[filmscanners] Re: IV ED dynamic range... DYNAMIC RANGE!
Hi Andre, I am NOT the list owner here, and the following views are my own. I have been with this list since its earliest beginnings, however, and am a fairly active poster. Having clarified that, here are my views: Welcome to free speech. I know of no newsgroups or lists that do not have off topic or personal disagreements develop on occasion. Quite honestly, having been on this list for years, if you are unable to use the delete feature of your email browser when you encounter an off topic posting, you will become rather frustrated. There are many posters here who provide some very useful and valuable information, and some of them also go off topic or get into personal attacks and issue on occasion. Even if the list owner ruled with an iron fist, and in this list the owner both chooses not to, nor does he have the time to, some of this stuff would leak through, and also, as a community of people, it would be a much more boring list and I know a number of very active and helpful members would simply leave if the topic range was rigidly controlled. Basically, what it comes down to is that if you want more signal and less noise, then contribute signal, not noise. If you are here to watch and listen you are certainly welcome, but you cannot dictate policy or content. Art PS: I would also suggest you develop better quoting habits, it was unnecessary to post the whole message below again. Andre Moreau wrote: I just subscribed yesterday thinking this would be a great scanning discussion group but I get these kind of post cluttering my mail box. Makes me want to unsubcribe right now!!! - Original Message - From: Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 10:35 AM Subject: [filmscanners] RE: IV ED dynamic range... DYNAMIC RANGE! Peter, Your entire post has absolutely nothing to do with filmscanners. It is simply your belief and critique about me, and appears to be an attempt to throw dispersion on my credibility. If you want to comment on me personally, as opposed to something technical, I believe you should keep it OFF LIST, or not say it at all. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Bands while using Vuescan
I too was wandering what is this Linear scan is. Its good idea to scan with minolta s/w and process with vuescan. I get the control and also I will get to know whether Vuscan's post-scan processing is causing bands. I will try. Thanks Ramesh -Original Message- From: [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 5:35 PM To: Nagaraj, Ramesh Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Bands while using Vuescan Earlier I was reluctant to explore minolta s/w and had always ignored it. But now I am forced use Minolta s/w, It has options to select Color space, Monitor device RGB, these option are hidden!!!. Another thing is minolta s/w will not embedd the color profile into image. Have you tried doing a 16 bit raw (linear) scan to file from the Minolta software with autoexposure turned off and then processing the file in Vuescan? This isn't much slower (although it is best not to have both open at the same time as this can cause the scanner to hang!) and would give the degree of control you are after. Al Bond (ANOTHER ISSUE) Another problem which I faced few times was, that I used to get full RED images(no other thing except RED). During the scanning process, Vuescan shows Pre-processed image and post-processed image in the s/w. Pre-processed image used to look fine but final file written to harddisk used to be washed with RED. Seems there is some thing wrong in the preprocessing. Thanks Ramesh -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2002 6:22 PM To: Nagaraj, Ramesh Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Bands while using Vuescan When I tested the Elite II I tried it on my PC (PII 350 with 896 Mb of RAM running Windows 98) and on a borrowed laptop (PIII 600 with 128Mb RAM running Windows 2000) and the results using the Minolta software (version 1.0.0 I think) scanned at the full resolution of 2820 dpi with ICE switched off were identical. I wonder whether we are discussing the same sort of banding in the red channel. I posted a couple of examples, comparing the results with the earlier version of the scanner: http://mysite.freeserve.com/filmscanners/elite_vs_eliteII.jpg (Crop of full frame for reference and full resolution extract from each scanner - 470KB) http://mysite.freeserve.com/filmscanners/elite_vs_eliteII_channels.jpg (Separate channels of full resolution extract from each scanner - 307KB) If this is the sort of banding you are seeing in Vuescan, then I think you may be right that Minolta have partly fixed the problem in the software. What version of the Minolta software are you using? Al Bond This link has some comments with reference to Vuescan Minolta h/w Bands The writer says its due to speed virtual memory. http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000kAv (Look for last comment) Ramesh -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 6:48 PM To: Nagaraj, Ramesh Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Bands while using Vuescan Ramesh wrote: I have heard lot of people saying Minolta Dimage Elite II causes bands. I too observed the follwing. a) Causes clear red bands in DARK part of the slide scan. I tried 2 Elites IIs in January/February and both units exhibited this. * While using Vuescan. But NOT*** in Minolta software. snip *Is it the problem with Vuescan or Minolta h/w. H/W seems to be ok, beacuse bands appear only with DICE. Without DICE there are no bands. Odd. I found it happened both with Vuescan AND the Minolta software with or without ICE turned on so my conclusion was that it was the hardware! The only way I found to the stop the banding with the Minolta software was to switch GEM on. Of course, this didn't actually stop the banding but the smoothing effect of GEM masked it. (If I slowly increased the GEM value from the lowest value of 1, the visibility of the banding decreased correspondingly.) Was GEM definitely switched off when the you got band-free scans? Al Bond Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: [filmscanners_Digest] filmscanners Digest forFri 9 Aug,2002-Firnware
Firmware is the programming which is held within the peripheral. It is held in one or more flash memory or other types of chips. Usually, firmware contains information which is necessary for the basic functions of the peripheral or information that the computer or OS needs to know about the peripheral. It is a bit like the BIOS for a motherboard of a computer. In scanners it can alter things like how calibration sequences are done, how motors engage, and other things. In the past, this stuff was permanently burned into a chip, and required a chip exchange to alter it (it it was socketed). Today the chips which store this info can be accessed and written to via software and can be altered with a small program provided by the manufacturer. Art Khor Tong Hong wrote: What is firmware? TH -=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=- Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 01:44:55 -0700 From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi Michael, Welcome to the list. I can give you some views in regard to your purchase. I use both a Polaroid S4000+, which is the identical hardware in the Microtek 4000tf with different firmware and front end software, and I also own a Minolta Dual Scan II, which is very similar to the Elite II. The main difference between the Dual II and the Elite II are: Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening
Maris writes: Brian said the file size was reduced, so there was apparently resampliing (downsampling). Or the amount of information in the file did not increase. In any case, if one proceeds as he describes (changing the dimension of the image to 11 inches in Photoshop), the results are as I describe--I tested it to be sure; perhaps he left something out in his description. Your hypothetical of entering 11 inches in the new dimension, with the resampling box checked or unchecked, would not result in PS computing 11 inches x 4000 ppi. PS would reduce the ppi proportionately in either case. Try it. If you simply enter a new dimension in inches, the size in pixels will increase or decrease as required to produce that dimension ... at 4000 ppi. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Help with purchasing decision?
