To quickly support Rob's comment...
I scanned some badly mould-affected slides before and after cleaning them
on my LS2000. The results were a decent advert for ICE - the scans done
before cleaning were remarkable in that the mould was almost not visible,
although it was intolerable without ICE.
Perhaps I should have said that the MTBF must be based on certain
observational data but must be essentially a prediction as a real-time
testing process isn't possible.
How are these values derived?
1) By maths based on component MTBFs.
(supported by tests of the components),
and
2)
again - I was not suggesting that this now become a digital camera
list. I was suggesting that we allow discussion of digicam technology that
is relevant to us.
Julian
At 16:39 05/02/03, you wrote:
From: Julian Robinson
So my vote is that we allow comparative and evaluative discussion
Paul,
I have half-heartedly tried to research JPEG2000 without reaching any
useful conclusions. Can you give a reference or a potted summary with such
useful but not readily findable info like what is the outlook for JPEG2000?
how good is it? is it only available for sale or are their free
At 12:02 28/01/03, Paul wrote:
Digital's contrast range is the ratio of the clipping level to the noise
level. That's bigger than 7 stops. My DiMage 7 is more like 9, meaning that
the amount of noise I see on the 12-bit digital output is about three bits
or less. From what I've read, the 35mm
Hi Derek,
In the web site above, critical focus is maintained with a +/-12 Nikon
unit range, and decent focus within a +/-24 range. How this translates to
the LS4000, I don't know.
I have looked at the scans super magnified and tried to discern what makes
for a critical focus range in the
Tony,
At 09:11 26/01/03, you wrote:
I performed these exact experiments about a year ago when the DOF issues
were being discussed at length. My tests were done on a Kodachome 200 slide
which I specificaly used because of the ease with which I could focus on the
grain.
My own personal tests made
Mats,
Interesting way of determing DOF. I wonder if it works with Vuescan and a
Canon FS2710??
The method requires software and hardware that gives you a readout of focus
position, and allows you to set that focus position. I doubt that the
Canon does this, in which case you can't do it.
I
Everyone has their own method it seems; this is mine. I assume you have
layers and masking, if not this obviously won't work.
Make a copy layer. Adjust one layer for best result on the dark area -
using levels should be enough or curves if you have it. Adjust the other
layer for best result on
the information layer directly underneath. There is a bit about
these risks at the links I gave, I don't know how much of the fear is
justified by experience and how much is just a natural fear of catastrophic
consequences of getting it wrong.
Julian
At 16:50 05/11/02, you wrote:
Quoting Julian
What I want to know is a decent labelling and storage regime. At present I
resort to mmdd_clientname, and use Extensis Portfolio to catalogue the
contents. That bit is fine, it's finding the CD which is a swine - the CD's
are always out of sequence (gremlins, I swear) and the one I want is
Tim - do you have any thoughts on the storage problem resulting from this
work? Are plastic sleeves OK and better/worse than jewel cases? If so,
what plastic?
Julian
At 04:48 06/11/02, you wrote:
I've posted ad infinitum the advice about storage etc we were given by
scientists from the
You are right it is not hard to delete or skip. I skip most messages on
lists, and only choose to read the ones with subjects that interest me.
There is very little overhead in doing this and I don't really understand
why people get so upset about it. The funny thing is that the people who
do
Hi Roy,
I was talking about your context so we are discussing the same thing. You
have already got a response from Vincent which puts that case in terms of
resolution, here's my quick take from the dynamic range point of view - the
two arguments are otherwise essentially the same.
The
Austin,
I have never read whatever paper you are talking about, but I
GUARANTEE you
it does not SAY that dynamic range is a resolution. I am sure that you,
Austin, INTERPRET it to say that, but it will not actually say that.
You probably should have read the paper before commenting...
Austin,
I have never read whatever paper you are talking about, but I
GUARANTEE you
it does not SAY that dynamic range is a resolution. I am sure that you,
Austin, INTERPRET it to say that, but it will not actually say that.
You probably should have read the paper before commenting...
be discerned from background
black. If you use the language this way, then the slide's dynamic range is
the same thing as its density range.
Julian
Julian Robinson
Canberra, Australia
http://members.austarmetro.com.au/~julian
Todd Flashner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, I suppose if one is convinced that DYR is a resolution that is the way
they'd have to approach it as such, but David, tell me, have you seen a
cited reference that supports that approach?
