I take that back, I think this is the new Kodak Scanner.
Just wanted to note something I found in their information on the HR 500:
What platform does the HR 500 support?
The HR 500 runs on Windows NT. Kodak chose this platform after much
research in industry trends.
I find that interesting.
though it
wouldn't be good for devices which can shift 5Mb/s, like HDD's.
Each device will run at what ever speed it negotiates for. For example, if
you have a synch drive and an asynch scanner, the drive will negotiate, and
run, synch. The scanner will run asynch.
Why it's bad to have
speed, etc.
In years of talking to customers I an NEVER had anyone care oneway or
another what the SCSI specification is. If it is wrong it will be
corrected.
David Hemingway
Polaroid Corporation
-Original Message-
From: Austin Franklin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, September 22
In a message dated 9/25/2000 12:52:37 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have contacted Polaroid numerous times about this, and it appeared to
fall on deaf ears.
That's because it's wrong - it's a SCSI II device, and it's exactly
the same flavor of SCSI as all other SCSI film scanners.
Ed,
Ed,
SCSI I devices are NOT necessarily SCSI II compliant at the hardware level.
There were holes/differences in the SCSI I spec that caused many problems,
and were somewhat clarified in the SCSI II spec. SCSI I and SCSI II can
coexist on the same bus (if care is taken), SCSI II was
Any plans on supporting the LeafScan 35/45? ;-)
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2000 5:05 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:VueScan 6.1.2 Available
I just released VueScan 6.1.2 for Windows, Linux, and Mac OS.
It can be downloaded from:
I figured, but I didn't think it'd hurt to ask ;-)
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 8:15 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: VueScan 6.1.2 Available
In a message dated 9/29/2000 7:06:54 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Any plans on
I find as a general rule that a tripod won't buy you much in terms of
usable sharpness if you have enough light and/or film speed to shoot at
two shutter stops (or more) faster than the 'minimum' rule of focal
length/shutter speed. That is, 1/125 or faster with a 35mm lens, or
1/500 with a
and the T2500 is still probably the least expensive
($4300) 35 to 4x5 scanner that will really do the job.
I recently went through that...and ended up with a near new LeafScan 45 for $2000.
The filmscanners mailing list is
Perhaps some of the people who claim to be able to get sharp
shots hand-holding at 1/8th second could post some examples
(small cropped sections) on here? I am intrigued to see some hard
evidence.
That's absurd, and insulting. First, you are implying we are all lying.
Second, how do you
, October 08, 2000 11:08 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:RE: scanner choice (was: film scanner mailing list)
Whenever anyone suggests using Genuine Fractals to fake details my mind
goes fractal :-)
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Franklin) wrote:
I note from your
Johnny,
Who makes 4000 ASA film ;-)
Austin
--
From: Johnny Deadman
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 10:42 AM
To: Filmscanners
Subject:Re: film scanner mailing list
I don't think that's true. I am a habitual handholder and I use largely
4000
asa film and the extra DPI
Now I know you are taking the mickey. You seriously expect
anyone to believe that there is 'no difference' between shots
handheld at 1/15th and those above. This is sheer fantasy.
Why would I want to continue a discussion with someone that insults me and
then calls me a liar? You believe
What determines how sharp a hand held image is, is how wide angle the
lens is, and to some extent, how wide the image is
How heavy the camera/lense is, what type of shutter, how the shutter
release button operates, how you hold the camera, how you brace yourself,
how you control your
I assure you I also know what sharp is. I make large prints, typically
13x19, of my 35mm negatives, and I have a 5080 DPI scanner. I don't
like
soft...I like sharp...
Hi!
a 5080 DPI scanner? Can you tell us more about it ?
Of course! It's a LeafScan 45. It does 5080 for 35mm, 2540
Now, wouldn't it be nice if the scanners had optics that allowed variable
magnification?
The LeafScan 45 has 1:2, 1:1 and 2:1
The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,
I guess you are probably a better photographer than I am.
