Digital BW, The Print

Here's the procedure for making the LUT files in Silverfast: 

I've made them as positive image(Negative in SF), but you can 
also save them as a negative(Positive in SF) in the Main SF 
Dialog(the middle tab). This should rreally be done with definitive 
test negatives from 55PN, but this is a place to start. You'll also 
find that N+1, N-1 etc., mean differnt things with different files. 
You can have a high-key N+1, a regular mid-key N+1 and a low 
kwy N+1. The software will automatically compensate for these 
by changing the gray slider setting from 0 to a minus or plus 
setting. This can be done with both RGB files and Grayscale 
files. 

Because you only have one development for 55PN ( Normal), the 
contrast range will vary within the negative. Determine when you 
take the picture whether the scene is a Normal(5 Zones from III 
to VIII) an N+1(4 Zones) or N-1(6 Zones) and mark the packet. In 
Silverfast pull up the saved LUT and use the software as though 
it were your developer and you were using it to control the 
contrast. 

Scanning a Polaroid 55PN Negative
It is almost always better to scan a negative than a print. The 
resolution of a negative is often 10 times that of a print and 
enables it to be enlarged to greater magnifications.  The print 
resolution of 55PN is only 20-25 line pairs/mm whereas the 
negative is 160-180 line pairs/mm. In practical terms this means 
that the print can be enlarged only 2-2.5 times and the negative 
can be magnified 16 to 18 times.
 
Because 55 does not offer much in the way of traditional Zone 
System control, it is best to scan a negative that has full shadow 
detail and correct it in the scanning stage with SilverFast. 
Silverfast can be set up to process the "normal" Polaroid 55 
scan as N, N+1, N+2, or N-1. With the combination of 
preexposure to the film at the camera stage plus the scan 
correction, it might be possible to achieve an N-2. The new 
Polaroid SprintScan 45 Ultra Scanner comes bundled with the 
SilverFast software. Not only is this scanner easy to use, through 
its 3.9 density range and a 2500 dpi optical resolution the 45 
Ultra offers the ultimate quality in an affordable film scanner for 
4x5 photographers. It is possible to produce stunning 24x36 
B&W prints from Polaroid 55PN Negatives with the 
Piezography24 Pro 7000 Quadtone process using the 45Ultra. 
Silverfast is also available separately for a wide range of 
scanners from http://www.silverfast.com.

The SilverFast software is easy to learn and contains many 
user-adjusted controls that enable outstanding scans, nearly 
perfect, in fact, from the Polaroid 55PN negative. However, one 
needs to set up the N+1, N, and N-1 parameters. HereÕs how:
1. Load a 4x5 55PN normal range negative (Zones III-VII) into the 
scanner.
2. Open Photoshop 6 and go to File > Import > SilverFast.
3. In the Frame tab check 42-8bit grayscale, Unsharp Mask and 
Standard. YouÕll want a slight amount of Unsharp Mask to correct 
any scanning softness problems. Use the unsharp mask default 
setting or less. Set your desired resolution and set your scan 
size at 100%. Click Preview. Crop the image in the preview 
window. 
4. In the General tab chose Negative for the Neg/Pos window 
and a dialog box called Film Type and Exposure will appear 
below the main SilverFast dialog.
5. Choose Monochrome as your film type and adjust the 
brightness slider to read 50%.
6. Click Auto, let the scanner scan, then click apply. Save this 
setting as N, or Normal.
7. Repeat steps 2-6 using a negative that was taken under 
known N+1 conditions and save as N+1.
8. Repeat steps 2-6 using a negative that was taken under 
known N-1 conditions and save as N-1.
9. You may want to repeat this process for any other minus or 
plus development routines you have. When finished your 
scanner will be able to act as the developing stage of traditional 
B&W darkroom practice. 
10. Go back to the Frame tab and correct the histogram if 
necessary.
10. Scan. The positive image in Photoshop should be nearly 
perfect. 

An alternative solution( and a more favorable one as Photoshop 
adds more controls for 16 bit files) is to scan in 16 bit HDR 
mode(with the gamma setting at 3.00) and either go into 
SilverFast HDR and optimize the scan, or go directly into 
Photoshop and correct the scan with Curves and Levels and 
then drop down into 8 bit mode for printing.

George

George,

Once again a real nugget of a post. This one gets printed out to go 
in the scanning binder.

I would love to have the Polaroid 45U. This has gotten much 
more "affordable." The price has fallen to $4,200 at Sparco.com. 
However, having just dropped over $3,000 for the Polaroid SS120 I am 
a tad short. I bought a Linoscan 1400 last November for 4X5 in 
anticipation that SilverFast would offer a version for it. The 
supplied software is total junk! Well Silverfast did come up with a 
version this June but they are asking $699. Pretty steep even for 
them.

I know from your magazine article in Camera Arts, April-May issue, on 
using the Epson 1680 (A must read everyone! ) that you can get some 
pretty good results from flatbeds. I am wondering if the Linoscan 
1400 (1200dpi optical) is worth the $700 investment in Silverfast or 
if I should move up to the Epson and SF (only $235 for the 1680).

Your LUT technique for the 55PN should work for roll film also and I 
will give it a try in the near future since it is time to crawl back 
into the dark and damp to catch up on my film developing. A problem 
in the field for me is that when I'm shooting with my 4X5 I keep 
exposure notes but don't when shooting with my Pentax 67 so some 
discipline is in order here.

Thanks,

Martin


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "George DeWolfe" 
<dewolfe@m...> wrote:

> Here's the procedure for making the LUT files in Silverfast: 
> 
> I've made them as positive image(Negative in SF), but you can 
> also save them as a negative(Positive in SF) in the Main SF 
> Dialog(the middle tab). This should rreally be done with definitive 
> test negatives from 55PN, but this is a place to start. You'll also 
> find that N+1, N-1 etc., mean differnt things with different files. 
> You can have a high-key N+1, a regular mid-key N+1 and a low 
> kwy N+1. The software will automatically compensate for these 
> by changing the gray slider setting from 0 to a minus or plus 
> setting. This can be done with both RGB files and Grayscale 
> files. 
> 
> Because you only have one development for 55PN ( Normal), the 
> contrast range will vary within the negative. Determine when you 
> take the picture whether the scene is a Normal(5 Zones from III 
> to VIII) an N+1(4 Zones) or N-1(6 Zones) and mark the packet. In 
> Silverfast pull up the saved LUT and use the software as though 
> it were your developer and you were using it to control the 
> contrast. 
> 
> Scanning a Polaroid 55PN Negative
> It is almost always better to scan a negative than a print. The 
> resolution of a negative is often 10 times that of a print and 
> enables it to be enlarged to greater magnifications.  The print 
> resolution of 55PN is only 20-25 line pairs/mm whereas the 
> negative is 160-180 line pairs/mm. In practical terms this means 
> that the print can be enlarged only 2-2.5 times and the negative 
> can be magnified 16 to 18 times.
>  
> Because 55 does not offer much in the way of traditional Zone 
> System control, it is best to scan a negative that has full shadow 
> detail and correct it in the scanning stage with SilverFast. 
> Silverfast can be set up to process the "normal" Polaroid 55 
> scan as N, N+1, N+2, or N-1. With the combination of 
> preexposure to the film at the camera stage plus the scan 
> correction, it might be possible to achieve an N-2. The new 
> Polaroid SprintScan 45 Ultra Scanner comes bundled with the 
> SilverFast software. Not only is this scanner easy to use, through 
> its 3.9 density range and a 2500 dpi optical resolution the 45 
> Ultra offers the ultimate quality in an affordable film scanner for 
> 4x5 photographers. It is possible to produce stunning 24x36 
> B&W prints from Polaroid 55PN Negatives with the 
> Piezography24 Pro 7000 Quadtone process using the 45Ultra. 
> Silverfast is also available separately for a wide range of 
> scanners from http://www.silverfast.com.
> 
> The SilverFast software is easy to learn and contains many 
> user-adjusted controls that enable outstanding scans, nearly 
> perfect, in fact, from the Polaroid 55PN negative. However, one 
> needs to set up the N+1, N, and N-1 parameters. HereÕs how:
> 1. Load a 4x5 55PN normal range negative (Zones III-VII) into the 
> scanner.
> 2. Open Photoshop 6 and go to File > Import > SilverFast.
> 3. In the Frame tab check 42-8bit grayscale, Unsharp Mask and 
> Standard. YouÕll want a slight amount of Unsharp Mask to correct 
> any scanning softness problems. Use the unsharp mask default 
> setting or less. Set your desired resolution and set your scan 
> size at 100%. Click Preview. Crop the image in the preview 
> window. 
> 4. In the General tab chose Negative for the Neg/Pos window 
> and a dialog box called Film Type and Exposure will appear 
> below the main SilverFast dialog.
> 5. Choose Monochrome as your film type and adjust the 
> brightness slider to read 50%.
> 6. Click Auto, let the scanner scan, then click apply. Save this 
> setting as N, or Normal.
> 7. Repeat steps 2-6 using a negative that was taken under 
> known N+1 conditions and save as N+1.
> 8. Repeat steps 2-6 using a negative that was taken under 
> known N-1 conditions and save as N-1.
> 9. You may want to repeat this process for any other minus or 
> plus development routines you have. When finished your 
> scanner will be able to act as the developing stage of traditional 
> B&W darkroom practice. 
> 10. Go back to the Frame tab and correct the histogram if 
> necessary.
> 10. Scan. The positive image in Photoshop should be nearly 
> perfect. 
> 
> An alternative solution( and a more favorable one as Photoshop 
> adds more controls for 16 bit files) is to scan in 16 bit HDR 
> mode(with the gamma setting at 3.00) and either go into 
> SilverFast HDR and optimize the scan, or go directly into 
> Photoshop and correct the scan with Curves and Levels and 
> then drop down into 8 bit mode for printing.
> 
> George

Martin

My experience is that the 1680 makes files from 4x5 B+W 
negatives that can go to 16x20 in Piezography on the Epson 
3000. I have a friend, Dana Strout, who uses an Epson 1640xl 
(nearly identical, and 2x the price of the 1680) with 11x14 
negatives and he can go to 22x36+ on the 7000 with prints that 
are beautiful. My reason for getting the 45 Ultra was that I felt that 
I could not go to 24 inches x ? on the 7000 with the 1680 file. Of 
course, you can do it, but I'm really hard on print resolution, and, 
to me, the 1680 can't get that high(24 inches x??).

George

George,

Thanks for the info. 16X20 would be more than enough for me since my 
Epson 1200 is limited to 13" wide paper and my standard print size 
has been 11X14 for years. For a show or a special occassion I could 
always have a few negs drum scanned and sent out for 7000 output.

I hate to walk away from my investment in the Linoscan 1400 but I 
don't feel the 1200dpi quite makes it. I tend to get hypercritical 
over print quality and I think the jump up to 1600 dpi would be worth 
the extra cost. Any opinon on using their 1600 x 3200 dpi with Micro 
Step Drive?

