[filmscanners] Re: Advice on scanner settings--Thanks!
Carlisle Landel wrote: > Bunch, > > Wow! The list lives! > > Thanks to all for the advice. > > Especiallly, thanks for the reminder that IR filtering doesn't work > for Kodachrome. > > I've got the bulk slide feeder, so the plan is to simply drop a box > of slides in and start it up, then go away and drop another in when I > get to it. I figure if I do a couple of boxes an evening, it'll > eventually get done. > > I'm going with the "memory is cheap" theory and will use the 4000dpi > TIFF settings. > > Best regards, > > Carlisle > > > My memory seems to be that in some circumstances -- involving generations of KC or generations of IR or a combination of the two -- allowed for some success. Sorry to be so vague but it may be worth a try to see what happens. j Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Advice on scanner settings
Both methods (printing and looking) are too subjective for my taste in regard to this issue. I'd really like to see a objective map of the changes. My personal sense is that jpeg is much better than most people give it credit for. It was designed with human vision in mind, so it does more damage to the color than the luminosity because we have relatively poor color vision, but we have good luminosity sensitivity. We are much more aware of contrast and edge sharpness than subtle gradients of color. Art gary wrote: > How about just changing the opacity and slide between one version and > the other, and look for differences. > > I don't think printing is as accurate as looking on a monitor. > > Preston Earle wrote: > >> "Arthur Entlich" asked: "Anyone have a good idea how to check two images for >> changes against one another such that hue, color, contrast, brightness or >> any value change to a pixel would show up clearly as a changed pixel when >> comparing two images on top of one another? I would like to see a >> quantitative visual indication of each pixel that is altered by a certain >> jpeg setting relative to the non-jpegged tiff." >> - >> >> One thought: flatten the "black" image and look at the Levels of that file. >> I think you'll find a lot of pixels of 0, 1, and 2 values. I suspect there >> will be few pixels of 6 or more value. This will give some idea of the >> quantity of changes in the JPEG file. (or maybe 255, etc., values. I never >> can remember whether 0 is black or white.) >> >> Second thought: make the "best" print possible of the two files and compare >> the two prints. This will give some idea of the quality of the changes. If >> you can see the difference in the two files without looking at the files at >> 200+% on pixel-for-pixel basis, I'd say you've got better eyes than 100% of >> other folks in the world. >> >> For really poor slides that need a lot of post processing, I think it makes >> sense to start with a TIFF file and convert to JPEG only after all image >> correction has been done. For slides where the first scan look pretty good, >> I doubt you can do any reasonable changes that would show a difference in >> starting with a JPEG or TIFF. >> >> Preston Earle >> pea...@triad.rr.com >> www.sawdustforbrains.blogspot.com >> >> >> >> > > > Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Advice on scanner settings--Thanks!
The Vuescan IR is pretty good. However, I view film scanning like playing a LP. At the very least, you need to blow off the dust. Carlisle Landel wrote: > Bunch, > > Wow! The list lives! > > Thanks to all for the advice. > > Especiallly, thanks for the reminder that IR filtering doesn't work > for Kodachrome. > > I've got the bulk slide feeder, so the plan is to simply drop a box > of slides in and start it up, then go away and drop another in when I > get to it. I figure if I do a couple of boxes an evening, it'll > eventually get done. > > I'm going with the "memory is cheap" theory and will use the 4000dpi > TIFF settings. > > Best regards, > > Carlisle > > Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Advice on scanner settings
Fortunately got the 1.5Tbytes. Also, they still have 5 years. The only computer part I have they really seems to be junk are these Gigabyte Rocket fans. What a pain to replace. One stopped turning, but the system shut down. The other lost it's speed control. I use Zalman now. Bob Frost wrote: >> Seagate is tops in the industry at 5 years. > > Was? They have just slashed their warranty to 3 yrs on some drives - > > http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3188 > > > >> I have my reasons not >> to like Seagate, but none are due to drive quality. > > They've just had a load of trouble with their latest barracuda drives - > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/16/barracuda_failure_plague/ > > > Bob Frost > > > -- > From: > > > Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Advice on scanner settings