David replies:
plain number
or as a log value etc.
Julian
At 12:55 30/08/02, you wrote:
Julian Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
... It is not hard to understand - 1dB is a small range (about 1.26 to 1),
100dB is a big range (100 to 1). The range we are discussing is the
range from MDS to max signal
I am only posting two replies to what has been posted during my
overnight. This one is a short response to the nitty gritty of Austin's
argument. The other includes replies in a single post to other points by
everybody.
There are two points I am addressing in this post:
1. Dynamic range is
This is composed into a single post because I know that this topic is
overexposed and frustrates many people. It frustrates me too, but it would
be wrong not to try to correct misinformation which is propagated with such
authority that it has succeeded in hijacking the moral and technical high
was actually sorry it got moved away from filmscanners,
but there you go, such is the force of political correctness and group
dynamics.
Julian
At 00:01 09/07/02, you wrote:
On Sun, 07 Jul 2002 08:41:22 +1000 Julian Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
I got nothing for three days.. maybe
Mike,
I agree with Arthur's comments. I bought an HP S-20 and was doing OK with
it, but not stunned by the quality of scans. A friend of mine with
scanning experience caused me deep distress by suggesting that the S20 was
a toy and not worth having, and that I should get (at that time) a Nikon
I got nothing for three days.. maybe this is because Todd has given the
dynamic range discussion a special list!
We are without Austin on that list, otherwise the discussion is going
exactly as it was here - busily, and in circles!
Julian
At 06:46 07/07/02, you wrote:
I was concerned the
Austin,
No! I don't! Please read. I say it is usually determined by
noise, because noise is what USUALLY determines the smallest possible
signal. WHat I actually say is dynamic range is based on
largest possible
signal and smallest possible signal. I thought that was
Austin,
There are at least two of us esteemed engineers who disagree with you on
this list...
At 03:06 12/06/02, Peter wrote:
Julian,
I am in total agreement with you.
Peter, Nr Clonakilty, Co Cork, Ireland
I point this out not to score a point, and I would never say or believe
that the
Austin,
Here is a labored sequence of points to which I would appreciate your
response - maybe it'll help things.
For others, this is about Dynamic Range or DR below.
Here we go.
Previously you promoted a definition of Dynamic Range by saying:
the Dynamic Range equation out of Digital
Austin - of course RMS measurement applies to dynamic range. I think the
fact that you say this points to where your view differs from the rest of
the world, but I'm damned if I can work out how...
Remember the definition from the book *you* posted and *you* agree with:
the Dynamic Range
Austin and Peter,
I don't know which of you wrote this quote below, but it threw a big light
bulb on above my head as to where part of the confusion comes from. If
either of you really thinks this then it must be a complicated business to
get into bed at night! ...
This post has 3 sections,
At 12:47 16/04/02, you wrote:
On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 21:17:10 -0400 Petru Lauric ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
That's why usually a well exposed slide looks very rich,
very dense.
...
and Tony wrote:
...but you *can* produce scans from negs which look as saturated and punchy
as scans from slides.
FWIW the following is from http://www.jpg.com/products/wizard.html It
implies that normally you would introduce artifacts when doing a mirror and
re-saving, but I think is claiming that with this technology you won't
degrade the image at all.
My guess is that it does have to clip to nearest 8
I would go further. It is true that this is not the place to have ongoing,
overbearing discussions on the topic, but there are some reasons why the
subject could be covered here:
- Most of us are interested in the subject at one level or other.
- The subject of 'system suitable for image
Ah I just saw Maris's reply which makes mine a trifle redundant. To answer
this query though...
- select the top layer
- Layer/Add layer mask/Reveal all (or use icon at bottom of layers palette)
- paint with black on the white mask with soft-edged brushes to see parts
of the bottom image you
In this case as Nikon advise, you do have to uninstall 2.5 first and run
regsweep before installing ver 3.
I did this with Win98-nearly-SE (Win98 non-SE with all service packs) and
had no probs.
Julian
At 17:19 20/12/01, you wrote:
I am upgrading the NikonScan software for my LS2000 from
by purchasing a
second film strip holder - so you can be inserting the next film strip
while the previous one is scanning. I do this and it is quite useful, much
less time sitting frustratedly looking at the progress bar!