Martin 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "George DeWolfe" 
<dewolfe@m...> wrote:
> 
> Martin
> 
> My experience is that the 1680 makes files from 4x5 B+W 
> negatives that can go to 16x20 in Piezography on the Epson 
> 3000. I have a friend, Dana Strout, who uses an Epson 1640xl 
> (nearly identical, and 2x the price of the 1680) with 11x14 
> negatives and he can go to 22x36+ on the 7000 with prints that 
> are beautiful. My reason for getting the 45 Ultra was that I felt 
that 
> I could not go to 24 inches x ? on the 7000 with the 1680 file. Of 
> course, you can do it, but I'm really hard on print resolution, 
and, 

> to me, the 1680 can't get that high(24 inches x??).
> 
> George

Martin

I almost always scan at the maximum resolution of the scanner, 
in this case, 1600 dpi for the 1680. I can see the difference 
between this scanner and its predecessor, the 1600. The 
difference is not so much the resolution, but the density range, 
which is 3.6 in the 1680 and 3.2 in the 1600. The shadows are 
better and don't posterize with the 1680, whereas sometimes 
they did with the 1600 and the 800. Even the 1640SU Photo for 
$350 is pretty good. For 35mm and 120 you need more than 
1600 dpi(at least 2500) if you're going to 11x14. My number is in 
the back of View Camera and Camera Arts if you want to talk 
about this at length.

George



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., mwesley250@e... 
wrote:
> George,
> 
> Thanks for the info. 16X20 would be more than enough for me 
since my 
> Epson 1200 is limited to 13" wide paper and my standard print 
size 
> has been 11X14 for years. For a show or a special occassion I 
could 
> always have a few negs drum scanned and sent out for 7000 
output.
> 
> I hate to walk away from my investment in the Linoscan 1400 
but I 
> don't feel the 1200dpi quite makes it. I tend to get hypercritical 
> over print quality and I think the jump up to 1600 dpi would be 
worth 
> the extra cost. Any opinon on using their 1600 x 3200 dpi with 
Micro 
> Step Drive?
> 
> Martin 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "George DeWolfe" 
> <dewolfe@m...> wrote:
> > 
> > Martin
> > 
> > My experience is that the 1680 makes files from 4x5 B+W 
> > negatives that can go to 16x20 in Piezography on the Epson 
> > 3000. I have a friend, Dana Strout, who uses an Epson 
1640xl 
> > (nearly identical, and 2x the price of the 1680) with 11x14 
> > negatives and he can go to 22x36+ on the 7000 with prints 
that 
> > are beautiful. My reason for getting the 45 Ultra was that I felt 
> that 
> > I could not go to 24 inches x ? on the 7000 with the 1680 file. 
Of 

> > course, you can do it, but I'm really hard on print resolution, 
> and, 
> > to me, the 1680 can't get that high(24 inches x??).
> > 
> > George

Pretty good, but I'm finding mine to be very soft by comparison to 
my 4000t. Still better than my Agfa 1236. I haven't tried fluid 
mounting with it, though.

> Even the 1640SU Photo for $350 is pretty good.


--
Tim Spragens
http://www.borderless-photos.com

There have been a number of recent posts about scanning that make me 
wonder if I am missing something.  When I scan, my sole objective is 
to get as much information off of the negative as I can -- shadow 
detail, highlights to the extent possible and as smooth a range of 
tones as I can.  I typically do not play with contrast or even adjust 
the mid tones a great deal, assuming I am better off doing all of 
that in PS when I have more precise controls and a much better image 
to work with.  The Nikon scan software seems to work well in this 
regard.  ( I scan in rgb and convert in ps as the Nikon scanner seems 
to be problematic if set to B&W.)

Should I be doing more than working with the equivalent of levels and 
curves at the scanning stage?  I guess the real question is what 
a "better scan" would entail.


Steve

Steve: I think you've got it right. I usually adjust nothing in the
scan, just use Vuescan with both the black and the white points set a
-0-. Only when I get the 16 bit file into Photoshop do I set the
levels. Of course, I'm sold on the Vuescan s/w. 

Bob Michaels

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Kobrin"
<skobrin@h...> wrote:

> There have been a number of recent posts about scanning that make me 
> wonder if I am missing something.  When I scan, my sole objective is 
> to get as much information off of the negative as I can -- shadow 
> detail, highlights to the extent possible and as smooth a range of 
> tones as I can.  I typically do not play with contrast or even adjust 
> the mid tones a great deal, assuming I am better off doing all of 
> that in PS when I have more precise controls and a much better image 
> to work with.  The Nikon scan software seems to work well in this 
> regard.  ( I scan in rgb and convert in ps as the Nikon scanner seems 
> to be problematic if set to B&W.)
> 
> Should I be doing more than working with the equivalent of levels and 
> curves at the scanning stage?  I guess the real question is what 
> a "better scan" would entail.
> 
> 
> Steve

Completely agree Steve. I tried Vuescan and soon went back to 
Nikonscan for the same reasons. The third party software cannot make 
the scanner do more than its original manufacturers designed it for, 
however, I believe software like Vuescan works for some people 
because it blends some of the scanner controls into more intuitive 
headings and performs any non-original software functions in PC RAM - 
such as long-exposure pass combining, of which I have no idea 
regarding its accuracy in registering the two scans, nor the 
algorithm for the combining process.

Overall it is likely that as this software is positioned as "scanner" 
software, many assume that if the output from it looks better, both 
visually and via histograms, then it must be a better scan ignoring 
that the software has already, in many cases, performed significant 
image manipulation via a workflow that cannot be fully articulated. 
Its great for people who scan then either stop there or go straight 
to the print - A kind of "Lite Photoshop Elements".

As for the Nikon scanners themselves; from the resulting file size it 
would appear that the Nikon scans B&W in RGB anyway and then performs 
some rudimentary channel mix on them.

Although somewhat off topic for this board, a more interesting and 
potentially usefull discussion on scanners would relate to how to 
tweak the CCD amplifiers' gain to best extract more and better 
information.

regards
Craig

OK that's kind of funny.

<snip>
>  many assume that if the output from it looks better, both
> visually and via histograms, then it must be a better scan ...
<snip>

Umm, yes.  How else would you evaluate the scan.  If it looks better 
visually, and the histogram tells you it has not clipped tones at 
either end and not introduced gaps what else would you be looking for?


--
Kevin Gulstene

Kevin

The point being that you are being presented a "better" image due to 
post-scan manipulation in software as against "extracting" more or 
better information from the film. For example, I dont wont to be lead 
to believe that I have captured more detail in the highlights or 
shadows merely because some levels adjustment has been pre-applied. 
If and when I want to adjust a scanned image I like to have this 
control of the workflow myself in PS. The real issues for scanners 
are techniques and tweaks to extract real additional information.

regards
Craig

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Kevin Gulstene 
<kevin@d...> wrote:
> OK that's kind of funny.
> 
> <snip>
> >  many assume that if the output from it looks better, both
> > visually and via histograms, then it must be a better scan ...
> <snip>
> 
> Umm, yes.  How else would you evaluate the scan.  If it looks 
better 
> visually, and the histogram tells you it has not clipped tones at 
> either end and not introduced gaps what else would you be looking 
for?

> 
> 
> --
> Kevin Gulstene

Does this imply that if I am using B&W film (not C-41) where I have some
control over development times etc, that I should calibrate the
exposure/development time of the film optimally for the scanner’s
sensitivity range in order to maximize the tonal range? If this is the case,
are there any guidelines for doing this?



Thanks,

Tony

-----Original Message-----
From: craig [mailto:craygc@...]
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2003 10:02 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Scanning



Completely agree Steve. I tried Vuescan and soon went back to
Nikonscan for the same reasons. The third party software cannot make
the scanner do more than its original manufacturers designed it for,
however, I believe software like Vuescan works for some people
because it blends some of the scanner controls into more intuitive
headings and performs any non-original software functions in PC RAM -
such as long-exposure pass combining, of which I have no idea
regarding its accuracy in registering the two scans, nor the
algorithm for the combining process.

Overall it is likely that as this software is positioned as "scanner"
software, many assume that if the output from it looks better, both
visually and via histograms, then it must be a better scan ignoring
that the software has already, in many cases, performed significant
image manipulation via a workflow that cannot be fully articulated.
Its great for people who scan then either stop there or go straight
to the print - A kind of "Lite Photoshop Elements".

As for the Nikon scanners themselves; from the resulting file size it
would appear that the Nikon scans B&W in RGB anyway and then performs
some rudimentary channel mix on them.

Although somewhat off topic for this board, a more interesting and
potentially usefull discussion on scanners would relate to how to
tweak the CCD amplifiers' gain to best extract more and better
information.

regards
Craig






Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=249982.3179269.4495679.1512248/D=egroupweb/S=17050191
82:HM/A=1524963/R=0/*http:/hits.411web.com/cgi-bin/autoredir?camp=556&lineid
=3179269∝=egroupweb&pos=HM>



<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=249982.3179269.4495679.1512248/D=egroupmai
l/S=:HM/A=1524963/rand=975646976>


Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> Does this imply that if I am using B&W film (not C-41) where I have some
> control over development times etc, that I should calibrate the
> exposure/development time of the film optimally for the scanner’s
> sensitivity range in order to maximize the tonal range? If this
> is the case,
> are there any guidelines for doing this?

Tony,

Pretty much no matter what you do, say, with Tri-X, Plus-X, Delta
100/400/3200, NeoPan 1600 etc. you won't get close to the density range
capability of your scanner...now, having said that...you certainly should
maximize the tonal capability of your film through exposure and development,
IMO.

Keep in mind that your data will only eventually be 256 tones...but...if
your film/scanning provides you with more, you can place the visible tonal
separation where you want them.

Regards,

Austin

Hi Steve,

> There have been a number of recent posts about scanning that make me
> wonder if I am missing something.  When I scan, my sole objective is
> to get as much information off of the negative as I can -- shadow
> detail, highlights to the extent possible and as smooth a range of
> tones as I can.  I typically do not play with contrast or even adjust
> the mid tones a great deal, assuming I am better off doing all of
> that in PS when I have more precise controls and a much better image
> to work with.  The Nikon scan software seems to work well in this
> regard.  ( I scan in rgb and convert in ps as the Nikon scanner seems
> to be problematic if set to B&W.)
>
> Should I be doing more than working with the equivalent of levels and
> curves at the scanning stage?  I guess the real question is what
> a "better scan" would entail.

That depends.  If you are getting 8 bit data from your scanner, then you are
FAR better off doing tonal adjustments and setpoints in the scanner
software.  I'm not sure if you can get 8 bit data without doing that, but I
don't know how all scanning software on earth operates.

If you are getting HDR (High Dynamic Range) data, in other words, raw,
unadjusted data, then yes, you can certainly set the setpoints and adjust
the curves in PS.

Personally, I do my setpoints and levels in my scanner software, as it
applies the setpoints and levels to the high bit scan (this is what is
important), and it has a histogram and a very nice curve tool and a
reasonably nice setpoint tool.  I get 8 bit data from my scanner, but it's
basically "finished" 8 bit data, that I don't need to do any adjustments to,
so all I do is resize it and send it to the printer, and I'm done.  I don't
sharpen either, for some reason, scans from my scanner don't benefit from
it.

Does that make sense to you?

Regards,

Austin

Craig-

Everything downstream from the raw data from the A/D is software  
manipulation.  There is nothing you can do in a single scan to extract  
more real additional information.  No tweaks, no special techniques.  
What is on the film is in the raw scan file.

If you are happy with the scan from the scanner and it looks better  
(than something else as a starting point) and the histogram is smooth  
then you're done.

If I understood you first post correctly you were implying that vuescan  
is applying some black box mojo that Nikon scan is not applying.  My  
experience is quite different.

I use vuescan the same way Bob  described his use.  Set the white and  
black clipping points at 0 and import it.  I get a nice smooth  
histogram with all the relevant information - the scan is usually quite  
flat though.