On 26/02/2009 li...@lazygranch.com wrote: > There is DVD+R and DVD-R. For technical reasons, +R is pr > eferred. DVD-RAM is to be avoided. This was DVD+R > Nowadays, most publishers have ftp. Yup. Except this was a monstrous 1.5m x 1.5m @300dpi file, which took up most of the DVD and would have taken far longer to FTP than driving, and 'time was of the essence'. For some reason that was never explained the agency insisted on my upsizing it rather than giving it to their printer to do. Fortunately nobody has ever asked me to do similar before or since. -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Advice on scanner settings
> Seagate is tops in the industry at 5 years. Was? They have just slashed their warranty to 3 yrs on some drives - http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3188 > I have my reasons not > to like Seagate, but none are due to drive quality. They've just had a load of trouble with their latest barracuda drives - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/16/barracuda_failure_plague/ Bob Frost -- From: Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Advice on scanner settings
Actually, encryption these days is hard to break. Just as k the NSA. (It is more cost effective to bribe to get the data.) Even password protection is hard to break. Some d isgruntled San Francisco employee refused to give up a pa ssword. Experts spent weeks trying to get around the pass word. The employee went to jail and still wouldn't give i t up. Eventually the employee, while still in his cell, h ad a one on one with the mayor and gave up the password. There is some question regarding the longevity of driv es that are not running. Much like a car that sits idle f or years, will it work. There is a technology known as MA ID, which IIRC stands for massive array of idle drives. Library science is a lot more than cataloging these day s. -Original Message- From: "LAURIE SOLOMON" < lau...@advancenet.net> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 11:48:13 To: Subject: [filmscanners] RE : Advice on scanner settings Encryption can be done lo cally; but what can be encrypted can be unencrypted if s omeone really wants to. Given the rash of allegedly secu re information that has managed to get publically distri buted these days with respect to major supposedly high s ecurity operations such as banks, corporations, governme ntal agencies that have lost confidential secure data, I would not dismiss security as being not much of an issue . Of course there is always the problem of the hard dr ives and storage facilities at these online off-location data storage operations going bad, going down when you need to retrieve the data, or just getting corrupted des pite any and all precautions. -Original Message--- -- From: filmscanners_ow...@halftone.co.uk [mailto:film scanners_ow...@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of li...@lazygra nch.com Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 10:57 AM To: lau...@advancenet.net Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Advice on scanner settings Security isn't much of an issue t hese days since you coul d encrypt locally. Goin out of business is very likely. M ediastor was in the same busi ness and went under. -Original Message- Fro m: "LAURIE SOLOMON" Date: Th u, 26 Feb 2009 10:23:29 To: Su bject: [filmscanners] RE: Advice on scanner settings >I'd like to point out that I neve r had a Seagate produ ct fail. Of >course, that could be luck. They come with 5 year warranties. I have had a c ouple of them go b ad; but I have had a number of brands g o bad. Hard dr ives after all are mechanical devices; an d their intern al parts do wear out, do get damaged, and do get overhe ated. Some brands go bad sooner than others even if th ey have extended long warrantees. When they d o it is a pain to send them back for warrantee service a nd to l ose the data on them. >The offsite service is handy in the event of fire or theft. Yes, except if th ey g o out of business or have security issues, which are d istinct possibilities in this day and age. Like so man y others, I have found that many services offer good rat es and terms, good service and security, and the like wh en they are new and trying to establish themselves a nd a client base. However after the introductory offer or pe riod, things change with pricing going up, terms changin g, service and security declining, etc. By th en, you ca n terminate your service or move to a differ ent online s torage operation if things change to your d isliking; but they count on the inconvenience factor a nd inertia to ke ep you even if things change for the w orst. Most people overstay their welcome due to the i nconvenience of movi ng their data from those storage fa cilities to new ones or purchasing additional drives to store the data on at h ome or at an external location l ike a bank vault. - Original Message- From : filmscanners_ow...