, that's a source of
ground loops.
It
sounds like the
samples aren't completely being reset to zero before another sample is
taken.
Pat
I am curious exactly what you mean by that? Where are the samples not being
reset to 0?
Just a thought. Do you get stop/start motion of the film carrier
because of
spooling, during the actual scanning process?
I understand your point, but...the scanner stops for every line anyway, it
has to...it's just a matter of how long it stops, so providing there isn't
some some race
Even with your nice expensive Nikon scanner, I STILL own a lot more
Nikon equipment dollar per dollar than you do, and I can speak with
years of experience with their equipment as to what has happened to the
quality of the stuff and their repair service.
What Nikon equipment do you own, Art?
This is completely out of left field, but could it be a power supply
(in the scanner) issue? Someone else commented on how this only seems to
show up with scanners using stepper motors... Could the stepper motors
cause spikes in the PSU that could interfere with the imaging side of
I can even live without a
histogram.
I'm shocked that 1) Viewscan doesn't have a histogram, and 2) that you can
live without it!
Stepper motors are known to resonate
a certain step-rates, for example.
Sorry, and I don't mean to be glib...but perhaps having an 85 pound scanner
may be an asset ;-)
On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Austin Franklin wrote:
Just a thought. Do you get stop/start motion of the film carrier
because of
spooling, during the actual scanning process?
I understand your point, but...the scanner stops for every line
anyway, it
has to...it's just a matter of how
when it's doing a
preview - a
bit like a Skoda would do if it was miniaturised.
Jawed
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Austin Franklin
Sent: 19 July 2001 23:08
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: filmscanners: My replacement 8000
Did you say, Leaf 35 ? Not 45? You've got the little guy too?
Rafe,
I did. Two reasons. One was because the electronics are identical to the
45, so I can use the power supply, CCD board, processor/SCSI board etc. if I
have any problems with my 45, and mostly because I wanted to use it to
Also since the 8000 presumably has a heavier scanning head than
the smaller
scanners (more ccd etc), the mechanical constraints are more
serious and it
may therefore be the most sensitive to such things and which may not show
up as problems on their 35mm scanners.
This scanner moves the
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
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...
...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
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
Is there an archive for this mailing list? If so, what's the URL?
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
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
Why would you ever use the long exposure
option if the short one yielded a scan that
was as good?
Increase DMax for positives...
Just for the sake of clarity, I think you mean dynamic range.
I did mean DMax, and I do agree it is better to call it dynamic range. As I
would believe
It's 1270 BTW. I'd put the Leaf up against the 1640 any day, as far as
quality of scan goes.
On 4x5 media?
Well, I haven't personally measured it...but I have conflicting info. In
some places it says 1200 and some others say 1270. 1270 would be
arithmetically correct if the 2:1 resolution
Art wrote:
We require fuzzy logic, and we incorporate it into our machines
What machines, do you believe, has fuzzy logic incorporated into them?
Many
scanner documents have used the term DMax interchangeably with dynamic
range.
They are wrong to do so :)
I disagree that it is wrong. There may be another way that you believe is
clearer (and I don't disagree), but that doesn't make this way wrong.
DMax is a measure of the
, that is) wouldn't be fit to send over the Internet. ;-)
Best regards--Lynn Allen
From: Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Nikon MF LED light source...
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 00:18:09 -0400
Does anyone on the List
He issued a challenge
(as he often
does) to these consultants to provide details of press shops
who are using
color management, AKA profiles, for their press, and no
consultant (if
anyone would know it would be they, as they'd be setting
them up) could
offer any.
And you gave
I've told you before, I get
the sense that a lot of owners (not you, you are a special
case altogether
;-)) don't want to discuss any negatives about the Leaf other than it's
weight.
I've never heard anyone have any complaints about it as you elude to
here...except for soft red
Does anyone on the List know a good source for these? I for one
would pay a
few dollars (US, and cash ;-) ) for one that detailed the HP 5000-6800
flatbed scanners.
I have manuals for most of my equipment, and they are available from the
manufacturer parts resource. They typically are
These exposure options -- what is the range
of variations? 2:1? 4:1? 8:1?
From memory...16ms to whatever...in the 100ms+ range I believe.
Why would you ever use the long exposure
option if the short one yielded a scan that
was as good?
Increase DMax for positives...
On Mon, 16 Jul 2001, Austin Franklin wrote:
No, I disagree that I misrepresented anything. The conversation wasn't
about resolution, so what was the point of you bringing that up? It was
nit-picking, and not relevant to my comment. You don't need to chime in
with every little point
I believe this says it all:
Austin I can only suggest that the opportunities I take to dis
the Leaf are
only as annoying to you, as your chest puffing comments about the Leaf are
to every one else. Okay, can't speak for every one else - annoying to me.
This is a bunch of crap. It really
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.
At 4000 DPI?