Thank you, but I believe techniques are something that most anyone can
learn...
I have found that
I need help steadying the camera for maximum sharpness
So do I, but I don't use a tripod. I do most what everyone else
A good used LeafScan 45 can be had for around $2000 if you are patient, and look
around...
I just took-up LF, and haven't decided if I'll stick with it I'm looking for
an inexpensive system for scanning 4x5 negs and slides.
I compose in the camera, that's why I paid for the viewfinder ;)
I second that. It is rare that I don't print a negative full frame...
Austin
The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,
.. they all tend to misbehave intermittently unless they're next to the
CPU
on the chain. And they really really don't like sharing with hard disks.
That hasn't been my experience in 10 years dealing with SCSI devices,
designing SCSI controllers, and writing SCSI drivers. The primary issue
but it still is
not producing anything sharper than my HP PhotoSmart.
Perhaps the image you are using just isn't any sharper? What camera and
film is this image? Have you tried another one
the image will degrade if you scan it at a radically different resolution
than what you want to
Is this a problem with the SS4000? ... because mixing devices really
shouldn't be a problem. Granted, installing a dedicated SCSI
controller is a safe way to go for devices which don't behave well ...
What do you mean by 'don't behave well'? Typically, it isn't the SCSI
device, it is the
Did you use the original HP PhotoSmart? Why did they include an el-cheapo
IDE SCSI card if they thought it was well-behaved?
I don't know what an IDE SCSI card is, but I will assume you mean ISA SCSI
card. They include it because not all computers have SCSI interfaces.
Another reason to
www.lucenti.com e-photography site
- Original Message -
From: "Frank Paris" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 4:33 PM
Subject: SCSI vs PhotoSmart
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf
You have slowed down your LVD drives by putting non-LVD devices on the
chain
That is not necessarily true. It depends on how you hook it up. Most SCSI
LVDS controllers also have a non SCSI-160 port for non LVDS devices, and
that does not slow down the LVDS SCSI-160 drives.
Another very
All I did was report my experience with the PhotoPoint and note that
Polaroid in their documentation recommends that you not place the SS4000
on
the same SCSI bus as disk drives.
I have my SS4k on the same SCSI bus as my SCSI-160 10k Cheetah drives, and
my Plextor CDR, and they all work
Perhaps the image you are using just isn't any sharper? What camera and
film is this image? Have you tried another one
I shoot with the following equipment:
Nikon ...(list of fine camera equipment snipped)
In your opinion, how might I improve my setup to get sharp pictures?
It's
The entire
rest of my week would be spent farting about with the filmscanner.
Johnny, I hope you don't smoke ;-)
The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with
Why would you want to use a flatbed scanner for contact sheets when you have
a better film scanner? Any film scanner?
You could scan at what ever resolution you want and build the "contact
sheet" in software.
Hum. One 1 minute scan of an entire roll of film, vs 1 hour of scanning 36
How about the UMax 2100XL. It has a 12x17 bed, and has a transparency adapter...if
you get the right 'bundle'
Here's a comparison of the models:
http://www.umax.com/professional/standard/products/comparison.cfm
The
Too much work. I need a time and cost effective solution, and spending
$1200 on a scanner that will give me what I want with a single scan is very
time effective, and reasonably cost effective. Also, the quality of what
you suggest would be abysmal...
--
From: Larry Berman
Sent:
The reason SCSI has, to a great extent, fallen out of favor, other than
cost, is that, very simply, it is a large pain in the butt to configure
correctly, and it is a pain for manufacturer's to implement correctly,
and it has changed flavor dozens of times, and requires dozens of
different
The reason SCSI has, to a great extent, fallen out of favor, other
than
cost, is that, very simply, it is a large pain in the butt to
configure
correctly, and it is a pain for manufacturer's to implement
correctly,
and it has changed flavor dozens of times, and requires dozens of
Umax 2100XL with transparency adapter is about US$1500
That is the one I am strongly considering...
The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE
Are film-only
scanners better optically?
