Typically, when you get high bit data from the scanner, it's raw data. Raw
data specifically means the setpoints have not been set, or the tonal curves
applied.
Having left the 8/16 hobbyhorse, but Im interested in
the whole RAW data thing.
My workflow for a neg roll is thus: (using
Austin Franklin wrote:
I believe you're missing the point. It doesn't matter if you have a color
file that has 100 bits/color, you simply aren't visually capable (because
you are a human) of seeing a difference between that and an 8 bits/color
file. It has nothing to do with the tools [of]
Arthur Entlich wrote:
I don't think anyone is trying to talk you out of making and storing
16 bit scans.
Good. Thats where I am.
If you have the time to work with that large a file,
and the disk space or other storage to do so, then go and do it.
Thanks.
wonder what you'll be doing when
Money quote ...
Yes, here we go again.
You CAN bombard me with facts about 8 bit being fine.
And people can 'talk up'/ 'talk down' their particular
favourite, preferred or religious route.
I will ALWAYS scan at 16 bit, and will always archive
at 16 bit. Just because the tools today cant make my
Austin Franklin wrote:
It really depends on if you are talking color or BW. For BW, there is no
question, you need to use 16 bits for doing all but a minimum tonal curve
adjustment, but for color, for most applications you won't see any
difference using 8 bit data or 16 bit data.
Have to
of each individual color, true, and it's also 16M
colors. Also, you're not likely to get only one
color out of three.
Yes, but the 16M is just that, a mythical
number that never appears in most images,
the range of colours is typically more
far restricted.
For most images, there will be
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Exactly the same thing was said of 32 bits, and 16 bits, and even 8 bits no
doubt. Engineers _always_ get it wrong, and they _always_ refuse to believe
that they should build in more capacity for the future.
I doubt that, what was probably said was, ok, we can
Ok, something truly on topic.
What are the latest developments in Film scanners
that normal people might encounter in their
filmscanning purchase options.
Any real imporvements in dynamic range, bit depth,
resolution (4000 seems to have been enough), low
noise levels?
Once Tony stopped
Hi Jack,
Ive been offline for a while, and the Filmscanners
archive is functioning even though I no longer work
at the location of the server
The archive exists at:
http://phi.res.cse.dmu.ac.uk/Filmscan/
Its got 20,000 messages
Jim Snyder wrote:
[chop]
you can stand a little bit of image quality loss, use ZIP
[chop]
H - this email list needs an FAQ - or
some pointers to certain image FAQs on the
web now and again.
Image compression is a rather complex mathematical
process that usually requires some 'dumping' of
Lynn Allen penned:
Although I haven't used it (some members have/do), PNG probably offers the
best compression in a lossless format--according to the chart that Bert
posted. Photoshop *does* offer that. Whether the format will be around in 20
years is another matter. :-)
The classic
Tony, does your list account allow the use of 'procmail
filtering? Or something of that ilk. I could knock up
a script that filters the bounces and does something practical
with them - (dump em, put them in a file, put them in
another mailbox, parse them for a return path ... etc)
bert
NB: The G550 has just been released.
One of the main considerations is the resolution you want to
have in the secondary display - the G550 will allows a
higher res on the second due to two RAMDACS (my G400 is
limited to 1280x1024).
The G450 is just a tidied up G400, the specs are a bit
better
= NB: The G550 has just been released.
Whats the max resolution on main and second monitors?
2048x1536 and 1600x1200 for the G550
at v high refresh rates (100+)
The G450 is the same, the G400 is lower.
bert
Ok - my ever reliable Canon FS2710 seems to have
developed a hardware problem and Im wondering
if the cost of fixing etc is worth it. Ive only
done about 1500 scans with it.
Basically it powers up ok, and passes diagnostics
in the CanoScan software, Vuescan recognises it,
and does calibration
Just for any newbies etc.
I keep a list archive (searchable) online for
my own personal use - and its available to all.
No adverts or profit - and nothing to do with
Tony - except its his list. Its been archived
since Jan 2000 - there are roughly 17700 messages
in a nicely organised web
Did anyone sort out whay the FS2710 was producing such a washed out scan
when using Vuescan?
Well, it might have in the past, but using the latest version 7.0.24 on negs,
I get a good full range of levels from say 5 - 250 on the scan straight out
of VueScan, using default black and white
Just for any newbies etc.
I keep a list archive (searchable) online for
my own personal use - and its available to all.
No adverts or profit - and nothing to do with
Tony - except its his list. Its been archived
since Jan 2000 - there are roughly 16600 messages
in a nicely organised web
[Tim A wrote]
I Have used the Canoscan with other scanners, but not the Minolta.
I have found using Vuescan with the Canoscan does wonders. Even basic scans
come out with less noise. Do a multi passes or the long exposure pass gives
me great scans - adding shadow detail and getting rid of
Just for any newbies etc.
I keep a list archive (searchable) online for
my own personal use - and its available to all.
No adverts or profit - and nothing to do with
Tony - except its his list. Its been archived
since Jan 2000 - there are roughly 14000 messages
in a nicely organised web
Yes - its a nice scanner, and the Canon Software is ok for
getting it to do simple scanning jobs. With Vuescan I can
get a lot more out of it though. Its getting 'old' now and
Ive been expecting a new model or two from Canon but
Im not sure of its current price range w.r.t other better
models.
Lossless:
ie when you uncompress you get an exact of the original
TIF LZW - compression 5-20% for photo images
PNG - compression 10-40% for photo images
Note that PNG will always be smaller due to
a more efficient algorithm.
Original: 24532 Kb = 2500x3300@24bit
TIF LZW: 20336 Kb = 17%
Just for any newbies etc.
I keep a list archive (searchable) online for
my own personal use - and its available to all.
No adverts or profit - and nothing to do with
Tony - except its his list. Its been archived
since Jan 2000 - there are roughly 11000 messages
in a nicely organised web setup -
Just for any newbies etc.
I keep a list archive (searchable) online for
my own personal use - and its available to all.
No adverts or profit - and nothing to do with
Tony - except its his list. Its been archived
since Jan 2000 - there are roughly 1 messages
in a nicely organised web
I noticed big decline is speed of scanning since I purchased Canon FS2710
some two weeks ago, especialy notable in high-res scans. When I got the
scanner it was fairly fast, however, it now takes some time to scan full
frame @ 2720 dpi. I know my system is rather slow and misses an big
25 matches
Mail list logo