Todd
Todd, don't you own a Leafscan? I do believe you're on the
Knowing what I know of Austin, I agree. I'd
proudly include Austin among my favorite high-
tech Luddites. Anyone that swears by and uses
a ten-year old film scanner is worthy of membership.
Well, Rafe, in my favor ;-) there isn't a scanner available for near the
price of the ten-year old
of graphics amateurs and
professionals have read his book and use what they have learned from him.
Maris
- Original Message -
From: Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2001 11:15 PM
Subject: RE: Unsharp mask was Re: filmscanners: Getting started
That's not being a Luddite, that's being a cheap bastard.
I think they are not mutually exclusive ;-)
As with your Leafscan, I've compared the output of this
lense to my newer and more expensive zooms, and found
the latter lacking by comparison. I am content to give
up auto-focus for the
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.
At 4000 DPI?
Todd
Todd, don't you own a Leafscan? I do believe you're on the
Leafscan emaiil
list. I can send you the manual if you
He issued a challenge
(as he often
does) to these consultants to provide details of press shops who are using
color management, AKA profiles, for their press, and no consultant (if
anyone would know it would be they, as they'd be setting them up) could
offer any.
And you gave me a hard
He issued a challenge
(as he often
does) to these consultants to provide details of press shops
who are using
color management, AKA profiles, for their press, and no consultant (if
anyone would know it would be they, as they'd be setting them up) could
offer any.
And you gave me
I've told you before, I get
the sense that a lot of owners (not you, you are a special case altogether
;-)) don't want to discuss any negatives about the Leaf other than it's
weight.
I've never heard anyone have any complaints about it as you elude to
here...except for soft red channel,
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
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.
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.
This may be true of the current Nikon and Polaroid models but
many of the
other film scanners that handle MF film (Leafscan, etc.) use
the different
lenses for different formats ... right?
The Leaf uses one lense, a 75mm Rodenstock flat field copy lense.
It seems to me for some reason that most of the newer medium format
scanners manufacturers decided to forego the zoom lens approach
that Minolta has and continues to use with their Multi models,
and just basically use the same optics for all the film formats.
I seem to be missing
It just strikes me as weird that nobody makes a scanner for doing
35mm/MF contacts a roll at a time. A purpose-built low-spec unit for
$300US-ish would sell well, I think. 3-400ppi would be plenty.
I have been using an Epson 836XL with transparency adapter for making
contact sheets for a
Also, one feature of the Imacon is the magnetic curved film
holders. I am
not sure if it actually is better or not, but it is a feature.
Have no doubts about it. Not only is it a feature, it works!
Would you please describe in detail how you determined it works?
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?
Wouldn't that make it quite a bit slower than using a tri-color CCD?
To quote: Imaging Optics: Scanner Nikkor ED lens (14 elements in
6 groups including 6 ED glass elements) No mention of zoom here.
But, at least to me, it's hard to imagine needing (or for that matter
wanting) a FOURTEEN element lense that isn't a zoom! It may not be a
zoom, but it's got to
Judging by eBay's tremendous popularity, I can't
believe that these events are the norm.
No, they are not the norm. I think you are asking for trouble shipping any
large item (like a monitor, or a Leafscan ;-) without the original shipping
container and packing, or even shipping them at all.
Title: Polaroid Good As Gold Guarantee
I don't know how good this
guarantee is after reading this:
http://public.wsj.com/news/businessbox/article1.html
Apparently there were a few (how many is a FEW?) that shipped
with defective
CCD's in them.
That would thoroughly tick me off, since that means they don't test them
before shipping...and expect YOU to do the QC and testing for THEM! That is
not untypical of cheap equipment, but I certainly
OK, but to take the mfgrs' side (which I very rarely do), how do
you test
a filmscanner prior to shipment?
I'd say do a scan of a standard slide in an automated test setup. This is
standard issue for most any product of this nature. Cripes, for a $3k+
scanner, they can take 4 minutes to
* overall, excellent scans, especially on 645
negatives. Quality on par with the Leaf 45,
maybe even marginally better. (Sorry, Austin.)
If I were the Leaf designer, I'd take that as a compliment! For a 12 year
old design, it does hold its own, and if I had to do it all over again, I'd
There have been very little maintenance issues people have reported on the
Leafscan email group (leafscan at egroups.yahoo.com). Only one person had
banding that I recall, that was easily cured by routine maintenance of
lubricating the lead screws.
I think for around $2k, if you get one
Leaf scanners occasionally turn up on Ebay for a reasonable
price. What's with
them? Are they a good deal or a maintenence nightmare?
Consider that it's a 12-year old design,
and it originally cost well in excess of
$10K. That suggests (to me, anyway) that
repair could be costly.
I am another engineer(!) (not that this is relevant to reading a
manufacturer's spec) and LEDs don't have MTBFs of 1000 hours!