--
Kevin Gulstene

> Kevin
>
> The point being that you are being presented a "better" image due to
> post-scan manipulation in software as against "extracting" more or
> better information from the film. For example, I dont wont to be lead
> to believe that I have captured more detail in the highlights or
> shadows merely because some levels adjustment has been pre-applied.
> If and when I want to adjust a scanned image I like to have this
> control of the workflow myself in PS. The real issues for scanners
> are techniques and tweaks to extract real additional information.
>
> regards
> Craig
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Kevin Gulstene
> <kevin@d...> wrote:
>> OK that's kind of funny.
>>
>> <snip>
>>>  many assume that if the output from it looks better, both
>>> visually and via histograms, then it must be a better scan ...
>> <snip>
>>
>> Umm, yes.  How else would you evaluate the scan.  If it looks
> better
>> visually, and the histogram tells you it has not clipped tones at
>> either end and not introduced gaps what else would you be looking
> for?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Kevin Gulstene
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor  
> ---------------------~-->
> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important  
> Questions.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/CNxFAA/ucIolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ~->
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls  
> and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish  
> to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting  
> this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to  
> keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject  
> header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the  
> various resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to  
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Anton Pickard" <lightworx@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2003 7:35 PM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Scanning


> Does this imply that if I am using B&W film (not C-41) where I have some
> control over development times etc, that I should calibrate the
> exposure/development time of the film optimally for the scanner’s
> sensitivity range in order to maximize the tonal range? If this is the
case,
> are there any guidelines for doing this?

Anton,

This could be done in a traditional Zone System approach. You would need to
first determine the maximum density you scanner can work with. This is done
by scanning a known density wedge from Kodak or Stouffer
(http://www.stouffer.net). You would then adjust your film development so
that your Zone IX or X values matched the maximum the scanner can read. This
is much the same way you would work with step-wedges, film and silver paper
to determine optimum exposures and development

However this would not be useful. Some general numbers: drum scanners max
out at optical densities of 3.0 to 3.4, high end CCD scanners such as the
Imacon and Nikon 8000 round 2.7 with flatbeds falling in at 2.6 and below.
Traditional Zone System densities for Zone VIII are around 1.20 to 1.50 and
Zone X hitting ~1.80. So scanners can punch through some pretty high film
densities.

Unfortunately placing Zone X up at 2.6 is not going to work well. Even
though the scanner can read it you will have exceeded the films ability to
clearly render detail due to light scatter within the emulsion during
exposure, grain bloom during development and other effects. You will be
exceeding the intended useful range of the film. The scanner gives you a
better margin of error in the highlights but doesn't free you from the need
to make good decisions regarding exposures and development. Blocked up
highlights are not just a matter of density.

A good test might be to photograph a resolution target at progressively
higher exposures and developments to determine the point where resolution
begins to degrade when scanned. This along with a scan of the resolution
target itself would give you a good idea of the maximum usable density the
film and scanner can work with. You also might want to photograph calibrated
step wedges and tone ramps along with the resolution target so that you can
check for tonal compressions.

Martin Wesley

That's what I used to think and do, too, but very recently I changed my
mind. 
These days I'm scanning Portra400BW 6x7 with an Epson3200 using Vuescan, and
my very simple workflow was to get a raw scan, extract the green channel and
Photoshop away, setting BP and WP etc.
I was a bit concerned, though, on the huge amount of stretching I had to do
setting BP/WP in order to bring the usually *very* flat scan to cover the
whole 0-255 range, but given that I was starting from the raw scan, I
thought I had no control over it. I was wrong: I found that the automatic
exposure set by Vuescan is, at least with this film-scanner combination,
usually way too short: talking Vuescan numbers, the automatic setting is
just below 4, the optimal setting ranges from 6 to 11 (you can verify/change
this number by checking the Lock exposure checkbox at the bottom of the
Device tab: the value is set after the preview).
I used to think that increasing exposure would only shift the histogram
curve from the light to the dark end, but it's not true. Assuming that the
response is linear (I'll stand corrected on this: Austin, your knowledged
opinion is?), if exposure x gives a 20-100 range, exposure 2x gives 40-200,
thus resulting in a less flat scan. The result is a smoother image (nothing
outstanding, but noticeable), especially after steep curves and levels (e.g.
to bring dull skies to life).
Bottom line, my workflow now includes a little extra step at the begininng,
which is one or more 100dpi scan, checking the resulting histogram in
Vuescan, with a locked exposure, until I get a reasonable range.
 
Alessandro Pardi

-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Gulstene [mailto:kevin@...]
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 5:11
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Scanning


Craig-

Everything downstream from the raw data from the A/D is software  
manipulation.  There is nothing you can do in a single scan to extract  
more real additional information.  No tweaks, no special techniques.  
What is on the film is in the raw scan file.

<snip> 

I use vuescan the same way Bob  described his use.  Set the white and  
black clipping points at 0 and import it.  I get a nice smooth  
histogram with all the relevant information - the scan is usually quite  
flat though.

--
Kevin Gulstene




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Anton writes:

> Does this imply that if I am using B&W film (not C-41)
> where I have some control over development times etc,
> that I should calibrate the exposure/development time
> of the film optimally for the scanner's sensitivity range
> in order to maximize the tonal range? If this is the case,
> are there any guidelines for doing this?

If you know that you will only be scanning the image, never projecting it or
enlarging it, you can expose the film such that the areas of the image in
which you wish to preserve the most detail are exposed as neutral gray (and
thus in the center of the films sensitivity curve).  This maximizes detail
in those areas, and gives you more to play with on the resulting scan.
Sometimes this requires a slightly different exposure than normal visual
presentation would imply.

For example, if you photograph the inside of a coal bit on slide film, you
can expose for visual presentation or for scanning.  For visual
presentation, you just take an incident reading of the light hitting the
bin, and use that for exposure.  The result will be a slide that shows the
coal just as black as it appears in real life--but since the coal is very
black indeed, you'll lose a fair amount of detail in the coal because it
will be very near the exposure range limit of slide film.  For scanning,
then, you take a reflected reading and expose to make the coal nearly
neutral gray.  The coal will look weird in the finished slide, but when you
scan it, you'll get rich detail in the coal because all the detail now falls
in the middle of the slide's exposure range.  When you pick this image up in
Photoshop, you can adjust the curves to make the coal look truly black
again--but at least you'll have a wealth of detail to play with in the coal,
if you wish to accentuate it, whereas with visual exposure too much detail
would be lost.  The difference between the two is that the visual exposure
would give you a finished digital image that looks nice but lacks detail in
the coal, whereas a scanning exposure, coupled with the _correct_
manipulation in Photoshop, will give you a finished digital image that looks
nice _and_ shows rich detail in the coal, despite its blackness.

The only drawback is that you can never project slides that are exposed for
scanning in this way, because they will look incorrectly exposed.

All the same rules apply to negatives, but with negatives it's a bit easier,
since you never project those directly, anyway, and you have more exposure
range and a smaller density range to worry about.

Kevin writes:

> There is nothing you can do in a single scan
> to extract more real additional information.

Some scanners allow you to adjust exposure time, analog gain, etc., but
there are usually severe limits to what you can do in this respect.

> Completely agree Steve. I tried Vuescan and soon went back to 
> Nikonscan for the same reasons. The third party software cannot make 
> the scanner do more than its original manufacturers designed it for, 

Well, that's assuming the original manufacturers know how to make even
half-decent scanning software. With my FS4000 and Canon FilmGet that's
not the case.

With Ilford XP2 I get consistently blown out highlights and clipped
shadows, and it refuses to do dust removal with this film. I've tried
everything, but it just doesn't want to scan this film. Vuescan works
much better, although dust removal is problematic since it softens the
image. I've solved this by scanning the negatives as 64bit RGBI TIFF
files and doing the dust removal in photoshop with an action I made.

I recently shot a roll of Kodak HIE which I accidentally overexposed.
The negatives were extremely dense, but still had detail in them.
FilmGet couldn't do anything useful with them, again I got clipped
highlights and shadows, but in Vuescan I could extract all the detail by
increasing the exposure to very high values.

So at least for me Vuescan can do things that simply isn't possible with
the supplied software.

--
Daniel Staver
http://daniel.staver.no

Anthony,

> Some scanners allow you to adjust exposure time, analog gain, etc.,

The use of the term "analog gain" by some manufacturers is really erroneous.
The adjustment called "analog gain" does not allow you to adjust the actual
analog gain of the CCD/CCD front end.  It allows you to adjust the exposure
time.

Austin

Where do you select the film brand and type in Nikon scanning software?

Seth

Austin writes:

> The adjustment called "analog gain" does not
> allow you to adjust the actual analog gain of
> the CCD/CCD front end.  It allows you to adjust
> the exposure time.

I was wondering about that myself.  NikonScan calls it "analog gain," but
since exposure time seems to be the usual way of doing things, I was
wondering why or if the Nikon scanners did it the same way.

I prefer extending the exposure time to trying to boost the gain, although I
suppose longer exposure time increases noise, too (but hopefully to a lesser
extent).

Hi Austin,

I set the Nikon scan software (LS-2000) to scan at 12 bits which PS 
reads as 16.  I then do what I can at 16 bits in PS before reducing 
it to 8 to do levels, sharpening, etc.

Steve

> That depends.  If you are getting 8 bit data from your scanner, 
then you are
> FAR better off doing tonal adjustments and setpoints in the scanner
> software.  I'm not sure if you can get 8 bit data without doing 
that, but I
> don't know how all scanning software on earth operates.
> 
> If you are getting HDR (High Dynamic Range) data, in other words, 
raw,
> unadjusted data, then yes, you can certainly set the setpoints and 
adjust
> the curves in PS.
> 
> Personally, I do my setpoints and levels in my scanner software, as 
it
> applies the setpoints and levels to the high bit scan (this is what 
is
> important), and it has a histogram and a very nice curve tool and a
> reasonably nice setpoint tool.  I get 8 bit data from my scanner, 
but it's
> basically "finished" 8 bit data, that I don't need to do any 
adjustments to,
> so all I do is resize it and send it to the printer, and I'm done.  
I don't
> sharpen either, for some reason, scans from my scanner don't 
benefit from

> it.
> 
> Does that make sense to you?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin

You don't, or at least none are built in.  You can create your own, though.
I just created a generic one for Provia and Velvia slides, for conventional
B&W (I have extra ones for Tri-X and Tech Pan), for Portra color negatives,
and for Portra 400BW.

----- Original Message -----

From: "Seth Rossman" <seth@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 14:20
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Scanning


> Where do you select the film brand and type in Nikon scanning software?
>
> Seth

Hi Anthony,

> > The adjustment called "analog gain" does not
> > allow you to adjust the actual analog gain of
> > the CCD/CCD front end.  It allows you to adjust
> > the exposure time.
>
> I was wondering about that myself.  NikonScan calls it "analog gain," but
> since exposure time seems to be the usual way of doing things, I was
> wondering why or if the Nikon scanners did it the same way.

Yes, Nikon is the culprit here...

> I prefer extending the exposure time to trying to boost the gain,
> although I
> suppose longer exposure time increases noise, too (but hopefully
> to a lesser
> extent).

Agreed.  I'm not sure that moving the image data around in the "histogram"
(in other words, in the range of the scanner data) does anything, but shift
the data...I don't know that you actually get more data.  The example that
Allesandro gave would say that it did, but I'm not sure his numbers match
reality, even though on initial thought they appear to, and his speculation
might very well make sense.  I thought this through a while ago, and I don't
remember what I concluded.  Guess I'll have to think it through again.

Regards,

Austin

You cannot.  But, is that really a problem?  That is a question not a 
statement :)

Steve

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Seth Rossman" 
<seth@m...> wrote:
> Where do you select the film brand and type in Nikon scanning 
software?
> 
> Seth

A CCD counts photons and produces a voltage as a function of the number 
of photons detected over a time window (integration time). So while it 
is probably a misnomer to call anything associated with CCD's analogue, 
the effect is similar if it is done correctly.