They certainly can be, if they are designed to be.
Regarding software, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the
best
option is to scan a raw 48 bit data file and do everything else in the
image
editing software.
Personally, I prefer to
Thanks very much for your detailed reply. Food for thought.
You're welcome! BTW, the brochure is up:
http://www.darkroom.com/MiscDocs/LeafScan45Brochure.jpg
The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by
the pass-after-pass registration not being perfect.
I have found that to be true on my SS4k...but not only is the overall image
registration off, the line to line registration is off just enough to make
it virtually unusable. It works great for a single pass though...
The Leafscan 45 does
Additionally, there are some very good articles on the Adobe web site.
http://www.adobe.com/support/techguides/photoshop/main.html
http://www.adobe.com/support/techguides/color/main.html
The filmscanners mailing list is
I have a virtually new SprintScan 4k for sale. It has very little use, has
an extra set of negative and slide holders...original box etc. Comes with
latest version of Polaroid Insight, latest firmware, latest drivers,
manuals, cables, SCSI card etc. Everything that came with it when I
The two horizontal lines on Trinitron monitors are intrinsic to the design
and as far as I know will always be there.
Yes, they hold the aperture grill on...
what should I scan my slides or negatives at to achieve the best
results. 4000dpi??
Always scan at the highest resolution of the scanner. NEVER resize your
image, it interpolates or decimates the data, which means it's not 'as
good' as your original data.
In PS, use Image\Image Size, and
Anyway, I am interested to know what people are doing for
lighting in their own offices? i.e. the ol' digital darkroom.
4' fluorescent overheads from HomeDepot with 2 5500k bulbs from Barbizon
Lighting in each.
I would suggest spending a bit more than I did on the fixtures, these
This does not
involve any sampling of the bits across the scan to create a smaller
image
(that is interpolation).
That's actually called 'decimation', when you 'remove' data...interpolation
is when you 'add' dataother than that 'point of order', what you said
was right on.
They are Kino Flo 482-K55-S. These are 5500K, that's the color temp...
They are expensive ($22.50), as compared to standard HomeDepot 4'
florescent bulbs...
--
From: Guy Prince
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 10:41 PM
To: Austin Franklin
Subject:Re[4]: filmscanners
I was of the opinion that interpolation was
the general term which covered both down sampling and upsampling; but I
guess I was wrong in this assumption. Until your post, I was totally
unaware of the term "decimation" with respect to sampling; I associated
it
with destructive natural and
This is absolutely correct. You can send the printer driver any
resolution
you want, and it has to interpolate the data into halftone screens
anyway.
If you do leave the box checked, and resize, you will then be double
interpolating the data...once in PS and once in the printer
What I would like to see is a procedure to do the following (for
example): I
scan at 4000 DPI in a crop ratio 11:14. Then on A3 size paper I want to
print an image exactly 11"X14".
I can tell you how I do it:-
I do it slightly differently, and I'd be curious if you'd compare the
I examined the 3 prints using a high-quality 4x loupe. There
was a slight but visible improvement in quality from 240 to 360,
which didn't surprise me too much. What did surprise me was that
there was about the same degree of improvement from the 360 to the
non-resampled 367.9 print. It
I could stretch my budget a little a get a used leafscan 45,
I'd wait to see what happens when the new wave of MF scanners hits the
street...it should bring the price of the Leaf down...unless you can find a
mint one with LeafSet for around $2k...which is a steal IMO... The
brochure for the
Do you know the algorithm Epson uses, when they call it 'error diffusion'?
--
From: Frank Paris
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 10:33 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:RE: Epson printing was Re: filmscanners: 4000 dpi question
But error diffusion is not a random
EOD says interpolate means 'insert words in a book',
I should bow to the OED (if that is really what you used as your source)
but from the New SOED:
Actually my resource was the EOED... as in Encyclopedic OED...
I believe the 2000P uses dot size modulation on top of everything else,
so
you don't need anything close to 6X6 dither cell to get 256 gray levels.