Hi Michael, I think you will find the Microtek offerings very similar to Polaroid's. If Polaroid was on more solid footing, I would suggest it as a better option, because, up until recently at least, they provided better client support (in North America), and the software package (Insight) is a good front end (I'm not sure how the Microtek software stacks up). Since Microtek is the manufacturer, and seems on solid footing for the foreseeable future, I think you're logic makes good sense. Art Michael O'Connor wrote: Thanks Erik, Maris, and particularly Arthur, for your help. Imaging Resource is a great site for helping to make a decision, and it is the site that convinced me earlier that I'd prefer the Polaroid SS to Nikon offerings. The archives of this list were also very helpful, and will continue to be I'm sure. Arthur, the depth of your response was extremely on point and really helped me come to a decision. For some reason I'd feel better buying the Polaroid, but even if I can actually still find one, the fact that its now discontinued doesn't bode well for any future OS X compatible software/driver upgrades, so I'm going with the Microtek Artixscan 4000tf and crossing my fingers that the apparent low noise of Polaroid models is also true for the Microtek, I'll be sure to post something some weeks down the road when I've received the unit and had a chance to put it through its paces. This list is certainly a find. Even its discussions on what the meaning of is is are fun, its awfully easy to get tripped up when the same word has different refernces (resolution) and similar sounding terms (density range/dynamic range, dpi/ppi/spi) get mixed up by everyone at some point or another; its good to know someone cares. Michael O Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening
I tried it. Leaving the Resample box checked does result in no change the ppi Resolution. Unchecking the Resample box does result in a change in Resolution. Maris - Original Message - From: Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 7:03 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening Maris writes: [snipped] Your hypothetical of entering 11 inches in the new dimension, with the resampling box checked or unchecked, would not result in PS computing 11 inches x 4000 ppi. PS would reduce the ppi proportionately in either case. Try it. If you simply enter a new dimension in inches, the size in pixels will increase or decrease as required to produce that dimension ... at 4000 ppi. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: IV ED dynamic range... DYNAMIC RANGE!
Basically, what it comes down to is that if you want more signal and less noise, then contribute signal, not noise. If you are here to watch and listen you are certainly welcome, but you cannot dictate policy or content. Hi Arthur, I agree with what you said, and I'm sure you know this...but one person's signal may very well be another person's noise. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Vuescan problem
I completely missed your kind offer - thanks. And thanks to everyone who responded. I got zero response form comp.periphs.scanners, and surprisingly, no response from an e-mail to Ed. But I'm sure he's swamped. So you guys are it! Ed's replies tend not to be immediate so you may still hear from him. A couple of days ago I got a note to check out a revision after sending out a log file more than a week ago. John M. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: PS sharpening
Maris, As this post came through, I am unsure which is your statement and which is the quoted statement you are responding to; but I assume it is the second one. I agree entirely with it, although I typically tend to refer to resolution in this situation as effective resolution rather than as resolution, since it is the resolution change is apparently a result of the resizing without resampling rather than as a result of any resampling per se. If you take a 8x10 at 300 dpi with the resampling box unchecked and resize it to 4x5 with the unchecked resampling box, you will get an effective resolution of 600 dpi; whereas if you take the same 8x10 at 300 dpi with an unchecked reampling box and increase its size to 16x20 with anu unchecked resampling box, the effective resolution will be 150dpi. On the other hand, if you check the box in each instance and leave the resolution setting at 300, the actual resolution of the resulting resized images will remain the same at 300 dpi, although that 300 dpi will not be an optically resolved dpi but one produced via resampling upward or downward. The nature of the resolution has changed although the numbers may not have in the checked resample box instances; whereas, in the unchecked sample box instnaces the level of actual optical resolution remains the same but the effective resolution changes due to contraction or expansion of the lineal dimensions upon with the dots per inch are based rather than a change in the number of dots per inch per se. I offer this in hopes of adding some clarity to the discussion in a linguistic fashion rather than in a substantive one. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Maris V. Lidaka Sr. Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2002 8:55 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening I tried it. Leaving the Resample box checked does result in no change the ppi Resolution. Unchecking the Resample box does result in a change in Resolution. Maris Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