I would much prefer an integration time based on the film and then gain 
adjustments of the output voltage prior to the analog to digital 
converters - with some care taken as not to increase the background 
noise level.

Truman

Austin Franklin wrote:

>Anthony,
>
>  
>
>>Some scanners allow you to adjust exposure time, analog gain, etc.,
>>    
>>
>
>The use of the term "analog gain" by some manufacturers is really erroneous.
>The adjustment called "analog gain" does not allow you to adjust the actual
>analog gain of the CCD/CCD front end.  It allows you to adjust the exposure
>time.
>
>Austin
>
>  
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Truman,

> A CCD counts photons and produces a voltage as a function of the number
> of photons detected over a time window (integration time). So while it
> is probably a misnomer to call anything associated with CCD's analogue,
> the effect is similar if it is done correctly.

Hum...  Gain is a multiplication factor, increasing exposure is a shift
(called an offset).  One will expand the range, the other will simply shift
it.  Right?  Basically, there are three things you can adjust in a signal.
Gain, offset and linearity.  Gain is a multiply, offset is an add, and
linearity is an add as well, but is on an individual value, not an overall
value, like a LUT (Look Up Table).

> I would much prefer an integration time based on the film and then gain
> adjustments of the output voltage prior to the analog to digital
> converters - with some care taken as not to increase the background
> noise level.

Correct.  That is exactly how I have done it, and noise is the operative
problem.

Regards,

Austin

Allesandro-

Interesting.


> That's what I used to think and do, too, but very recently I changed my
> mind.
> These days I'm scanning Portra400BW 6x7 with an Epson3200 using 
> Vuescan, and
> my very simple workflow was to get a raw scan, extract the green 
> channel and
> Photoshop away, setting BP and WP etc.
> I was a bit concerned, though, on the huge amount of stretching I had 
> to do
> setting BP/WP in order to bring the usually *very* flat scan to cover 
> the
> whole 0-255 range, but given that I was starting from the raw scan,

The raw data is all crammed up against one end of the histogram.  
Somewhere along the workflow is needs to be 'stretched' by setting the 
white and black points.  You can do it in photoshop or the scanner 
software can do it.

I have trouble visually setting the WP and BP accurately on a raw scan 
because it looks so compressed.  I use vuescan to do that initially for 
me.  By setting the clip points to 0 vuescan sets the darkest part of 
the negative in preview frame as the white point and the clearest part 
of the negative in the preview frame as the BP.

> I
> thought I had no control over it. I was wrong: I found that the 
> automatic
> exposure set by Vuescan is, at least with this film-scanner 
> combination,
> usually way too short: talking Vuescan numbers, the automatic setting 
> is
> just below 4, the optimal setting ranges from 6 to 11 (you can 
> verify/change
> this number by checking the Lock exposure checkbox at the bottom of the
> Device tab: the value is set after the preview).
> I used to think that increasing exposure would only shift the histogram
> curve from the light to the dark end, but it's not true. Assuming that 
> the
> response is linear (I'll stand corrected on this: Austin, your 
> knowledged
> opinion is?), if exposure x gives a 20-100 range, exposure 2x gives 
> 40-200,
> thus resulting in a less flat scan. The result is a smoother image 
> (nothing
> outstanding, but noticeable), especially after steep curves and levels 
> (e.g.
> to bring dull skies to life)

I wonder if  the exposure actually increased by or if it is a software 
compensation.  Do you know if the Epson 3200 can change the intensity 
of the light source or the duration of the time the CCD is capturing 
info?  From memory the RGB exposure is a multiplier not like the analog 
gain in some of the Nikon scanners that actually change the exposure 
time.

I can't figure out why changing the actual exposure would do anything 
other than move the range of values left or right in the histogram.  If 
the RGB exposure in vuescan is just a multiplier then what you describe 
makes sense.

> Bottom line, my workflow now includes a little extra step at the 
> begininng,
> which is one or more 100dpi scan, checking the resulting histogram in
> Vuescan, with a locked exposure, until I get a reasonable range.


--
Kevin Gulstene
http://www.dockwalker.com

A CCD will work as an integrator. That's the way they are used in 
wideband optical signal processing systems where you are using a laser 
to illuminate a (normally ) an accusto-optics device and the results 
focused on a detector array. Increased integration time will allow an 
expansion of the output voltage range (dynamic range) since if one area 
of the array is related to a area of very low transmission rate and 
another is a very high transmission rate the number of photons counted 
will between areas will expand with the integration time.

This will get the output A/D's more signal to work with. In many cases 
coherent optical process can result into upwards to 90 dB spur free 
dymanic range and non-coherent up to 60 dB. I would expect the same 
thing could be realized in scanners, HOWEVER, there is a DC shift in the 
noise floor with this integration and it has to be accounted for in the 
process, and it probably isn't.

Truman

Austin Franklin wrote:

>Hi Truman,
>
>  
>
>>A CCD counts photons and produces a voltage as a function of the number
>>of photons detected over a time window (integration time). So while it
>>is probably a misnomer to call anything associated with CCD's analogue,
>>the effect is similar if it is done correctly.
>>    
>>
>
>Hum...  Gain is a multiplication factor, increasing exposure is a shift
>(called an offset).  One will expand the range, the other will simply shift
>it.  Right?  Basically, there are three things you can adjust in a signal.
>Gain, offset and linearity.  Gain is a multiply, offset is an add, and
>linearity is an add as well, but is on an individual value, not an overall
>value, like a LUT (Look Up Table).
>
>  
>
>>I would much prefer an integration time based on the film and then gain
>>adjustments of the output voltage prior to the analog to digital
>>converters - with some care taken as not to increase the background
>>noise level.
>>    
>>
>
>Correct.  That is exactly how I have done it, and noise is the operative
>problem.
>
>Regards,
>
>Austin
>
>
>
>Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
>If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
>
>Please follow these basic guidelines:
>- Include your full name with your message.
>- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
>- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
>- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
>- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
>- Complete your Yahoo profile.
>- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 
>
>
> 
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
>
>
>
>  
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Truman,

My experience through literally thousands of hours of design and testing
digital imaging systems is that all you do when you increase the exposure
time is simply shift the data values, it does not increase the dynamic range
unless the system has a limitation in the first place.  If this limit
exists, what you CAN do is take multiple exposures with differing exposure
times.  This WILL increase your dynamic range, if done properly...but, the
limitation, as always, is going to be noise.

In a correctly designed system, the data out of the A/D is limited by the
noise floor of the CCD, as the A/D is matched to the output noise of the
CCD.  This means that expanding the voltage into the A/D doesn't buy you
anything, as you will only be converting noise in the lower bits.

Point is, as a general rule, you can't say that increasing exposure time
increases dynamic range, it is very design dependant, and as you probably
know, dynamic range is limited by noise if the overall signal stays the
same.

Austin


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Truman Prevatt [mailto:tprevatt@...]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 12:57 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Scanning
>
>
> A CCD will work as an integrator. That's the way they are used in
> wideband optical signal processing systems where you are using a laser
> to illuminate a (normally ) an accusto-optics device and the results
> focused on a detector array. Increased integration time will allow an
> expansion of the output voltage range (dynamic range) since if one area
> of the array is related to a area of very low transmission rate and
> another is a very high transmission rate the number of photons counted
> will between areas will expand with the integration time.
>
> This will get the output A/D's more signal to work with. In many cases
> coherent optical process can result into upwards to 90 dB spur free
> dymanic range and non-coherent up to 60 dB. I would expect the same
> thing could be realized in scanners, HOWEVER, there is a DC shift in the
> noise floor with this integration and it has to be accounted for in the
> process, and it probably isn't.
>
> Truman
>
> Austin Franklin wrote:
>
> >Hi Truman,
> >
> >
> >
> >>A CCD counts photons and produces a voltage as a function of the number
> >>of photons detected over a time window (integration time). So while it
> >>is probably a misnomer to call anything associated with CCD's analogue,
> >>the effect is similar if it is done correctly.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Hum...  Gain is a multiplication factor, increasing exposure is a shift
> >(called an offset).  One will expand the range, the other will
> simply shift
> >it.  Right?  Basically, there are three things you can adjust in
> a signal.
> >Gain, offset and linearity.  Gain is a multiply, offset is an add, and
> >linearity is an add as well, but is on an individual value, not
> an overall
> >value, like a LUT (Look Up Table).
> >
> >
> >
> >>I would much prefer an integration time based on the film and then gain
> >>adjustments of the output voltage prior to the analog to digital
> >>converters - with some care taken as not to increase the background
> >>noise level.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Correct.  That is exactly how I have done it, and noise is the operative
> >problem.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Austin
> >
> >
> >
> >Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks,
> Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> >
> >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> >
> >If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you
> wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by
> visiting this same page.
> >
> >Please follow these basic guidelines:
> >- Include your full name with your message.
> >- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> >- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier
> messages to keep them short.
> >- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> >- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
> >- Complete your Yahoo profile.
> >- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the
> various resources on the homepage.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Austin writes:

> ...I don't know that you actually get more data.

The only time I've actually played with the so-called "analog gain" has been
when the data was banging against the bottom or top of the histogram.  The
NikonScan software seems to be pretty good at autoexposure, though, and most
of the time the data fits neatly inside; the curves of the histogram imply
that all of it is being recovered, although one can't ever be entirely
certain without "bracketing" the scans, I suppose (and I don't have the
patience for that).

Truman writes:

> So while it is probably a misnomer to call anything
> associated with CCD's analogue ...

It's the other way around:  It's a misnomer to call a CCD digital.  If you
call a CCD digital because it deals with electrons, you'll have to call
every electrical device in the world digital, because they all deal with
electrons.

Austin writes:

> Basically, there are three things you can adjust
> in a signal. Gain, offset and linearity.

Are there any scanners that allow adjustment of this third parameter?

Austin writes:

> My experience through literally thousands of hours
> of design and testing digital imaging systems is that
> all you do when you increase the exposure
> time is simply shift the data values, it does not
> increase the dynamic range unless the system has a
> limitation in the first place.

Logically, if the noise floor does not rise as quickly as the maximum signal
as exposure increases, then dynamic range will increase.  For example, with
zero noise, a longer exposure will always provide a larger dynamic range
than a shorter exposure (within the limits of the sensor).  If doubling the
exposure triples the noise, though, dyanmic range will be worse (not sure if
that can happen, though).

Hi Anthony,

> Austin writes:
>
> > ...I don't know that you actually get more data.
>
> The only time I've actually played with the so-called "analog
> gain" has been
> when the data was banging against the bottom or top of the histogram.

Bingo.  That is exactly when changing exposure time will bring the data into
the range of the CCD and the A/D.

Regards,

Austin

> Truman writes:
>
> > So while it is probably a misnomer to call anything
> > associated with CCD's analogue ...
>
> It's the other way around:  It's a misnomer to call a CCD digital.  If you
> call a CCD digital because it deals with electrons, you'll have to call
> every electrical device in the world digital, because they all deal with
> electrons.

Good grief, Anthony!  I actually agree with you here ;-)

Clearly the signal coming from the CCD is an analog signal...or why would we
use an Analog to Digital converter to get the signal into the digital
domain.  I'll have to go read what Truman was saying, but that clip seems to
be erroneous, IMO.