Cheers,
Julian
At 19:55 04/12/01, you wrote:
Julian Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED
At 03:44 04/12/01, Ed wrote:
* Changed Nikon focus point from center of scanned area
to 1/3 of the way from upper left corner (works better
for bowed film)
This is a very good idea!
For people using the motorised feeder this may cause a different problem
though, bec the strip
I must not have explained myself well. I understand that the problem is
bowed film - I have a web page devoted to the issue. I am only saying that
while it seems intuitively that a diagonal offset from the centre should be
best, I think that in practice an offset along the y axis, not far
I can only answer for the LS2000 - to confirm:
a) my perception of the blown highlights and its cure is exactly as you
stated it,
b) even with LS3.1 which I use on my LS2000, the option for lo-contrast
neutral is still there, so I think it would meet your needs.
c) having asked this kind of
a
vested interest in making contact. Like all organisations Maxwell have good
and bad people but so far I have only struck one good one.
As a responsive helpful organisation, they are appalling.
Julian
At 11:10 03/12/01, Rob wrote:
Julian Robinson wrote:
BTW I emailed Nikon in Australia
This is a very unpopular point of view, but my thoughts exactly. I try, I
upgrade, I mess around for a while finding out what has changed, I lose a
scan or two due to overwriting or wrong settings, I do a perfect scan and
find it is no better than I get from Nikonscan with much less effort
and broadening my perspective (by about 6 stops)!
- Original Message -
From: Julian Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 12:35 AM
Subject: filmscanners: Negs vs slides again: was Color Negative Film Poll
The bigger question
The bigger question is why shoot print
film if you're going to scan the images?
This has been covered before, but I just decided to check my facts by
looking at the characteristic curves for representative Kodak films. These
curves demonstrate admirably the main reason you might choose to
Mikael - thanks for this useful info. It is interesting that the different
generations of scanners have the same depth of field although they have
totally different optics. Means that Nikon must be holding a firm line
against other constraints (such as LED brightness).
Cheers
Julian
At
At 9:44 AM -0500 20-11-01, Bruce Kinch wrote:
Perhaps it's worth noting that Kodak now provides curved field
projection lenses as standard for normal (cardboard, presumably) mounted
slides in their Carousel projectors, but their older flat field design
is recommended for glass mounted
Whatever works for each of us I guess. I was trying to point out that
printer dots are not relevant to anything that I actually deal with (as in,
I don't have to decide on what dpi to set, or allow for it, or even know
what it is, to get 'proper' results - apart from as a specification on the
I was captivated by this, and slightly relieved when they issued a request
at the end of the program for any examples that viewers might have if they
thought they might be the victim of cd-eating fungus (CEF). THe fact that
they had to ask means it can't be horribly common, which is good
Everyone has their own points of confusion and moments of comparative
clarity, but this is one discussion about which I have never understood the
confusion.
I use pixels for everything. Everything that is relevant to me, I
mean. The pixels I get out of the scanner becomes the same number of
Do Nikon make glass holders for the LS2000? I have never had this
suggested to me by Nikon, but this may be because in Australia we are
several light years away from the manufacturer and thus accurate information.
Julian
At 10:23 21/10/01, you wrote:
Nikon make and sell glass holders for
Wire - I enjoyed your review of a review - some meaty kiblets for
thought. I too become totally frustrated by reviewers who play it safe to
the extent that you can't tell whether it is a good bit of gear or bad. I
think more often it is because they are not sure enough of their own ground
. I've played
with all the Vuescan settings for HOURS and HOURS, but I just can't seem to
get a nice, rich scan without dragging it in to Photoshop. I've also had
the same problems with over brightness, but have been able to work around
that issue as you and some of the other posters have
Thanks guys - I knew this!
Actually I think I did - even had the terms right - but from memory
couldn't get it to work as I expected (I am talking maybe 6 months ago) so
decided I just didn't understand it at all. Maybe it is the problem you
(Rob) mention here, or maybe my finger trouble.
