My understanding of Newton Rings is that they came from the same source as
the rainbow on an oil-slick or a thin prism put on a reflector. Namely you
are getting 1/2 wave interference patterns from the light reflected at each
boundary layer - a boundary layer is where the optical density, (or
My understanding of Newton Rings is that they came from the same source as
the rainbow on an oil-slick or a thin prism put on a reflector. Namely you
are getting 1/2 wave interference patterns from the light reflected at each
boundary layer - a boundary layer is where the optical density, (or
Preston wrote:
(I remember an article in Scientific American 15 to 20 years ago about
the
improvement of photographic images (I think they were alluding to spy
satellite images) to eliminate/reduce blur due to camera motion and lens
focus (or lack thereof).
That article may have been concerned
No, I didn't, nor would I. I've yet to have a complaint by anyone about
my use of Nikon lenses.
As I think I've posted before, I did a double blind shoot out with Leica
and Nikon lenses (a 28mm 2.8 wide angle, a 135mm 2.8 tele and the 50mm
1.4 normal). Each image was shot with one of these
Do you get an autofocus error? I do and had to reinstall Nikon Scan 3.0,
Vuescan works fine.
Julie
-Original Message-
From: Anthony Atkielski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 2:47 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: LS 4000
I guess it's a
Steve Greenbank wrote:
I never claimed their examples had any aesthetic quality, but I do think the
software appears to be pretty impressive.
Save image 25 or 26 and see if you can get anywhere near the processed
example they show you.
Steve
I took a look at this web site and I do
This posting is being repeated in both this and the Scan@leben group.
As those who have been following my threads know, I'm currently using a
Minolta Dual Dimage II scanner, and I'm in discussions with Minolta
after my first unit was defective.
My second unit also suffers from duff or lazy
I just released VueScan 7.1.11 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 7.1.11
* Added support for Nikon LS-8000 (Windows and Mac OS X 10.1)
* Fixed problem with image smearing on Canon FS4000
* Fixed
Rob writes:
If you can map the aberrations in a satellite
lens system while it is still on earth and make
a transform from it, you can actually use an
inverse transform to remove the aberrations.
The result is a sharper image than the camera
actually saw.
No, it is just a _different_
I have no comments of Leica rangefinders, other than that I've rarely
gotten along well with anyone who tells me they own one ;-)
Art
P.S. Either you don't get along with your self, or you bought an R, not an
M?
That article may have been concerned with something I learned about at university
- inverse fourier transforms.
Right. It did involve fourier transforms of some sort (I
used to have some idea of what that means) but applied to
the image not the lens, if I am remembering right.
John M.
At 06:08 30-08-01 -0400, you wrote:
At 23:44 29-08-01 -0700, Henning Wulff wrote:
In general LCD's are quite useless for photoediting as they
color/contrast shift when you move your head. This also means that even
if you don't move your head relative to the LCD, all the corners
will
Yes. Alternately, some use mounting fluid such as is used for drum
scanning.
Maris
- Original Message -
From: SKID Photography [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 12:30 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Anti-Newton Rings powder
|
|
| They might
There are a few software packages designed to do just this for astronomical
images.. Lucy-Richardson Deconvolution, Maximum Entropy plus a couple more
algorithms.. very cpu intensive (forget about using a Pentium 200). I have not
been impressed by the results, too much work for an incremental
I think this deserves to be addressed on list as an on topic subject. LCDs
have yet to equal the tube monitors for representing the full range of
colors in an image. They do offer superior sharpness in the higher end
models. How do some of the professionals on the list who have looked
personally
As an owner (yes I'm a cheap s-o-b) of two of the cheapest scanners on the
market, the Olympus ES10 and the Acer 2720, I can report neither has/had a
single dead or lazy pixel. Nor have any of the CCD's or LCD displays on
video cameras I have owned (4 to date), and if any of the above did
At 3:04 AM -0700 8/30/01, Arthur Entlich wrote:
For people who do NOT have Minolta Dual Dimage II scanners, do you have
one or more lazy or bad sensors in your CCD array, and if so, do you
consider that an acceptable defect and have you decided not to exchange
it?