@halft one.co.uk [mailto:filmscanne rs_ow...@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of gary Sent: Thursd ay, February 26, 2009 2:05 AM To: lau...@advancenet.ne t Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Advice on scanner setting s I'd like to point out that I never had a Seagate pr oduct fail. Of course, that coul d be luck. They come w ith 5 year warranties. Of course , I probably just cu rsed one of my drives by mentioning I had no failures. I've built PCs for people that would s pend the extra m oney for a Seagate and had the drives ar rive DOA. More than once mind you. One was from IBM, and the other F ujitsu, a company I thought had it's act tog ether. If you get external drives, consider spending a bit mor e and get esata. I have this general distrust of USB. http://www.carbonite.com/ These people advertis e he avily on http://techguylabs.com/radio/pmwiki.php I have no idea if the service is any good, but it is onli ne o ffsite storage, and relatively cheap. Offer code I b el ieve is Leo, but you could just listen to any of his p odcasts and get the code. The offsite service is handy in the event of fire or theft. Tony Sleep wro t
[filmscanners] Re: Advice on scanner settings
I'm ageeeing on using LWZ tiffs. JPEG2000 has a number o f vendors that support it. Perhaps it is not popular with photographers, but it is used in GIS. I use the compress or from ECW. You can view JPEG2000 in Irfanview. If the owners ligthened up on royalties so that browsers could use JPEG2000, it would become the standard. I'm not sur e there will ever be the day where a format can't be conv erted. Bits are bits. Hardware issues, sure, but if you h ave the data, you will be able to convert it. --Or iginal Message-- From: LAURIE SOLOMON Sender: filmsca nners_ow...@halftone.co.uk To: li...@lazygranch.com Reply To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk Subject: [filmscanners] R E: Advice on scanner settings Sent: Feb 26, 2009 9:35 AM From my understanding JPEG 2000 is a dead fish in terms of support and adoptions. If my understanding is correct , you would wind up with orphaned files that neither you nor anyone else would be able to open and read in the fut ure; not good for archives. :-) The standard JPEG and th e TIFF are at least universal and established formats tha t are supported by almost all programs and are likely to be so in the future. >You are should do the LWZ tiff. I am not sure what you are trying to say here. -Orig inal Message- From: filmscanners_ow...@halftone.co.uk [mailto:filmscanners_ow...@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of li...@lazygranch.com Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 10 :52 AM To: lau...@advancenet.net Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Advice on scanner settings You can JPEG2000, which h as a lossless option. I would have to research it, but I think it only uses 8 per color. You are should do the LWZ tiff. - --- Unsubscribe by m ail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe films canners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropr iate) in the message title or body --- - Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.c o.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe fil mscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title o r body Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Advice on scanner settings
Encryption can be done locally; but what can be encrypted can be unencrypted if someone really wants to. Given the rash of allegedly secure information that has managed to get publically distributed these days with respect to major supposedly high security operations such as banks, corporations, governmental agencies that have lost confidential secure data, I would not dismiss security as being not much of an issue. Of course there is always the problem of the hard drives and storage facilities at these online off-location data storage operations going bad, going down when you need to retrieve the data, or just getting corrupted despite any and all precautions. -Original Message- From: filmscanners_ow...@halftone.co.uk [mailto:filmscanners_ow...@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of li...@lazygranch.com Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 10:57 AM To: lau...