Good point for the 2000P. I have both the 1160 and the 3000, and I believe
they are fixed dot size... I'll check the Epson web site to see how
As much as I like science and the scientific method, it is, when it
comes down to it, just another religion, and I don't like science
zealots (I'm not suggesting Roger is one, BTW).
I am not a science zealot, but I will take claim to being an engineering
zealot...there is a difference, as
Jim Snyder; Chemist, Biologist, Photographer, Programmer, "Scientist"
Phew, at least you don't claim to be an engineer ;-)
So. has anyone else had similar problems with the SS4000?
Jake
Gee, no Jake, the one I have, (shameless plug - that is as new, and is now
for sale ;-), never showed any problems at all, and works perfectly! It
even comes with an extra film strip holder and an extra slide
I have a Nikon LS-30 and had NO IDEA that it would work with
Vuescan. I have no idea what vuescan is, but now my interest
is piqued. I will go have a looksee ...
Isn't this ironicfrom the same person who said called us 'over educated' and
'Nincompoops'.
Hum.
Jim Snyder; Chemist, Biologist, Photographer, Programmer,
"Scientist"
Phew, at least you don't claim to be an engineer ;-)
..engineers apply science...
Sometimes, but not always true. A lot of engineering has nothing to do
with science, but having a good science (and math)
We call ourselves software engineers, although this is actually rather
pretentious, because most of the time it is art.
You call programming 'art'? I'd call that much more pretentious than
calling it engineering. It certainly can be either, but more than not,
it's neither. I used to give
To me this says that any figure is a compromise, and it is only sensible
to select one which works empirically, is 'good enough'.
Which makes a 'better' image, setting an empirical res in PS such that you
have to let PS re-sample the image, therefore degrading the image, or
re-size, with no
The only dimensions that matter are the number of pixels. The dpi and
hence the "physical dimensions" are utterly meaningless.
That's erroneous to say they are 'utterly meaningless'. They CLEARLY are
utterly meaningFUL to the printer driver, and, along with the xy number of
pixels,
Wasn't Alan Turing, the mathematician and 'father' of computer
science, a
scientist?
No, he was a mathematician. Early computers did not use 8 bit words.
And mathematicians are not scientists?!?!?!?!?!?!
No, they are not. Some may happen to be both, but being a mathematician
does
By the way, I'm studying architecture now, an arts subject, too. Or would
you consider it to be an engineering science?. Well might depend upon the
school, I guess here at the technical university in Munich it's taught as
an art - strange isn't it.
Engineering and science are two different
There is no way to measure or perceive everything.
That is a very broad, and a rather obvious statement. Of course one can't
measure anything one can't 'perceive', because if you measured it, you
would have perceived it. It would be naive to believe that we perceive
everything.
But
Are there any people in here who actually shoot, or better still, sell,
photographs ?
I do
Me too...and I even shoot with film and scan the film with a scanner ;-)
... or why HDCD sounds better!
I could tell you if you really wanted to know ;-)
Interesting! Is aliasing THE reason why scanning loses some sharpness.
What do you think aliasing is? I am curious what you base your claim above on, and I
do not believe it is a correct statement.
Wasn't Alan Turing, the mathematician and 'father' of computer science, a
scientist?
No, he was a mathematician. Early computers did not use 8 bit words.
This is like Philips' argument of limiting the sampling rate of CD audio
to 44.1 KHz.
Theoretically it's all you need, but to many
Here's a terse version from Kodak's dictionary of digital imaging terms -
"Aliasing
An effect caused by...
Be careful here. Aliasing may be the effect that is caused by...but that
does not make that the definition of aliasing. Sorry to sound so obtuse
here, but
The oversampling business in CD players is mostly a method
to save as much as maybe a dime in their production costs to reduce the
cost of the analog output reconstruction filter.
Not quite. There is no oversampling in a CD player, it is interpolation.
And it's not primarily money, it's
Austin wrote:
CD player do NOT oversample. The input data is at 44.1kHz.