Has anyone noted this problem
As I think I've posted before, I did a double blind shoot out with Leica
and Nikon lenses (a 28mm 2.8 wide angle, a 135mm 2.8 tele and the 50mm
1.4 normal). Each image was shot with one of these three lenses with
both the Leica and the Nikon, on Kodachrome 25.
After the images were
I have many lazy or perhaps overactive sensors on my Scanwit 2720S (the
infamous yellow stain with negatives or reddish stain and tram lines with
positive film) and I don't find it acceptable, but the warranty period is
over and the people from Acer that did the repair suggested there was no
Art wrote:
But, my question is this...
For people who do NOT have Minolta Dual Dimage II scanners, do you have
one or more lazy or bad sensors in your CCD array, and if so, do you
consider that an acceptable defect and have you decided not to exchange
My LS30 has no sensors so bad that
What do people have to say about the differences in sharpness between same
ASA, same brand chrome vs color negative film? My experience shows that the
chrome films are not as sharp as the negative films.
If anyone is looking for a Nikon 8000, I just spoke Mike at Beau Photo
(Vancouver, BC 604-734-7771) and they have a few in stock. First come first
serve; ask for Mike Mander.
At 23:44 29-08-01 -0700, Henning Wulff wrote:
In general LCD's are quite useless for photoediting as they
color/contrast shift when you move your head. This also means that even if
you don't move your head relative to the LCD, all the corners will display
the same image range with different
My Scanwit does not have any lazy or dead sensors.. it would be an intolerable
condition since every scan would need Photoshop retouching... I can tolerate a
few dead pixels on a monitor screen or a digital camera, but with a scanner you
will end up with a line the whole length of the image..
One final trick I tried in PS that seems to work (but I'm sure is not a
good Idea) was to output from vuescan without a profile then open in PS
and force my monitor profile on the image [with convert to working space
after ticked] and that seems to do the trick. The image in PS looks like
No, that is not what was said. You can buy some anti-Newtonian glass and
replace your existing glass; or you can use the powder along with your
existing glass. You cannot make anti-Newtonian glass from plain glass by
sprinkling some fairy dust on it in the form of Anti-Newtonian powder; if
you
(I remember an article in Scientific American 15 to 20 years ago about the
improvement of photographic images (I think they were alluding to spy
satellite images) to eliminate/reduce blur due to camera motion and lens
focus (or lack thereof). I've been meaning to go to the library to look
The October issue of MacWorld will have several film scanners reviewed.
Watch for it on your news stand!
David
Spoken like a man who has seen galley proofs!
--- Hemingway, David J [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The October issue of MacWorld will have several film
scanners reviewed.
Watch for it on your news stand!
David
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts
Yeah, that article has stuck in my mind also. I remember
that the method had to do with mathematically analyzing
circles of confusion to sharpen unsharp images (don't
remember anything about motion blur, but it might have been
there). I onced asked about it on some list or other and
someone
The October issue of MacWorld will have several film scanners reviewed.
Watch for it on your news stand!
David
Gee, I wonder if this posting by [EMAIL PROTECTED] means that the review
is favorable to Polaroid?
(Rhetorical question only - and I see nothing at all inappropriate with the
Shit, If people on this list don't know who I work for !! :0)
-Original Message-
From: Shough, Dean [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 4:45 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: filmscanners: New filmscanners reviews
The October issue of MacWorld will
Actually not, we were informed today that there was an article and how many
stars but I have not seen the article. About a half hour a friend called
saying he just got his issue and... Well you can see for yourself:)
-Original Message-
From: Pat Perez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
I dowmloaded Vuescan to try with our new G4 and Nikon LS4000 scanner.
Vuescan cannot find the scanner (neither in 9.2 nor X). Am I doing
something wrong.
TIA
Steve
--
---***---
Steven Ralser (505) 835 5878
In a message dated 8/30/2001 4:17:46 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I dowmloaded Vuescan to try with our new G4 and Nikon LS4000 scanner.
Vuescan cannot find the scanner (neither in 9.2 nor X). Am I doing
something wrong.