@advancenet.net Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Advice on scanner settings Security isn't much of an issue these days since you coul d encrypt locally. Goin out of business is very likely. M ediastor was in the same business and went under. -Original Message- From: "LAURIE SOLOMON" Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 10:23:29 To: Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Advice on scanner settings >I'd like to point out that I neve r had a Seagate product fail. Of >course, that could be luck. They come with 5 year warranties. I have had a c ouple of them go bad; but I have had a number of brands g o bad. Hard drives after all are mechanical devices; an d their internal parts do wear out, do get damaged, and do get overheated. Some brands go bad sooner than others even if they have extended long warrantees. When they d o it is a pain to send them back for warrantee service a nd to lose the data on them. >The offsite service is handy in the event of fire or theft. Yes, except if th ey go out of business or have security issues, which are distinct possibilities in this day and age. Like so man y others, I have found that many services offer good rat es and terms, good service and security, and the like wh en they are new and trying to establish themselves and a client base. However after the introductory offer or pe riod, things change with pricing going up, terms changin g, service and security declining, etc. By then, you ca n terminate your service or move to a different online s torage operation if things change to your disliking; but they count on the inconvenience factor and inertia to ke ep you even if things change for the worst. Most people overstay their welcome due to the inconvenience of movi ng their data from those storage facilities to new ones or purchasing additional drives to store the data on at h ome or at an external location like a bank vault. - Original Message- From: filmscanners_ow...@halft one.co.uk [mailto:filmscanners_ow...@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of gary Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 2:05 AM To: lau...@advancenet.net Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Advice on scanner settings I'd like to point out that I never had a Seagate product fail. Of course, that coul d be luck. They come with 5 year warranties. Of course , I probably just cursed one of my drives by mentioning I had no failures. I've built PCs for people that would s pend the extra money for a Seagate and had the drives ar rive DOA. More than once mind you. One was from IBM, and the other Fujitsu, a company I thought had it's act tog ether. If you get external drives, consider spending a bit more and get esata. I have this general distrust of USB. http://www.carbonite.com/ These people advertis e heavily on http://techguylabs.com/radio/pmwiki.php I have no idea if the service is any good, but it is onli ne offsite storage, and relatively cheap. Offer code I b elieve is Leo, but you could just listen to any of his p odcasts and get the code. The offsite service is handy in the event of fire or theft. Tony Sleep wrote : > On 26/02/2009 li...@lazygranch.com wrote: >> I just bought three 1.5 terrabyte drives > > RAID can add res ilience but no way can it be considered safe, so don't > forget the other 4! > > Here I have: > 3 x 1TB RAID3 = 2TB > 2 x 1TB for backup (on another LAN PC) > 2 x 1T B for offsite backup. > > So that's 7 x 1TB for 2TB of storage. I don't trust HDD's much. > > -- > Regards > > Tony Sleep > http://tonysleep.co.uk > > --- - Unsubscribe by mail to listse r...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in th e message title or body --- - Unsubscribe by mail
[filmscanners] RE: Advice on scanner settings
>From my understanding JPEG 2000 is a dead fish in terms of support and adoptions. If my understanding is correct, you would wind up with orphaned files that neither you nor anyone else would be able to open and read in the future; not good for archives. :-) The standard JPEG and the TIFF are at least universal and established formats that are supported by almost all programs and are likely to be so in the future. >You are should do the LWZ tiff. I am not sure what you are trying to say here. -Original Message- From: filmscanners_ow...@halftone.co.uk [mailto:filmscanners_ow...@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of li...@lazygranch.com Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 10:52 AM To: lau...@advancenet.net Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Advice on scanner settings You can JPEG2000, which has a lossless option. I would have to research it, but I think it only uses 8 per color. You are should do the LWZ tiff. Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Advice on scanner settings