Regards,

Austin

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 10:40 AM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Scanning


> Truman,
>
> My experience through literally thousands of hours of design and testing
> digital imaging systems is that all you do when you increase the exposure
> time is simply shift the data values, it does not increase the dynamic
range
> unless the system has a limitation in the first place.  If this limit
> exists, what you CAN do is take multiple exposures with differing exposure
> times.  This WILL increase your dynamic range, if done properly...but, the
> limitation, as always, is going to be noise.
>
> In a correctly designed system, the data out of the A/D is limited by the
> noise floor of the CCD, as the A/D is matched to the output noise of the
> CCD.  This means that expanding the voltage into the A/D doesn't buy you
> anything, as you will only be converting noise in the lower bits.
>
> Point is, as a general rule, you can't say that increasing exposure time
> increases dynamic range, it is very design dependant, and as you probably
> know, dynamic range is limited by noise if the overall signal stays the
> same.
>
Austin,

Of the CCD scanners generally in use here, flatbed and film, does the user
have any actual control over the physical operation of the scanner or is it
all just software manipulation of the data after the analog to digital
converter?

I know some scanners allow you do things like adjust focus, run multiple
passes to reduce noise or control the speed of the scanning head to adjust
resolution but this would not seem to have little or no effect on the
dynamic range of what you ultimately get in your scan file.

It seems to me that the scanning software presents "controls" in a manner
that gives the impression the user is actually effecting the function of the
scanning operation itself when in reality they are not. Hence a great deal
of confusion among the users as to what they are actually accomplishing when
the tweak the scanner controls.

Martin

(snip earlier)

Hi Anthony,

> > Basically, there are three things you can adjust
> > in a signal. Gain, offset and linearity.
>
> Are there any scanners that allow adjustment of this third parameter?

Why yes!  I'd say all of them!  This is what you are adjusting when you
adjust the tonal curves in the scanner software.  Typically, this data is
downloaded to an internal LUT (Look Up Table), where the data coming in is
the address, and the data going out is the adjusted data.

Regards,

Austin

Hi Martin,

> Of the CCD scanners generally in use here, flatbed and film, does the user
> have any actual control over the physical operation of the
> scanner or is it
> all just software manipulation of the data after the analog to digital
> converter?

There are only two things that you have control over.  The exposure time and
the tonal curve (the LUT in the scanner that gets loaded with values from
the scanner driver).  There is no control over any of the A/D process.

> I know some scanners allow you do things like adjust focus, run multiple
> passes to reduce noise or control the speed of the scanning head to adjust
> resolution but this would not seem to have little or no effect on the
> dynamic range of what you ultimately get in your scan file.

Correct.  Except, you can run multiple passes with different exposures...and
can get higher dynamic range from this technique under certain
circumstances.

> It seems to me that the scanning software presents "controls" in a manner
> that gives the impression the user is actually effecting the
> function of the
> scanning operation itself when in reality they are not. Hence a great deal
> of confusion among the users as to what they are actually
> accomplishing when
> the tweak the scanner controls.

That seems to be true.  Setpoints are one example.  The setpoints are PURELY
software (firmware actually, but same thing really).  The scanner scans the
film into it's range of values, 0-4095 let's say.  No matter what your tonal
curve is, or what your setpoints are, the data will be exactly the
same...and the setpoints/tonal curves get applied to that same data, giving
different results.

When you change the exposure time, you merely shift the data up or down in
the values it converts.  Now, I have to actually see if you do in fact get
more/less number of values when doing this.  As I mentioned, I went through
this exercise not too long ago, but don't remember what I concluded.  I'll
let you know.

Regards,

Austin

Hi Austin,

My thoughts :
 
 Increasing the number of electrons up to near the full well depth of
the CCD ( for 'white' ) will optimize the the number of values
actually converted by the ADC and perform an analog smoothing of the
data by having more electrons per binary step.

I.e.  you could have from 0 to 4096 electrons for 12 bits of data, or 
more deeply fill the well of a CCD element to 12000 to 120000
electrons or to whatever it is spec'd and then divide them into 4096
levels. This also get one further above the read noise.

Best,
Alex


> 
> When you change the exposure time, you merely shift the data up or
down in
> the values it converts.  Now, I have to actually see if you do in
fact get
> more/less number of values when doing this.  As I mentioned, I went
through
> this exercise not too long ago, but don't remember what I concluded.
 I'll

> let you know.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin

Austin writes:

> Typically, this data is downloaded to an internal
> LUT (Look Up Table), where the data coming in is
> the address, and the data going out is the adjusted
> data.

But that is downstream of the ADC, right?  Nobody is adjusting the linearity
of the analog side of the scanner, I assume (?).  Not even sure if that can
be adjusted for CCDs (which tend to be linear, whether you want them that
way or not).

Austin writes:

> When you change the exposure time, you merely shift
> the data up or down in the values it converts.

So, apart from "analog gain" (exposure time), there isn't anything you can
do in the software driving a scanner that actually changes the analog
scanning process ... right?

And if this is so, there isn't really any reason to ever fool with the
scanning software at all, except for the aforementioned exposure time and
other out of band stuff like number of passes.  You may as well get the scan
as raw as possible and do it all in Photoshop.

This is the impression I've gotten myself after zillions of scans.  That's
why I don't care much about Vuescan or NikonScan or anything.  Just give me
the raw scan, with as much data as possible on it, and I'll do the rest in
Photoshop.  Seems to work really well.

Hi,

> > When you change the exposure time, you merely shift
> > the data up or down in the values it converts.
>
> So, apart from "analog gain" (exposure time), there isn't anything you can
> do in the software driving a scanner that actually changes the analog
> scanning process ... right?

Correct, not in regular CCD film scanners like the ones we all use.

> And if this is so, there isn't really any reason to ever fool with the
> scanning software at all, except for the aforementioned exposure time and
> other out of band stuff like number of passes.  You may as well
> get the scan
> as raw as possible and do it all in Photoshop.

That depends on which user interface you like.  I happen to like my
scanner's user interface very well, so I use it, but you are correct.

> This is the impression I've gotten myself after zillions of scans.  That's
> why I don't care much about Vuescan or NikonScan or anything.
> Just give me
> the raw scan, with as much data as possible on it, and I'll do the rest in
> Photoshop.  Seems to work really well.

Agreed.

Regards,

Austin

Hi Anthony,

> > Typically, this data is downloaded to an internal
> > LUT (Look Up Table), where the data coming in is
> > the address, and the data going out is the adjusted
> > data.
>
> But that is downstream of the ADC, right?

Correct.

> Nobody is adjusting
> the linearity
> of the analog side of the scanner, I assume (?).

Well, for the most part, correct.  There may be something being done, but
that is scanner dependant, and I'd say I know of nothing...but I can't make
a general statement that it never happens...

> Not even sure
> if that can
> be adjusted for CCDs (which tend to be linear, whether you want them that
> way or not).

Actually, yes you can, but it's easier to do in digital, as the
non-linearity is on a sensor basis, not just signal level.  In digicams it's
called PRNU, Photo Response Non-Uniformity, and is calibrated and then
applied, as a LUT, to the image data for each pixel.

Regards,

Austin

I would suspect that the difference between CCD detectors used in signal 
processing is based on the fact a lens performs a Fourier transform and 
the CCD is used as the integration in this process. The more integration 
the smaller (in frequency) the resolution cell (and less noise)- hence 
the higher the dynamic range since signal to noise ration in an 
individual cell is goes up as the integration time goes up.

There doesn't seem to be anything comparable in scanning an image and we 
seem to be stuck with the native dynamic range of the sensor.

Truman


Austin Franklin wrote:

>Truman,
>
>My experience through literally thousands of hours of design and testing
>digital imaging systems is that all you do when you increase the exposure
>time is simply shift the data values, it does not increase the dynamic range
>unless the system has a limitation in the first place.  If this limit
>exists, what you CAN do is take multiple exposures with differing exposure
>times.  This WILL increase your dynamic range, if done properly...but, the
>limitation, as always, is going to be noise.
>
>In a correctly designed system, the data out of the A/D is limited by the
>noise floor of the CCD, as the A/D is matched to the output noise of the
>CCD.  This means that expanding the voltage into the A/D doesn't buy you
>anything, as you will only be converting noise in the lower bits.
>
>Point is, as a general rule, you can't say that increasing exposure time
>increases dynamic range, it is very design dependant, and as you probably
>know, dynamic range is limited by noise if the overall signal stays the
>same.
>
>Austin
>  
>

Kevin,
 
my comments follow:
 
> I have trouble visually setting the WP and BP accurately on a raw scan
because it looks so compressed. 
 
I rely on numbers, i.e. open Photoshop levels and press AUTO. You can
configure this tool not to clip anything, so that only values with no data
are excluded. This way you're sure to keep all information from the scan,
and are free, later, if you feel like, to clip at either end of the
histogram.
 
> By setting the clip points to 0 vuescan sets the darkest part of the
negative in preview frame as the white point and the clearest part of the
negative in the preview frame as the BP.
 
I work with the raw scan, upon which most Vuescan settings, WP and BP
included, have no effect.
 
> I wonder if  the exposure actually increased by or if it is a software
compensation.
 
Considering that changing exposure affects the raw (unprocessed) scan, I'd
say it's a hardware thing.
 
> Do you know if the Epson 3200 can change the intensity of the light source
or the duration of the time the CCD is capturing info? From memory the RGB
exposure is a multiplier not like the analog gain in some of the Nikon
scanners that actually change the exposure time.
 
I expect all scanners to be able to change either of these parameters. My
gut feeling is that what changes is time rather than intensity, and I'm
pretty sure this is what Vuescan's RGB exposure does. It shouldn't be hard
to verify, though: just see how long it takes to scan the same image with
different values. If it's just a multiplier (I assume you mean a software
transformation of data from the raw range [x, y] to [n*x, n*y]) it should
take about the same time.
 
> I can't figure out why changing the actual exposure would do anything
other than move the range of values left or right in the histogram.
 
I think it works the same in a wet darkroom: take a correct exposure and a
very short exposure (say 1/4 of the previous) of the same piece of film, and
measure the difference in density between the lightest and darkest part of
each resulting print. I excpect this delta to be greater in the correct
print.
 
Alessandro

-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Gulstene [mailto:kevin@...]
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 17:33
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Scanning


Allesandro-

Interesting.


> That's what I used to think and do, too, but very recently I changed my
> mind.
> These days I'm scanning Portra400BW 6x7 with an Epson3200 using 
> Vuescan, and
> my very simple workflow was to get a raw scan, extract the green 
> channel and
> Photoshop away, setting BP and WP etc.
> I was a bit concerned, though, on the huge amount of stretching I had 
> to do
> setting BP/WP in order to bring the usually *very* flat scan to cover 
> the
> whole 0-255 range, but given that I was starting from the raw scan,

The raw data is all crammed up against one end of the histogram.  
Somewhere along the workflow is needs to be 'stretched' by setting the 
white and black points.  You can do it in photoshop or the scanner 
software can do it.

I have trouble visually setting the WP and BP accurately on a raw scan 
because it looks so compressed.  I use vuescan to do that initially for 
me.  By setting the clip points to 0 vuescan sets the darkest part of 
the negative in preview frame as the white point and the clearest part 
of the negative in the preview frame as the BP.