You need Mac OS X 10.1 to use FireWire scanners with VueScan
Thanks for the quick reply. I'll just have to wait.
Steve
In a message dated 8/30/2001 4:17:46 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I dowmloaded Vuescan to try with our new G4 and Nikon LS4000 scanner.
Vuescan cannot find the scanner (neither in 9.2 nor X). Am I doing
something wrong.
This months MacWorld scanner review was done by Bruce Fraser.
I think his comments on Optical Density are absolutely
right on and also his comments on effects of
multi-scanning. This subject was recently discussed on this list.
David
I have to say this is a complete load of baloney. With one Levels setting,
e.g.:
input black 0
input gamma 2.5
input white 255
output black 0
output white 180
followed by USM:
Amount 200
Radius 200
followed by USM:
Amount 100
Radius 1
I can get something just like image 8 Retinexed, for
on 8/30/01 1:30 AM, SKID Photography at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They might also use an Anti-Newton Rings powder on the
glass between it and the subject being scanned.
Sorry for my ignoranceWhat is 'Anti-Newton Rings powder'?
When you place two flat surfaces together, you get a
Though I don't own a Polaroid scanner, I appreciate David's presence on
the listÂ…and certainly his affiliation is well known. I've never seen a
post from anyone at Nikon here--which ought to tell us all a little something.
Peter Lindman
Portland
Hemingway, David J wrote:
Shit, If people on
Not totally (which should not surprise you); but we are getting there. :-)
If I understand your requirements, each film should contain the same
photograph of the same subject taken at the same time (so to speak) under
the exact same lighting with the same or equivalent equipment. In addition;
each film should be scanned by the same scanner in the same way under the
same conditions and with the exact same settings;
You can't use the same settings for scanning positive film, then negative
film...
I got that much; what I was really asking was not the same lighting source
at the
What method of colour management do you use?
The last time I tried Adobe Gamma on a laptop the screen went into 4 or 5
colour mode :-)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Enoch's Vision, Inc. (Cary Enoch R...))
wrote:
At 23:44 29-08-01 -0700, Henning Wulff wrote:
In general LCD's are quite useless for
Call me Bloggs. I'll take it
Ian
At 01:42 31/08/01 +0100, you wrote:
I have to say this is a complete load of baloney. With one Levels setting,
snip
I can get something just like image 8 Retinexed, for example.
It definitely isn't rocket science we're seeing here.
I guess Joe
There are several high end LCD monitors by Apple and LaCie that are being
used for photoediting. I think it is Gretag that also has a
hardware/software profiling package. I am told they work quite well but they
aren't you 400 - 500 LCD flat panel!
David
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL
Not totally (which should not surprise you); but we are getting there. :-)
If I understand your requirements, each film should contain the same
photograph of the same subject taken at the same time (so to speak) under
the exact same lighting with the same or equivalent equipment. In addition;
Kodak and Fuji publish MTF specs on their films. Check their web sites.
Fuji does provide MTF for both their positive and negative film, Provia 100
and Superia 100. There is also additional information besides the MTF
provided, like resolving power and diffuse RMS granularity value. The
You can't use the same settings for scanning positive film, then negative
film...
I should have been clearer. I meant a raw scan in which such things as
levels, curves, gammas, unsharp mask , etc. settings were the same (i.e.,
uncorrected and unadjusted). Obviously, there might be some reversal
John writes:
I remember that the method had to do with
mathematically analyzing circles of confusion
to sharpen unsharp images (don't remember
anything about motion blur, but it might have been
there).
This would work for satellite photos, in which the distance to the subject is
known and
Cary writes:
Why do you suppose Apple is moving away from CRT's?
Because flat-panel displays look a lot more attractive, and Apple is trying to
expand its markets. Most users do not require precise color and luminosity in a
display.
It's not because they want to risk ditching all
their
I've recently installed a Nikon IV scanner. After some fiddling, it seems to
be working OK, and I'm happy with it so far. Except that when I run the
cursor over the image and into the area of the scan that is outside of the
image (presumably the unexposed film base), the Nikonscan software shows
51 matches
Mail list logo