What they do is interpolate the data at typically 8x the
input frequency. That is NOT oversampling, it is
interpolating. What that does is minimize the
requirements on the analog output filter design.
I know it's
I always thought that down sampling consisted of some kind of averaging
(of samples).
It SHOULD work that way, if the system (hardware/firmware/driver) is
designed properly. But, just as a note, when doing a pre-scan, I assure
you it doesn't do it at full resolution...obviously, or it
Further, at least at first,the
"oversampling" CD players were low end units
That's not quite true, they were mid range units, and it was because the
initial interpolation filters were quite bad, and were only 2x to 4x, and
certainly did not meet the audio quality that was achievable without
my new IBM DTLA IDE 30g drive will do 37mb/sec sustained
That's a pretty impressive drive, as far as area density goes. It is
11Gbits/sq. inch, vs the Cheetah which is 6.2Gbits/sq. inch. That's how
they get the media transfer rate up so high, given it's a slower spindle
speed.
I wish you
3.9 just means 13 bits of dynamic range.
Out of curiosity, how do you come up with this (especially the word
'means')?
They're using a 14-bit A/D
converter, which most vendors convert to a dynamic range of 4.2.
I suspect Polaroid is just being conservative.
A 14 bit converter only has 13
In summary, dynamic range is just another way of saying how
many bits the A/D converter uses:
10 bits = 3.0
12 bits = 3.6
14 bits = 4.2
Would you please explain this more? What is the source of the information,
or the algorithm, you used to come up with these numbers?
3.9 just means 13 bits of dynamic range.
Out of curiosity, how do you come up with this (especially the word
'means')?
log10(2^13) = 3.913
It's just math.
That doesn't take into account the performance of the CCD, or the analog
front end, or the actual converter performance. Do
I
suspect that the increased dynamic range is got by overscanning each line at
different exposures, and then
'stitching' the most significant bits from the lesser
exposure with the least significant bits of the higher one.
That
is how the Leafscan 45gets its high specs. Ituses 12 bit
Because it is an 8-bit D/A, the lowest level we can read is 2^8 lower than
1024 = 1024/256 = 4mV.
The number of bits has NOTHING to do with what voltage it can read.
Different converters have different voltage ranges, AND the input voltage
range can be changed via an analog front end to the
for
a given sensitivity from the analog circuitry, changing the
A/D won't make any difference to the density ranges
that the analog circuitry resolves. It only increases the
accuracy with which we read the range of analog values
that the CCD *does* resolve.
May be I'm slow today...but
it MAY, depending on the system. Where noise in
the system is greater than the resolution of the A/D, it will not.
-Original Message-
Paragraph is clear enough for me to understand. And is perfectly
correct to my judgement.
Slava
--- Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
for
a given
(I'm ignoring colour for simplicity's sake).
Color isn't relevant. The sensor doesn't have any color information, only
intensity information. The color is deterministic...ie, a particular sensor
has a particular color filter over it.
The real minimum and maximum
light intensities which the
Devices are not really linear. There are a number of 'distortions'.
One is
offset, the second is linearity, and the third is gain.
I think Austin was refering to the analogue pre-amplifiers built into a
lot of A/D
converters.
You are correct, but I was not limiting the source of the
Colour could be relevent if the sensor has poor sensitivity
to a particular frequency range, or produces more noise in
that range (eg. blue, which I often hear contains more noise
than other channels :).
Very true, but you have to believe the manufacturer is going to use CCDs
that don't have
Austin writes ...
Yes, it appears you are confused about what DMax is. ...
Second is the ability to discriminate within that voltage
range, which is 'resolution'and that is what DMax is.
DMax is relative in and of itself. ...
And you have always been such a stickler for
I've never seen any scanner use Dmax as a spec ...