The one catalog I pulled off my shelf gave that figure. It seemed
inordinately low to me, but it certainly was 1000.
the
consistency of light i.e. unchanging
My guess is you are not an electrical engineer, or you would
know that LEDs
do have a life span. Because you haven't heard of them burning
out, doesn't
mean they don't burn out. In fact, their typical MTBF is rated for 1000
hours. Incandescent light bulbs are rated for 1000 hours.
Austin went just a bit over the edge with that 1000
hour MTBF figure.
I don't know quite what you meant by that comment. It comes across that you
believe I am somehow making up the 1000 hour number I cited? Why on earth
would I do that?
Here is the product spec I got that information from:
Moreno wrote:
And taking things one step further, a dense LED array positioned
closer to
the negative could even be
programmed to provide some degree of selective dodging/burning/variable
constrast control. With an appropriate control mechanism, a user could
adjust for dead even lighting
An LED light source for enlargers was not done 15-20 years ago
because it
was not possible. Blue LED's did not exist as anything other than
laboratory
curiosities until within the last 5 years.
Sure you could have done that 15-20 years ago. Use filters...red,
green and
I'm familiar with VCC, having spec'd their products many times over the
years. The early blue (and green) lenses were intended for use with small
incandescent bulbs with the same T1-3/4 form-factor that was
adopted by LED
manufacturers, not for use with LEDs.
Not the ones I was referencing.
In fact, their typical MTBF is rated
for 1000
hours.
Not only is the typical life of LEDs far longer than what you have
asserted,
You are right, ALL LEDs are not typically rated for 1000 hours. The typical
was meant only for the LEDs I was referencing, not for all LEDs. Saying
Whatever--I just wondered how Austin got us so far off-topic. ;-)
You give me too much credit here! I believe it was the enlarger light
source that was what brought this way off topic. I believe that honor goes
to Sr. Polloni. OK, I'll take some credit.
None the less, at least for me, and
Cliff, thank you I appreciate it.
Since you seem to know quite a bit about LEDs, what do you believe Nikon
uses for an LED light source for this new scanner?
Austin wrote (re selective burning w/film scanners)
If you could make it very very dense and were able to calibrate
it somehow
(which is an big task in and of it self to calibrate a 2d area this size
with sufficient resolution), possibly, but I believe it won't work very
well in a real
The *problem* I see with cold-cathode and fluorescents is that
they can flicker. I'm not exactly sure why this happens.
Typically it is caused by the observer being on some psycho conducive
substance ;-)
The Leaf uses a tri-band phosphor fluorescent lamp, which I would guess
doesn't have
I've given you my engineering evaluation of it, and you haven't shown
(certainly not to my satisfaction anyway) that my concerns aren't valid.
You seem to really want this to work! I don't believe we're getting
anywhere here, though I did learn about the origin of blue
LEDs, and this
But that's the point...you CAN'T space them to give even illumination.
Just
a single LED is unevenly illuminated in and of it self! It's typically
a
mounded plastic piece, which is really not very consistent.
Nikon are unlikely to be using mass-produced general-purpose .5c LED's on
LEDs have been around for a very long time, and they are reasonably
inexpensive, as well as very easy to control. I am sure that if this was
such a great idea, and the implementation worked near as well as you
believe, it would have been done some 15-20 years ago as a commercial
venture,
Even if this was such a good idea, it would have been done 5
years ago, and,
as far as I can tell, it wasn't. It isn't a difficult
engineering project
to develop, it's just that, I believe, it really doesn't work
all that well.
Digital imaging has really only come of age in the past
No, not for a scanner, for an enlarger! I don't know whether they are a
good or bad idea for a scanner, but I do know that for BW, I
would rather
be using a ND filter, or something with that wavelength.
???
an ND filter doesn't filter by wavelength, it simply reduces intensity.
Of
Sure you could have done that 15-20 years ago.
Use filters...red, green and blue filters
certainly were around 15-20 years ago.
HUH??? Please explain to me how to filter monochromatic red light from an
LED to get blue light. If you can figure out how do that you'll
be up for a
Nobel
electronics data library going back about thirty years that
includes a very large amount of optoelectronics).
Cliff Ober
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Austin Franklin
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 5:25 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE
Regarding the Leaf scanners. I knew they were off my want list when I
saw the bulb for one being sold on ebay, as a separate auction item ;-)
At least you CAN get them with no problem. Check how much the LED array is
for the Nikon, and you may reconsider!
Regarding the Leaf scanners. I knew they were off my want list when I
saw the bulb for one being sold on ebay, as a separate
auction item ;-)
At least you CAN get them with no problem. Check how much the LED array
is
for the Nikon, and you may reconsider!
You've made your
What I don't yet understand is how the illuminant
is evenly distributed over the film width,
Lots of LEDS, spaced to give even illumination.
But that's the point...you CAN'T space them to give even illumination. Just
a single LED is unevenly illuminated in and of it self! It's typically
401 - 500 of 723 matches
Mail list logo