There is DVD+R and DVD-R. For technical reasons, +R is pr eferred. DVD-RAM is to be avoided. I have had the sam e issue regarding an unreadable DVD, and I always run a v erify. However, the reader was my own notebook. ;-) Peopl e tend to upgrade their desktop burners more often than n otebooks, so sending DVD hasn't been much of an issue. Nowadays, most publishers have ftp. --Original Message-- From: Tony Sleep Sender: filmscanners_ow n...@halftone.co.uk To: li...@lazygranch.com ReplyTo: fi lmscann...@halftone.co.uk Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Ad vice on scanner settings Sent: Feb 26, 2009 8:43 AM O n 26/02/2009 li...@lazygranch.com wrote: > I font follow your reason for rejecting DVDs. Granted at > 4 GBytes, they aren't big these days. I don't trust DVD stabilit y/longevity at all. I've had quality branded DVD's corru pt themselves after as little as 3m or fail to read on a drive other than the one that created them (though that' s an older problem from early days). Worst example wa s one that I drove to a client 40mls away, on a very urg ent deadline. It had verified and test loaded fine here o n 2 different drives, and they couldn't read it, they co uld only see the directory entries. I had to go back hom e, burn another and drive back again. Later I tried the problem disk and I couldn't open the files either. It rea lly put me off DVD, unlike CD, where I have never had a disk go bad in up to (so far) 13 years. -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk - - -- Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halfton e.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message tit le or body Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Advice on scanner settings
I'd like to point out that I never had a Seagate product fail. Of course, that could be luck. They come with 5 year warranties. Of course, I probably just cursed one of my drives by mentioning I had no failures. I've built PCs for people that would spend the extra money for a Seagate and had the drives arrive DOA. More than once mind you. One was from IBM, and the other Fujitsu, a company I thought had it's act together. If you get external drives, consider spending a bit more and get esata. I have this general distrust of USB. http://www.carbonite.com/ These people advertise heavily on http://techguylabs.com/radio/pmwiki.php I have no idea if the service is any good, but it is online offsite storage, and relatively cheap. Offer code I believe is Leo, but you could just listen to any of his podcasts and get the code. The offsite service is handy in the event of fire or theft. Tony Sleep wrote: > On 26/02/2009 li...@lazygranch.com wrote: >> I just bought three 1.5 terrabyte drives > > RAID can add resilience but no way can it be considered safe, so don't > forget the other 4! > > Here I have: > 3 x 1TB RAID3 = 2TB > 2 x 1TB for backup (on another LAN PC) > 2 x 1TB for offsite backup. > > So that's 7 x 1TB for 2TB of storage. I don't trust HDD's much. > > -- > Regards > > Tony Sleep > http://tonysleep.co.uk > > Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Advice on scanner settings
I think raid 0 is probabaly as safe as it gets. Once you spread the data, then I agree things could get exciting. There is a chance of the OS peeing on your data. I hav e a Seagte external for backup, but I have nothing that c an handle 3T. However it took me a while to fill up the 6 00 Gbytes on my system. (Four 300G drives in RAID 10.) I finally went digital with a 5D Mark II, so I figure I will be filling the drives at a faster rate. Live View is certainly better than a magnifier on the viewfinder. - -Original Message-- From: Tony Sleep Sender: fi lmscanners_ow...@halftone.co.uk To: li...@lazygranch.com ReplyTo: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk Subject: [filmsca nners] Re: Advice on scanner settings Sent: Feb 25, 2009 6:24 PM On 26/02/2009 li...@lazygranch.com wrote: > I just bought three 1.5 terrabyte drives RAID can add resilience but no way can it be considered safe, so don't forget the other 4! Here I have: 3 x 1TB RAID3 = 2T B 2 x 1TB for backup (on another LAN PC) 2 x 1TB for of fsite backup. So that's 7 x 1TB for 2TB of storage. I don't trust HDD's much. -- Regards Tony Sleep htt p://tonysleep.co.uk -- -- U nsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'un subscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_dig est' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Advice on scanner settings
On 26/02/2009 li...@lazygranch.com wrote: > I just bought three 1.5 terrabyte drives RAID can add resilience but no way can it be considered safe, so don't forget the other 4! Here I have: 3 x 1TB RAID3 = 2TB 2 x 1TB for backup (on another LAN PC) 2 x 1TB for offsite backup. So that's 7 x 1TB for 2TB of storage. I don't trust HDD's much. -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Advice on scanner settings