I
Alex
At 23:01 25/09/01, you wrote:
I could try Vuescan and see if the white/black point settings actually work
at scan phase, looking at the raw file (if this worked, it would also give
me the benefit of 10 bits). I haven't had much luck with Vuescan until now,
but the latest release, which
-Original Message-
From: Julian Robinson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: venerdì 7 settembre 2001 06.44
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Nikon Scan VS Negative dynamic range
OK mystery solved at last. I looked at the manual for the first time
(which must say something about ease
Ralf,
Your experience is mine exactly. As I said in my post a couple of days
ago, the Nikonscan 3 manual definitely says that lo-cont is available on
the older scanners only LS2000/30. Not available on the LS4000 / 40.
I don't know if this means you get blown highlights with them, or
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
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
into the available range which is how I like it - then into PS in 16 bits
and reshape from there.
Julian
At 22:36 06/09/01, you 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)?
Jawed
= Original Message From Julian Robinson [EMAIL
:
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?
Julian, the setting you refer to isn't
Just a quick note to point out that ACDSee will happily display 48 bit
images, and LZW compressed images, and the combination of those - 48 bit
LZW compressed TIFFs. I guess from what people have said that it will not
display images compressed with whatever compression scheme Ed has used.
My
internal OS stacks which are
of
fixed size (System, User, GDI) and don't vary with RAM installed.
Tony is correct. The system resources have nothing to do with free RAM in
general,
only with available space within the fixed User, System and GDI blocks.
Rob
Julian Robinson
in usually sunny, smog free
- others
have told me its better. Is this the case and what does it do that the
supplied stuff wont?
Thanks ,
Steve
p.s. I see a few familiar names from the Contax list here - Hi guys!
Julian Robinson
in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
Julian Robinson
in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
of jaggies, although not
under that name. When I told him about Nikon USA stating that the problem
had been passed to Nikon Japan, he said that more or less the same thing
had happened here and that they had never heard anything back.
Julian
Julian Robinson
in usually sunny, smog free Canberra
+1000 Julian Robinson
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
- when you see something in one and can directly try it on the
other,or tweek one to match the other.
What's needed is a PC Anywhere/VNC/Carbon Copy remote control of a range
of scanners. Then you could do this from anywhere.
How much would Sir
Problem with my SS120!
| Some further details.. The scanner is contected to a UPS and so power
| related problems should not be an issue.
| The cords arer all snugly and completely seated.
|
| It only happened once yesterday.
|
|
| Lawrence i have the worst luck Smith
|
|
Julian Robinson
at the
same place at the same time because it enables a much more direct
comparison - - when you see something in one and can directly try it on the
other,or tweek one to match the other.
Waiting... keenly
Julian
Julian Robinson
in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
that seldom is heard. Probably if at all by people who set up funerals for
heads of state etc. Otherwise, a carriage with two or four horses with
riders on the horses is not seen much and probably was seldom seen even
when horse drawn conveyances were in style.
Julian Robinson
in usually sunny
by a SS120 and an
8000ED to my site
at
http://www.lwsphoto.com/scan%20tests.htmhttp://www.lwsphoto.com/scan%20tests.htm
These are not a final conclusions, they are simply examples
I am a bit surprised by the results however.
Lawrence
Julian Robinson
in usually sunny, smog
* evenly spaced
in tone on your monitor.
Maris
Julian Robinson
in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
though I can't get this on my screen
without making extreme adjustments and silly figures for gamma.
I think I have been tagging my images with profiles, although it would only
have been with sRGB unless I have made a monumental error.
Julian
Julian Robinson
in usually sunny, smog free
. It
indicates me that my calibrtion is correct.
I suggest you try this too and see what it gives...
Jean-Pierre Verbeke
Julian Robinson
in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
actually aligned to IN PRACTICE? I
know about nominal 1.8 and 2.2 for Apple and PCs, but it doesn't seem that
this bears much relationship to reality?
Julian
Julian Robinson
in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
1000hours).
Julian
Julian Robinson
in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
adjustements on
the scanning field.
--
j u l e s @ p o p m o n k e y . c o m
http://www.popmonkey.com/jules
Julian Robinson
in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
time, but the Nikon with Nikon ver 3 software is IME far
and away the best at producing good default scans. With ROC I imagine it
is even better.
Julian
Julian Robinson
in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
of
your opposite stance that surprises me!
And I wonder how many people there are who have tried ICE who elect to go
to a non-ICE scanner? This would be a very interesting statistic.