> I
> thought I had no control over it. I was wrong: I found that the 
> automatic
> exposure set by Vuescan is, at least with this film-scanner 
> combination,
> usually way too short: talking Vuescan numbers, the automatic setting 
> is
> just below 4, the optimal setting ranges from 6 to 11 (you can 
> verify/change
> this number by checking the Lock exposure checkbox at the bottom of the
> Device tab: the value is set after the preview).
> I used to think that increasing exposure would only shift the histogram
> curve from the light to the dark end, but it's not true. Assuming that 
> the
> response is linear (I'll stand corrected on this: Austin, your 
> knowledged
> opinion is?), if exposure x gives a 20-100 range, exposure 2x gives 
> 40-200,
> thus resulting in a less flat scan. The result is a smoother image 
> (nothing
> outstanding, but noticeable), especially after steep curves and levels 
> (e.g.
> to bring dull skies to life)

I wonder if  the exposure actually increased by or if it is a software 
compensation.  Do you know if the Epson 3200 can change the intensity 
of the light source or the duration of the time the CCD is capturing 
info?  From memory the RGB exposure is a multiplier not like the analog 
gain in some of the Nikon scanners that actually change the exposure 
time.

I can't figure out why changing the actual exposure would do anything 
other than move the range of values left or right in the histogram.  If 
the RGB exposure in vuescan is just a multiplier then what you describe 
makes sense.

> Bottom line, my workflow now includes a little extra step at the 
> begininng,
> which is one or more 100dpi scan, checking the resulting histogram in
> Vuescan, with a locked exposure, until I get a reasonable range.


--
Kevin Gulstene
http://www.dockwalker.com <http://www.dockwalker.com> 



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor	

ADVERTISEMENT
 
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=244522.3313099.4604523.1512248/D=egroupweb/S=17050191
82:HM/A=1595053/R=0/*http://ashnin.com/clk/muryutaitakenattogyo?YH=3313099&y
had=1595053> Click Here!	
 
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=244522.3313099.4604523.1512248/D=egroupmai
l/S=:HM/A=1595053/rand=480743829> 	

Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint> 

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage. 




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Service. 




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Alessandro writes:

> I rely on numbers, i.e. open Photoshop levels
> and press AUTO.

You can set the white and black points visually by using the Curves dialog.
Shift the curve way to the left, then set the black point.  Then shift it
way to the right, and set the white point.  Shifting the curve makes it much
easier to see the darkest and lightest spots in the image, and the curve is
reset each time you set the white or black point.

Another way is to use the Levels dialog.  For each color channel (if working
in color, otherwise not applicable), move the sliders to exclude the flat
area at the top and bottom of the image, if any.  This preserves a little
more detail than the auto-levels operation, which clips the two ends.

I'm not sure whether curves or levels are best.  I use both, mostly on
intuition.

Hi Anthony,
 
it's true that the default settings of Photoshop results in auto levels
clipping at both ends, but as I wrote you can configure this tool so as not
to clip at all, keeping in the safe side.
That said, I think (as someone else already stated some time ago in a thread
about Portra400BW), that often black point setting is too conservative, and
that some clipping at the dark end may be good for many photographs
(depending on the workflow, this may make the difference between a print
with good and one with weak blacks). But, obviously, I like to see exactly
what I'm clipping, and that's way I start with the full range of data.
 
Alessandro

-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony Atkielski [mailto:anthony@...]
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 11:19
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Scanning


Alessandro writes:

> I rely on numbers, i.e. open Photoshop levels
> and press AUTO.

You can set the white and black points visually by using the Curves dialog.
Shift the curve way to the left, then set the black point.  Then shift it
way to the right, and set the white point.  Shifting the curve makes it much
easier to see the darkest and lightest spots in the image, and the curve is
reset each time you set the white or black point.

Another way is to use the Levels dialog.  For each color channel (if working
in color, otherwise not applicable), move the sliders to exclude the flat
area at the top and bottom of the image, if any.  This preserves a little
more detail than the auto-levels operation, which clips the two ends.

I'm not sure whether curves or levels are best.  I use both, mostly on
intuition.




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor	
 
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=251812.3170658.4537139.1512248/D=egroupweb/S=17050191
82:HM/A=1564416/R=0/*http://www.netflix.com/Default?mqso=60164797&partid=317
0658> 	
 
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=251812.3170658.4537139.1512248/D=egroupmai
l/S=:HM/A=1564416/rand=576211700> 	

Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint> 

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage. 




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Service. 




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

It gives the scanner a starting point for expected base density, the "Color
of Orange" of the masking, etc.  A profile, if you will. More accurate??  I
dunno!?!?!

Seth

=-----Original Message-----
=From: Stephen Kobrin [mailto:skobrin@...] 
=
=You cannot.  But, is that really a problem?  That is a question not a 
=statement :)
=
=Steve
=
=--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Seth Rossman" 
=<seth@m...> wrote:
=> Where do you select the film brand and type in Nikon scanning
=software?
=> 
=> Seth
=
=
=------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
=---------------------~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your 
=Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. 
=http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/CNxFAA/=ucIolB/TM
=
=---------------------------------------------------------------
=------~->
=
=Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, 
=Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The 
=page is at:
=
=http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
=
=If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or 
=you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership 
=preferences by visiting this same page.
=
=Please follow these basic guidelines:
=- Include your full name with your message.
=- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
=- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier 
=messages to keep them short.
=- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the 
=subject header.
=- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
=- Complete your Yahoo profile.
=- Before posting a question, search the message archives and 
=the various resources on the homepage. 
=
=
= 
=
=Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
=http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
=
=
=

Alesandro-

To stay in keeping with the other scanning threads I really should 
start with some cutting or insulting statement  ...  nahhh ...

>
> I rely on numbers, i.e. open Photoshop levels and press AUTO. You can
> configure this tool not to clip anything, so that only values with no 
> data
> are excluded. This way you're sure to keep all information from the 
> scan,
> and are free, later, if you feel like, to clip at either end of the
> histogram.

Yes, that's another way to do it.  As you say, the clipping point 
defaults can be adjusted.

> Considering that changing exposure affects the raw (unprocessed) scan, 
> I'd
> say it's a hardware thing.

It's hard to say for sure how raw raw is.  It is software dependent.

>
>> Do you know if the Epson 3200 can change the intensity of the light 
>> source
> or the duration of the time the CCD is capturing info? From memory the 
> RGB
> exposure is a multiplier not like the analog gain in some of the Nikon
> scanners that actually change the exposure time.
>
> I expect all scanners to be able to change either of these parameters. 
> My
> gut feeling is that what changes is time rather than intensity, and I'm
> pretty sure this is what Vuescan's RGB exposure does. It shouldn't be 
> hard
> to verify, though: just see how long it takes to scan the same image 
> with
> different values. If it's just a multiplier (I assume you mean a 
> software
> transformation of data from the raw range [x, y] to [n*x, n*y]) it 
> should
> take about the same time.

Actually I think this is not available on many scanners.  I know it was 
available on the Nikon LS2000, and I know it is not available on the 
Polaroid ss120 or ss4000 or any flatbed scanner I have looked at (which 
doesn't include the 2450 or 3200).

On the nikon LS2000 which does have this feature adjusting the gain 
only moves the data right or left.  In that case at leas the only 
result of changing the exposure was to change the position of the 
histogram, not its shape or width. I remember spending a couple of days 
fooling around with this trying to figure out exactly how it worked.

In abstract I think the scanning process contains the following major 
steps:

1. The scanners hardware captures the film density as a set of A/D 
readings.
2. A white point and black point are set.
3. The Gamma is adjusted.
4. A curve is/may be applied to get the contrast you want
5. Manipulate according to preference.

Step 1 has to be done in the scanner.

Step 2,3, and 4 can be done in the scanners software or in photoshop 
(or some other software).  The choice of where  to make these changes 
depends on your confidence in the scanner/software combination and 
personal preference.  Some scanner software is better than others.  For 
me, I usually perform steps 2 and 3 in vuescan unless I don't like the 
results then I may try something else until I get what I want.


--
Kevin Gulstene
http://www.dockwalker.com

Kevin,
 
it's really amazing how some people can turn technical issues in ego wars.
They will be disappointed to read that I agree with your statements :-)
What I actually meant about scanners capability to change exposure time is
that I think they have it at least internally, i.e. they can adapt to
different images: whether or not this setting can be modified by the user is
another matter (BTW it would be interesting to see how Vuescan behaves with
such scanners that do not let the user change exposure time: is the "lock
exposure" checkbox still visible? How does it affect scans?).
As for the question "How raw raw scans are?" (we're getting philosophical
here :-), I assume it is the result of step 1 in the scanning process you
defined. Of course, depending on the scanner model it may or may not imply
some software intervention, but from the practical point of view it's enough
for me to know that it's as raw as it can get (i.e. that there's no loss of
information from what the scanner extracted from the film), as this is the
problem with most scanning software. For instance, if I use my Canon 4000
own s/w to scan B&W I get less detail, as it uses all three color channels
rather than only one, and often clipped highlights.
 
Austin promised to give these matters a thought, but I'm afraid he's still
on the "Digital, film, scanning" battlefield :-)
 
alex

-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Gulstene [mailto:kevin@...]
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 20:47
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Scanning


Alesandro-

To stay in keeping with the other scanning threads I really should 
start with some cutting or insulting statement  ...  nahhh ...

>
> I rely on numbers, i.e. open Photoshop levels and press AUTO. You can
> configure this tool not to clip anything, so that only values with no 
> data
> are excluded. This way you're sure to keep all information from the 
> scan,
> and are free, later, if you feel like, to clip at either end of the
> histogram.

Yes, that's another way to do it.  As you say, the clipping point 
defaults can be adjusted.

> Considering that changing exposure affects the raw (unprocessed) scan, 
> I'd
> say it's a hardware thing.

It's hard to say for sure how raw raw is.  It is software dependent.

>
>> Do you know if the Epson 3200 can change the intensity of the light 
>> source
> or the duration of the time the CCD is capturing info? From memory the 
> RGB
> exposure is a multiplier not like the analog gain in some of the Nikon
> scanners that actually change the exposure time.
>
> I expect all scanners to be able to change either of these parameters. 
> My
> gut feeling is that what changes is time rather than intensity, and I'm
> pretty sure this is what Vuescan's RGB exposure does. It shouldn't be 
> hard
> to verify, though: just see how long it takes to scan the same image 
> with
> different values. If it's just a multiplier (I assume you mean a 
> software
> transformation of data from the raw range [x, y] to [n*x, n*y]) it 
> should
> take about the same time.

Actually I think this is not available on many scanners.  I know it was 
available on the Nikon LS2000, and I know it is not available on the 
Polaroid ss120 or ss4000 or any flatbed scanner I have looked at (which 
doesn't include the 2450 or 3200).

On the nikon LS2000 which does have this feature adjusting the gain 
only moves the data right or left.  In that case at leas the only 
result of changing the exposure was to change the position of the 
histogram, not its shape or width. I remember spending a couple of days 
fooling around with this trying to figure out exactly how it worked.

In abstract I think the scanning process contains the following major 
steps:

1. The scanners hardware captures the film density as a set of A/D 
readings.
2. A white point and black point are set.
3. The Gamma is adjusted.
4. A curve is/may be applied to get the contrast you want
5. Manipulate according to preference.

Step 1 has to be done in the scanner.

Step 2,3, and 4 can be done in the scanners software or in photoshop 
(or some other software).  The choice of where  to make these changes 
depends on your confidence in the scanner/software combination and 
personal preference.  Some scanner software is better than others.  For 
me, I usually perform steps 2 and 3 in vuescan unless I don't like the 
results then I may try something else until I get what I want.


--
Kevin Gulstene
http://www.dockwalker.com <http://www.dockwalker.com> 





Yahoo! Groups Sponsor	


	
 
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=247865.3355058.4641699.1512248/D=egroupmai
l/S=:HM/A=1482387/rand=654518011> 	

Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint> 

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage. 




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Service. 