On 25/02/2009 Peter Marquis-Kyle wrote: > I say scan once, at the > highest resolution the scanner can do (in this case 4000 spi), and > create the best archive image for whatever use happens later. Agreed. 4000ppi will also reduce any issues with grain aliasing, which can be more of a problem at 2700ppi especially with Nikon scanners because the LED lightsource is semi-collimated. Disk space is cheap compared to the sheer arduous displeasure of scanning! > I would > also consider using the greater bit depth Carlisle's Nikon scanner can > capture, even though this will double the storage space needed for > each > file. Agreed again. Save as 16bit TIFF because the greater precision is more tolerant of processing, at least until you have completed all post-production. If you aren't likely to want to make further changes at that point the final files can be downsampled to 8 bit. -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Advice on scanner settings
Note that with vuescan, you can save raw images, then pro cess them later. I generally don't work that way, but it is another option. In the scanning process, almost every thing is done post processing. The exception would be mul tipass scanning (usually multiple sampling, not really mu ltiple passes) and a long exposure pass. You would have to save the IR as well if you want to do "cleaning" from a raw image. I just bought three 1.5 terrabyte drives, which in Raid 5 should give me 3 terrabytes. When I built the PC, 300/byte was a big drive. My point, don't worry about the size of the files. If memory serves me right, I paid $150 for the 300 gbyte drives a few years ago. The 1.5T Seagates were $109 at Frys. Seagate already announc ed the 2.5g drives. However, 3Tbytes should last the usse ful live of the PC. --Original Message-- From: Carlisle Landel Sender: filmscanners_ow...@halftone.co.uk To: li...@lazygranch.com ReplyTo: filmscann...@halftone. co.uk Subject: [filmscanners] Advice on scanner settings Sent: Feb 25, 2009 8:32 AM Bunch, I about to begin scan ning a lifetime of slides (mostly Ektachrome but a smatte ring of Kodachrome) using a Nikon LS-5000 and Vuescan. A re the following settings appropriate? Why or why not? I'm planning on 4000 dpi for maximum resolution, with 3 s amples and the color analog gain set at 1 for all colors. I'm also planning a light infrared screen with no other filtering with respect to colors, grain reduction, or sh arpness. I'm planning to auto balance colors using the d efault options and appropriate slide types. With respect to output, I gather that TIFF is better than JPEG, becau se JPEG is compressed. Is that right? Thanks for your i nput, Carlisle --who figures he'll start scanning now, then figure out how to manipulate scanned images later. -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanner s' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Advice on scanner settings
Good to see some discussion on this list again! Preston Earle wrote: > I think the scan resolution should be determined by how you plan to use the > final images. A 4000ppi scan will give a file capable of being printed to up > to 17" x 25". If all you want to do with most files is display them on a > screen or make 4x6 prints, 4000ppi is overkill, and you will spend a lot of > time cleaning up raw scans and a lot of effort resizing large files for > their intended purpose. There are two basic approaches to this, and I take the other one from Preston. I think Carlisle is on the right track. I say scan once, at the highest resolution the scanner can do (in this case 4000 spi), and create the best archive image for whatever use happens later. I would also consider using the greater bit depth Carlisle's Nikon scanner can capture, even though this will double the storage space needed for each file. You don't have to spend time 'cleaning up' the scans until you need to use them. And resizing doesn't take a lot of effort when it needs to be done -- I use a Photoshop plugin (Fred Miranda's Web Presenter Pro) to do such downsizing, and find it fast with excellent results. > As to file format, I'd use jpeg. A 4000ppi 35mm scan will be about 20 megs > in size. A good quality JPEG will be 2-2.5 megs and a 2700ppi JPEG will be > about 1 meg. With 2700ppi JPEGS, I can keep my 12,500 image archive in 10 > Gigs of hard disk. If they were 4000ppi tiffs it would be 250 Gigs, and I > don't believe the files would be any more useful. As storage becomes cheaper these arguments become less convincing. Again, I think Carlisle is on the right track. I would not use JPG for this purpose. > If you haven't downloaded the Polaroid Dust and Scratches filter from > http://www.polaroid.com/service/software/poladsr/poladsr.html you should try > it. It isn't intuitive and takes some experimentation, but it is pretty good > at cleaning up minor imperfections in scans. I agree with Preston here. The Polaroid filter is useful for Kodachrome slides, for which the Vuescan infra-red cleaning (or Nikon ICE) won't work. But I would save the 'uncleaned' files in the archive collection, and apply the cleaning filter only at the stage of processing an image for a particular use. Peter Marquis-Kyle Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