Julian
Julian Robinson
in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
like to get an idea if
the new Nikons are going to sneak in some problems here or not. Dane
reports no problems at all with thousands of Kodachromes scanned on an
LS-2000, and I wonder what I'm doing wrong.
Julian Robinson
in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
No it doesn't.
Julian
At 09:16 09/06/01, you wrote:
does the nikon scan 3.1 work with ls-1000. thanks joanna
Julian Robinson
in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
that can be
made in nature.
So my preferred version... when trying to explain anything, choose the
simplest possible explanation which fits all the facts.
Julian
Julian Robinson
in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
you have to guess the starting corner very well or
you'll
lose some image when you crop.
Julian Robinson
in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
At 09:20 21/05/01, Rob wrote:
You say easily and it is if you know how,
but it's nowhere near as straightforward as the click and drag behaviour
in PSP.
As I said it is exactly as straightforward if you use the Crop Tool and not
the Marquee Tool.
Julian Robinson
in usually sunny, smog free
Julian Robinson
in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
and tips I have had from this group.
Regards
Harry
Julian Robinson
in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
with various features on/off
Julian Robinson
in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
: Andreas Kurz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi Hersch,
were did you get NikonScan 3.0?
regards,
Andi
Julian Robinson
in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
version. Another small mystery.
Julian
Julian Robinson
in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
( standard mode) the sides and
corner are not so sharp as at the middle of the picture.
Julian Robinson
in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
)
Vlad
PS I have some problems sending the post this is 4th try-out
---
Odchozí zpráva neobsahuje viry.
Zkontrolováno antivirovým systémem AVG (http://www.grisoft.cz).
Verze: 6.0.237 / Virová báze: 115 - datum vydání: 7.3.2001
Julian Robinson
in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
FWIW here is the response from Nikon USA support to the question "Will
Nikonscan 3.0 work with the LS2000 on Win 98 original (not SE)?" They
may not know much, but are at least candid about it.
-
Dear Julian Robinson:
While Nikon Scan 3.X will so
20/04/01, you wrote:
Cheers for the replies everyone...
I installed 98 instead of 98SE,ooops!!
back to the drawing board..
Leo
Julian Robinson
in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
on chromes and negs.
And, as I noted previously, the sharpening algorithm it uses is very
good.
Dave
Julian Robinson
in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
ics manage to cure the vibration
that causes the jaggies. As far as I can see it's a design
fault caused by a combniation of hardware and software behaviour.
Julian Robinson
in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
f help unless one wants to "repaint"
the
| whole picture, but it might be a start. Or not.
|
|
| ---
| FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com
| Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
|
|
|
Julian Robinson
in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
lem before. I find
certain images tend to be more problematic than others.
Can we (the members of the filmscanners list) petition them to fix
the problem? They seem to be claiming it is a hardware fault and
it clearly isn't.
Rob
Julian Robinson
in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
one sensor you
don't have the problem of matching the response of thousands of different
sensors and their associated switching circuitry etc., as you do for CCD
array scanners.
Hope this helps, or elicits more accurate information,
Julian
Julian Robinson
in usually sunny, smog free Canberra
other sales people
mess it all up by not appreciating the niceties of what was agreed
elsewhere and plonk in the new figure with what they think is a
"synonymous" name.
Cheers
Julian
Julian Robinson
in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
option. And then I wonder why, when they already do
multi-passes to reduce noise as in the LS2000, why they don't up the
exposure for subsequent scans? Maybe it is hard to keep things linear?
Just thinking aloud,
Julian
Julian Robinson
in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
:
It would be nice if the scanner vendors
provided an applet that allowed one to
create an orange-mask filter for any
particular film. All you really need,
I think, is a blank (unexposed) frame.
Julian Robinson
in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
e of 3.6, but it's Dynamic
Range could still be 2 (or is it 4) stops less than this - i.e. 3.0 or
2.4. Is it coincidence that most the measurements I have seen are in this
range, from memory about 2.6? (I assume people have been measuring Dynamic
Range, not Density Range).
Julian Robinson
in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
s than this - i.e. 3.0 or
2.4. Is it coincidence that most the measurements I have seen are in this
range, from memory about 2.6? (I assume people have been measuring Dynamic
Range, not Density Range).
Julian Robinson
in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
1 - 100 of 117 matches
Mail list logo