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Alessandro,

> What I actually meant about scanners capability to change exposure time is
> that I think they have it at least internally, i.e. they can adapt to
> different images: whether or not this setting can be modified by
> the user is
> another matter

Can you say what you mean by this?

> As for the question "How raw raw scans are?" (we're getting philosophical
> here :-), I assume it is the result of step 1 in the scanning process you
> defined.

Sorry, I wasn't paying attention.  Raw scans are precisely the data out of
the A/D, but "justified" in a 16 bit space, if the A/D is over 8 bits.
There really is no standard for this, but I'd believe that low bit
justifying the data might be the best way, as it's easier to work with for
setting setpoints.

The raw data does not have setpoints set, or tonal curves applied...

> Austin promised to give these matters a thought, but I'm afraid he's still
> on the "Digital, film, scanning" battlefield :-)

Nope.

Austin

Alex-


> What I actually meant about scanners capability to change exposure 
> time is
> that I think they have it at least internally, i.e. they can adapt to
> different images:

I see what you mean.  I think that the density range of virtually all 
silver negatives that you would want to scan are within the range that 
a current model film scanner can handle without  resorting to changing 
the exposure.  The histogram of values read directly from the 
electronics will 'always' fall somewhere in between the minimum and 
maximum values the scanner can handle.

The 'auto-exposure' function usually takes over from there so that when 
you look at the histogram in a preview window the x values that you see 
are a subset of the scanners range that corresponds to the range of the 
negative.

> whether or not this setting can be modified by the user is
> another matter (BTW it would be interesting to see how Vuescan behaves 
> with
> such scanners that do not let the user change exposure time: is the 
> "lock
> exposure" checkbox still visible? How does it affect scans?).

The box is still there but I haven't tried it to see what it does to 
the scan.

--
Kevin

Hi Kevin,

> I think that the density range of virtually all
> silver negatives that you would want to scan are within the range that
> a current model film scanner can handle without  resorting to changing
> the exposure.

> The histogram of values read directly from the
> electronics will 'always' fall somewhere in between the minimum and
> maximum values the scanner can handle.

I agree, providing the system can calibrate to the current "state" of the
light source.

> The 'auto-exposure' function usually takes over from there so that when
> you look at the histogram in a preview window the x values that you see
> are a subset of the scanners range that corresponds to the range of the
> negative.

Hum.  Typically, I believe, auto-exposure would be merely setting the
setpoints, not varying the exposure time, but I don't know your
scanner/software...but I just want to point out auto-exposure MAY be a
misnomer.  Let me know what you think about that.

Regards,

Austin

Hi Austin,
 
thanks for your answer.
My statement is that I think that all scanners can change exposure time
based on their analysis of the piece of film they're fed (i.e. they
calculate what they think is the correct exposure time). What I'm not sure
is whether or not all models provide an interface to allow the end user to
override the exposure time chosen by the scanner. Vuescan has the "lock
exposure" checkbox to precisely do this, but I can't tell if this is enabled
on all scanners.
As for raw scans, Kevin Gulstene (which I was responding to in my post
below) said "It's hard to say for sure how raw raw is.  It is software
dependent.", and I replied about what you wrote here, that what I care about
is that there's no white/black point setting, curves or levels (i.e s/w
manipulations) applied to the raw data.
 
Alessandro

-----Original Message-----
From: Austin Franklin [mailto:darkroom@...]
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 16:50
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Scanning


Hi Alessandro,

> What I actually meant about scanners capability to change exposure time is
> that I think they have it at least internally, i.e. they can adapt to
> different images: whether or not this setting can be modified by
> the user is
> another matter

Can you say what you mean by this?

> As for the question "How raw raw scans are?" (we're getting philosophical
> here :-), I assume it is the result of step 1 in the scanning process you
> defined.

Sorry, I wasn't paying attention.  Raw scans are precisely the data out of
the A/D, but "justified" in a 16 bit space, if the A/D is over 8 bits.
There really is no standard for this, but I'd believe that low bit
justifying the data might be the best way, as it's easier to work with for
setting setpoints.

The raw data does not have setpoints set, or tonal curves applied...

> Austin promised to give these matters a thought, but I'm afraid he's still
> on the "Digital, film, scanning" battlefield :-)

Nope.

Austin




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor	
 
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=251812.3170658.4537139.1512248/D=egroupweb/S=17050191
82:HM/A=1564416/R=0/*http://www.netflix.com/Default?mqso=60164797&partid=317
0658> 	
 
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=251812.3170658.4537139.1512248/D=egroupmai
l/S=:HM/A=1564416/rand=795045751> 	

Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint> 

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage. 




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Service. 




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Thursday, May 29, 2003, at 08:23  AM, Austin Franklin wrote:

> Hi Kevin,
>
>> I think that the density range of virtually all
>> silver negatives that you would want to scan are within the range that
>> a current model film scanner can handle without  resorting to changing
>> the exposure.
>
>> The histogram of values read directly from the
>> electronics will 'always' fall somewhere in between the minimum and
>> maximum values the scanner can handle.
>
> I agree, providing the system can calibrate to the current "state" of 
> the
> light source.
>
>> The 'auto-exposure' function usually takes over from there so that 
>> when
>> you look at the histogram in a preview window the x values that you 
>> see
>> are a subset of the scanners range that corresponds to the range of 
>> the
>> negative.
>
> Hum.  Typically, I believe, auto-exposure would be merely setting the
> setpoints, not varying the exposure time, but I don't know your
> scanner/software...but I just want to point out auto-exposure MAY be a
> misnomer.  Let me know what you think about that.

I agree, I thought that's what I said :(  I meant to convey that when 
you see a histogram you are usually seeing the data points spread out 
over the density range of the negative not spread out over the range of 
the scanner is capable of ( unless you are looking at a raw scan).

Not that Alex had this confused, but when I first started scanning it 
took a while to figure out why an moderately overexposed negative and a 
moderately underexposed negative seemed to fill the same space in the 
scanning software's histogram.  But then again I was bewildered when 
the same under and over exposed negatives came back from the 1 hour 
photo looking identical <sheepish grin>.


--
Kevin

Hi Alessandro,

> My statement is that I think that all scanners can change exposure time
> based on their analysis of the piece of film they're fed (i.e. they
> calculate what they think is the correct exposure time).

Hum.  My scanner only changes exposure time (at least calculates exposure
time) during calibration, when it is basically calibrating the bulb and the
PRNU for the sensor.  I DO have manual control of the exposure time, so I
can change it my self...but the scanner doesn't re-calibrate for the film.

> What I'm not sure
> is whether or not all models provide an interface to allow the end user to
> override the exposure time chosen by the scanner.

Yes, I understand your concern.  You may very well be correct.

> As for raw scans, Kevin Gulstene (which I was responding to in my post
> below) said "It's hard to say for sure how raw raw is.  It is software
> dependent.", and I replied about what you wrote here, that what I
> care about
> is that there's no white/black point setting, curves or levels (i.e s/w
> manipulations) applied to the raw data.

Yeah, I don't believe "raw" is dependant on software at all, or at least it
certainly shouldn't be.

Regards,

Austin

Hi Austin,
 
 >  Hum.  My scanner only changes exposure time (at least calculates
exposure
 >  time) during calibration, when it is basically calibrating the bulb and
the
 >  PRNU for the sensor.  I DO have manual control of the exposure time, so
I
 >  can change it my self...but the scanner doesn't re-calibrate for the
film.

 I see. So what both you and Kevin are saying is basically that the scanner,
during calibration,  finds a "one-size-fits-all" exposure time? Then I
wonder where Vuescan gets the numbers from when it displays the exposure
time. I mean: if I make a preview and then click "Lock exposure", appears a
textbox with the exposure time (which I'm free to change) used for preview,
and it changes from image to image, and it also changes if I select a
different portion of the same image and preview again.
I was pretty sure that the scanner evaluated each image, and set the
exposure time accordingly, but now you make me think again...
Next time I have a couple of hours free (I wish I could play with my 3200
more often than I do, family duties call :-), I'll try to see how long it
takes to scan the same image with different "exposure times".
 
Alessandro


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I just had a roll of HIE that was nearly impossible to scan. I got
detail all right, but there was horrible streaking in the image. By
increasing the exposure to very high values (20-50) I got rid of the
streaking, but the brightness of the image didn't change at all. I
really don't know exactly how the exposure setting works, but it gave me
usable pictures from a roll of film I feared would be impossible to
save.

--
Daniel Staver
http://daniel.staver.no

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alessandro Pardi [mailto:alessandro.pardi@...] 
> Sent: 29. mai 2003 19:24
> To: 'DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com'
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Scanning
> 
> 
>  Hi Austin,
>  
>  >  Hum.  My scanner only changes exposure time (at least 
> calculates exposure  >  time) during calibration, when it is 
> basically calibrating the bulb and the  >  PRNU for the 
> sensor.  I DO have manual control of the exposure time, so I  
> >  can change it my self...but the scanner doesn't 
> re-calibrate for the film.
> 
>  I see. So what both you and Kevin are saying is basically 
> that the scanner, during calibration,  finds a 
> "one-size-fits-all" exposure time? Then I wonder where 
> Vuescan gets the numbers from when it displays the exposure 
> time. I mean: if I make a preview and then click "Lock 
> exposure", appears a textbox with the exposure time (which 
> I'm free to change) used for preview, and it changes from 
> image to image, and it also changes if I select a different 
> portion of the same image and preview again. I was pretty 
> sure that the scanner evaluated each image, and set the 
> exposure time accordingly, but now you make me think again... 
> Next time I have a couple of hours free (I wish I could play 
> with my 3200 more often than I do, family duties call :-), 
> I'll try to see how long it takes to scan the same image with 
> different "exposure times".
>  
> Alessandro
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
> ---------------------~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your 
> Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. 
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/CNxFAA> /ucIolB/TM
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -------~->
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, 
> Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being 
> updated. The page is at:
> 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this
same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
keep them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject
header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage. 


 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

"Strange", as I always say when someone reports me a bug :-)
But interesting. What scanner are you using?
 
Alessandro

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Staver [mailto:daniel@...]
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 19:34
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Scanning


I just had a roll of HIE that was nearly impossible to scan. I got
detail all right, but there was horrible streaking in the image. By
increasing the exposure to very high values (20-50) I got rid of the
streaking, but the brightness of the image didn't change at all. I
really don't know exactly how the exposure setting works, but it gave me
usable pictures from a roll of film I feared would be impossible to
save.

--
Daniel Staver
http://daniel.staver.no <http://daniel.staver.no> 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alessandro Pardi [mailto:alessandro.pardi@...] 
> Sent: 29. mai 2003 19:24
> To: 'DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com'
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Scanning
> 
> 
>  Hi Austin,
>  
>  >  Hum.  My scanner only changes exposure time (at least 
> calculates exposure  >  time) during calibration, when it is 
> basically calibrating the bulb and the  >  PRNU for the 
> sensor.  I DO have manual control of the exposure time, so I  
> >  can change it my self...but the scanner doesn't 
> re-calibrate for the film.
> 
>  I see. So what both you and Kevin are saying is basically 
> that the scanner, during calibration,  finds a 
> "one-size-fits-all" exposure time? Then I wonder where 
> Vuescan gets the numbers from when it displays the exposure 
> time. I mean: if I make a preview and then click "Lock 
> exposure", appears a textbox with the exposure time (which 
> I'm free to change) used for preview, and it changes from 
> image to image, and it also changes if I select a different 
> portion of the same image and preview again. I was pretty 
> sure that the scanner evaluated each image, and set the 
> exposure time accordingly, but now you make me think again... 
> Next time I have a couple of hours free (I wish I could play 
> with my 3200 more often than I do, family duties call :-), 
> I'll try to see how long it takes to scan the same image with 
> different "exposure times".
>  
> Alessandro
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
> ---------------------~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your 
> Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. 
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/CNxFAA
<http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/CNxFAA> > /ucIolB/TM
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -------~->
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, 
> Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being 
> updated. The page is at:
> 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint> 

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this
same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
keep them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject
header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage. 