The Leafscan 45 has listed right in their brochure, and I quote:
"Dynamic range: 5000:1 or 3.7 Dmax"
So, obviously at least one manufacturer does use Dmax as a spec, and I am
sure others do also.
the
ability of measuring Dmax - Dmin, are
The pixel values (for which the range of is the
theoretically highest Dmax for the scanner)
are relative to each other, not absolute, ...
Correct ... the "pixel values" associated with measuring Dmax may be
relative ... but "Dmax" is a measured value, is absolute, and belongs
to film.
snip
PS There is another issue that comes up here - I have assumed that
Dynamic
range (which until now I would say is the same thing as density range) is
Dmax - Dmin where you measure Dmax and Dmin _with_the_same_setup_ - that
is, during the one scan.
I brought up this point a while ago, I
Dynamic Range certainly means the range that can be covered
without changing the setup i.e. the range available at one instant.
It depends on what you mean by 'changing the setup'. Dynamic range is a
system measurement. If the system can provide a particular 'dynamic range'
by doing, say,
Of course it does, but the voltage to toggle the LSB of the A/D, *relative
to
the maximum voltage from the CCD*
When talking about number of volts/bit (technically, volts/code) the
measurement is *USUALLY* done relative to the A/D input voltage range...but
if you want to reference to the CCD
I don't think anyone commented on my suggestion that a 14 bit A/D still
gives more detail in the middle part of the range of values (where colour
neg film generally is) precisely because the noise is lowest there?
I understand what you are saying, but I don't believe that's what is done,
or
Typically, the image data only falls in part of the range of the CCD,
and should be more in the middle, not the ends.
Well, that's part of my point.
You're suggesting treating the CCD non-linearly it appears. There is a
thought to that, but I will say, that you're probably not going to get
Typically, the image data only falls in part of the range of the CCD,
and should be more in the middle, not the ends.
Well, that's part of my point.
You're suggesting treating the CCD non-linearly it appears.
No. I'm saying that the signal to noise ratio changes depending on the
input
Is it normal for the LS-30 to automatically eject the film
from the scanner after a certain amount of time of inactivity?
Yes. Presumably it's to avoid overheating the film.
Another reason is that if left in long enough, the colors will degrade, if
it's color film that is.
I wish scanners
shAf wrote:
I simply don't understand this esoteric point that
'all of the 16M colours don't exist'.
I mean there is a color equivelent found in the natural world
(anywhere, anything) for RGB=30-0-230, but not for 0-0-255
That's wrong. RGB is a relative system, and as such, 0,0,255 is what
I am claiming you'll never be able to photograph an
equivelent of
RGB=255-0-0. If you do surely let the color community know :o)
You still don't understand that RGB triads are not absolute
colors, and so what you say does not make sense.
They can only be *mapped* to absolute
Given Moore's Law
I'd like to give my rant on this... It is NOT a law damn it! It is an
assertion. One that MANY people in the industry made before, and about the
same time Moore did. He did not come up with this. It is like saying Bill
Gates invented software.
Sorry ;-)
Clark Guy writes ...
I believe that digital cameras will continue to get better
and better, but ...
...
because we are already approaching the limit of how small a
single pixel can be. It can't be smaller than a wavelength
of light, and we are approaching this limit even now. ...
What you suggest can not be made today, with current technology for process,
packaging and material. You have to get all the wires out of the die, AND
it has to be done such that crosstalk is eliminated, as well as adjacent
sensors interfering with each other.
Speed is not really an issue
The Canon D30 is NOT a CCD array camera.
It has a CMOS chip.
If I used the CCD relating to the D30, I know better, and it was an
oversight. Sorry, you are right, it is a CMOS sensor array. Though, that is
not relevant to the points I was making... I guess I call any light sensor
array a CCD
As for the resolution needed to equal 35mm film, I think I
have seen it quoted
that it would need about 8-10 Megapixels.
It is quite simple to calculate, and, of course, depends on what film you
want to try to 'emulate'. At 5080DPI Plus-X does not reveal grain. That
means 5080 x 1 x 5080 x
1 - 100 of 723 matches
Mail list logo