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  





Yahoo! Groups Sponsor	
 
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=251812.3170658.4537139.1512248/D=egroupweb/S=17050191
82:HM/A=1564415/R=0/*http://www.netflix.com/Default?mqso=60164784&partid=317
0658> 	
 
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=251812.3170658.4537139.1512248/D=egroupmai
l/S=:HM/A=1564415/rand=289095815> 	

Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint> 

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage. 




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Service. 




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I'm using a Canon CanoScan FS4000US... I have no idea why it worked, but
the negatives were dense almost to the point of being opaque. My first
roll of Infrared, so I'm just glad it worked at all :)

--
Daniel Staver
http://daniel.staver.no 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alessandro Pardi [mailto:alessandro.pardi@...] 
> Sent: 29. mai 2003 19:36
> To: 'DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com'
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Scanning
> 
> 
> "Strange", as I always say when someone reports me a bug :-) 
> But interesting. What scanner are you using?
>  
> Alessandro
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Staver [mailto:daniel@...]
> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 19:34
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Scanning
> 
> 
> I just had a roll of HIE that was nearly impossible to scan. 
> I got detail all right, but there was horrible streaking in 
> the image. By increasing the exposure to very high values 
> (20-50) I got rid of the streaking, but the brightness of the 
> image didn't change at all. I really don't know exactly how 
> the exposure setting works, but it gave me usable pictures 
> from a roll of film I feared would be impossible to save.
> 
> --
> Daniel Staver
> http://daniel.staver.no <http://daniel.staver.no> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Alessandro Pardi [mailto:alessandro.pardi@...]
> > Sent: 29. mai 2003 19:24
> > To: 'DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com'
> > Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Scanning
> > 
> > 
> >  Hi Austin,
> >  
> >  >  Hum.  My scanner only changes exposure time (at least
> > calculates exposure  >  time) during calibration, when it is 
> > basically calibrating the bulb and the  >  PRNU for the 
> > sensor.  I DO have manual control of the exposure time, so I  
> > >  can change it my self...but the scanner doesn't
> > re-calibrate for the film.
> > 
> >  I see. So what both you and Kevin are saying is basically
> > that the scanner, during calibration,  finds a 
> > "one-size-fits-all" exposure time? Then I wonder where 
> > Vuescan gets the numbers from when it displays the exposure 
> > time. I mean: if I make a preview and then click "Lock 
> > exposure", appears a textbox with the exposure time (which 
> > I'm free to change) used for preview, and it changes from 
> > image to image, and it also changes if I select a different 
> > portion of the same image and preview again. I was pretty 
> > sure that the scanner evaluated each image, and set the 
> > exposure time accordingly, but now you make me think again... 
> > Next time I have a couple of hours free (I wish I could play 
> > with my 3200 more often than I do, family duties call :-), 
> > I'll try to see how long it takes to scan the same image with 
> > different "exposure times".
> >  
> > Alessandro
> > 
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > 
> > 
> > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > ---------------------~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your 
> > Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. 
> > http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/CNxFAA
> <http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/CNxFAA> > /ucIolB/TM
> > 
> > 
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > -------~->
> > 
> > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files,
> > Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being 
> > updated. The page is at:
> > 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint> 
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or 
> you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership 
> preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier 
> messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the 
> subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and 
> the various resources on the homepage. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor	
>  
> <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=251812.3170658.4537139.1512248/D=egroup
> web/S=17050191
> 82:HM/A=1564415/R=0/*http://www.netflix.com/Default?mqso=60164
> 784&partid=317
> 0658> 	
>  
> <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=251812.3170658.4537139.15122
> 48/D=egroupmai
> l/S=:HM/A=1564415/rand=289095815> 	
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, 
> Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being 
> updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint> 
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or 
> you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership 
> preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier 
> messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the 
> subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and 
> the various resources on the homepage. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of 
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Service. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text 
> portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
> ---------------------~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your 
> Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. 
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/CNxFAA> /ucIolB/TM
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -------~->
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, 
> Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being 
> updated. The page is at:
> 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this
same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
keep them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject
header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage. 


 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

In trying to decide on upgrades for the digital darkroom, I have 
been looking at scanners. After talking to Epson regarding the 4870, 
I am more confused than ever. I was interested in the version of 
digital ice included with their scanner. They had never heard of 
Digital Ice 4. On contacting Applied Science Fiction (Kodak) they 
advised that Digital ICE 4 is only on the Nikon 9000 scanner! I have 
an extremely large volume of Kodachrome slides to process, thus the 
interest. The programs included in the suite, ROC, SHO and GEM seem 
to be very capable. It would appear that Epson is attempting to 
foist a weak version of this software on photographers. Does anyone 
have any thoughts on this issue.I have concluded that the best setup 
at this time is a digital darkroom, processing traditional negatives.
While digital cameras are on the train, they are a long way from the 
station!
Bob

I would consider the Nikon Coolscan V.  It definitely
has Ice 4, and retail price is only $599.

It is an excellent scanner (yes, I speak from
experience)!


--- iceman15613 <rwshearer@...> wrote:
> In trying to decide on upgrades for the digital
> darkroom, I have 
> been looking at scanners. After talking to Epson
> regarding the 4870, 
> I am more confused than ever. I was interested in
> the version of 
> digital ice included with their scanner. They had
> never heard of 
> Digital Ice 4. On contacting Applied Science Fiction
> (Kodak) they 
> advised that Digital ICE 4 is only on the Nikon 9000
> scanner! I have 
> an extremely large volume of Kodachrome slides to
> process, thus the 
> interest. The programs included in the suite, ROC,
> SHO and GEM seem 
> to be very capable. It would appear that Epson is
> attempting to 
> foist a weak version of this software on
> photographers. Does anyone 
> have any thoughts on this issue.I have concluded
> that the best setup 
> at this time is a digital darkroom, processing
> traditional negatives.
> While digital cameras are on the train, they are a
> long way from the 
> station!
> Bob
> 
> 


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

> From: iceman15613 [mailto:rwshearer@...]
>
> In trying to decide on upgrades for the digital darkroom, I have
> been looking at scanners. After talking to Epson regarding the 4870,
> I am more confused than ever. I was interested in the version of
> digital ice included with their scanner. They had never heard of
> Digital Ice 4. On contacting Applied Science Fiction (Kodak) they
> advised that Digital ICE 4 is only on the Nikon 9000 scanner! I have
> an extremely large volume of Kodachrome slides to process, thus the
> interest. The programs included in the suite, ROC, SHO and GEM seem
> to be very capable. It would appear that Epson is attempting to
> foist a weak version of this software on photographers. Does anyone
> have any thoughts on this issue.I have concluded that the best setup
> at this time is a digital darkroom, processing traditional negatives.
> While digital cameras are on the train, they are a long way from the
> station!

Digital ICE uses an infrared channel in the scanner. Unfortunately,
depending upon the wavelength used, this either doesn't work at all with
Kodachrome (because it's a silver-based film, like B&W negs, and unlike E6
slides or color negs), or doesn't work very well. I've used it on K25 slides
in the Nikon LS-2000, and it helps, but definitely blurs the darker areas.

As to comparisons between digicams and film, in my opinion digicams have
caught up with 35mm (a little ahead in some areas, a little behind in
others), and only really lag when compared to medium and large format.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "iceman15613" <
rwshearer@c...> wrote:
> In trying to decide on upgrades for the digital darkroom, I have 
> been looking at scanners. After talking to Epson regarding the 4870, 
> I am more confused than ever. I was interested in the version of 
> digital ice included with their scanner.

I just bought an Epson 4870 last week as an upgrade from my Epson 3200 
(Buy.com had the 4870 for $390 with free ship). I can't help with you 
Digital Ice question but have a few comments on the sanner in general.

I think the Epson 3200 and 4870 make great "budget" film scanners for 
2 1/4" negs and larger, but are a little lacking for 35mm unless you 
are mostly scanning for the web or relatively small prints (say 5x7 or 
a little bigger). Both of my Epsons max out at about 2400 dpi, and 
don't even match the sharpness of my ancient (in digital years) 
Minolta Scan Dual at that. I get no improvement above 2400dpi. That 
works out quite well for medium format and larger (I mostly scan 
Noblex panoramic negs with it). 8x prints at 300 dpi (2400 dpi at the 
original neg size) look quite good from 2 1/4", but these are large 
prints. 8x from 35mm is sort of okay, but seem a touch wooly.

Also note that the Epsons don't always focus exactly at the right 
point for the negative carriers. My 3200 is perfect, but the 4870 
needs to have the the carrier elevated the thickness of 6 ply mat 
board for best sharpness. That's not much of a problem with the neg 
carriers, but would be a nuisance for slides where the mount actually 
lays right on the glass and the carrier really just keeps them 
aligned.

It may not sound like it, but I really like the Epson. I bought the 
4870 for the larger transparency area (and the moving light source for 
transparencies). That was a worthwhile upgrade for me over the 3200. 
You just don't want to buy it thinking it is going to give the results 
of a 4800 dpi film scanner.

Mark

This is excellent input and I appreciate it.
Thanks
Bob

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: cirkutguy 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2004 3:21 PM
  Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Scanning


  --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "iceman15613" <
  rwshearer@c...> wrote:
  > In trying to decide on upgrades for the digital darkroom, I have 
  > been looking at scanners. After talking to Epson regarding the 4870, 
  > I am more confused than ever. I was interested in the version of 
  > digital ice included with their scanner.

  I just bought an Epson 4870 last week as an upgrade from my Epson 3200 
  (Buy.com had the 4870 for $390 with free ship). I can't help with you 
  Digital Ice question but have a few comments on the sanner in general.

  I think the Epson 3200 and 4870 make great "budget" film scanners for 
  2 1/4" negs and larger, but are a little lacking for 35mm unless you 
  are mostly scanning for the web or relatively small prints (say 5x7 or 
  a little bigger). Both of my Epsons max out at about 2400 dpi, and 
  don't even match the sharpness of my ancient (in digital years) 
  Minolta Scan Dual at that. I get no improvement above 2400dpi. That 
  works out quite well for medium format and larger (I mostly scan 
  Noblex panoramic negs with it). 8x prints at 300 dpi (2400 dpi at the 
  original neg size) look quite good from 2 1/4", but these are large 
  prints. 8x from 35mm is sort of okay, but seem a touch wooly.

  Also note that the Epsons don't always focus exactly at the right 
  point for the negative carriers. My 3200 is perfect, but the 4870 
  needs to have the the carrier elevated the thickness of 6 ply mat 
  board for best sharpness. That's not much of a problem with the neg 
  carriers, but would be a nuisance for slides where the mount actually 
  lays right on the glass and the carrier really just keeps them 
  aligned.

  It may not sound like it, but I really like the Epson. I bought the 
  4870 for the larger transparency area (and the moving light source for 
  transparencies). That was a worthwhile upgrade for me over the 3200. 
  You just don't want to buy it thinking it is going to give the results 
  of a 4800 dpi film scanner.

  Mark




  Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.

  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

  If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

  Please follow these basic guidelines:
  - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
  - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
  - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
  - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

  BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Yahoo! Groups Links

    a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
      
    b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      
    c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]