Hi David,
Well, now that I'm on broadband, it no longer takes 3 hours to get a few
meg image downloaded, which helps...
The testing I am doing is pretty basic. I am comparing images that were
scanned without benefit of any "known" sharpening, and then, within
Photoshop, I am seeing how they respond to USM (UnSharp Masking). I
look for what type of settings they can tolerate before sharpening
artifacts develop, such as noise, overdefined edges, etc.
It isn't scientific.
If you wish to send me a sample scan, what I'd like is a section of a
35mm frame scanned at full optical resolution (4800 dpi). You can scan
in 8 bit mode, so the size is reduced by half, and I only need about
1/2" x 1/2" of a frame (based upon the source material size).
The area involved should have a mix of detail and smooth areas or in
focus and out of focus, if possible, some high and lower contrast, and
have a variety of color. A medium close distance shot of flowers is
often good. I would prefer, if possible that the area be taken from
near the center of the image to reduce problems with either camera lens
or scanner focus problems.
I think if you read Kennedy's explanations of "spatial frequencies" it
might help you to get better results, within the limitations of the
Minolta (especially the use full optical resolution at the scan, and
then judicious blurring before downsampling).
Based upon his comments, perhaps the problems with the Minolta are poor
use of filtering to remove high end spatial frequencies, which do make
the image appear sharper, but reduce the ability to process them
afterward with selective sharpening, since both the artifacts (and
"errors" of sampling" get amplified with the "good" image content.
Art
Art
David Harris wrote:
> Art
>
> Please specify what you require of a sample scan, then
> I'll see what I can do.
>
> David
> --- Arthur Entlich <artistic-1@shaw.ca> wrote: > I
> can't refer to the Minolta Multi Pro because I
>
>>haven't used it, don't
>>know anyone personally who owns one, and no one has
>>yet sent me any
>>sample scans to test.
>>
>>But I know the Dimage II. And I shoot 98% slides,
>>and I still have the
>>problem with the Minolta, and it also happens with
>>dirt and dust, not
>>just grain.
>>
>>Art
>>
>>David Harris wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Please remember that these exaggerations only seem
>>>
>>to
>>
>>>occur when scanning negatives, I wonder if that is
>>>significant?
>>>--- Arthur Entlich <artistic-1@shaw.ca> wrote: >
>>>
>>>>Preston Earle wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>At 10:09 AM -0600 3/20/02, david/lisa soderman
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>wrote: "Images from
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>scanned negs are extremely grainy" and
>>>>>
>>"Meanwhile,
>>
>>>>the Scan Multi Pro
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>has rougher, grainy skin."
>>>>>
>>>>>"Roger Smith" <rsmith@unb.ca> added: "It sounds
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>similar to what I get
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>with my Minolta Scan Dual II."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Yup, mine too. I started filtering everything for
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>"light" grain
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>reduction in VueScan and quit worrying. That
>>>>>
>>seems
>>
>>>>to get the grain to
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>acceptable levels without softening the image too
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>much. I don't sharpen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>in the scanner.
>>>>>
>>>>>Preston Earle
>>>>>PEarle@triad.rr.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The point Roger and I are making is that you may
>>>>
>>be
>>
>>>>sharpening in the
>>>>scanner and not knowing it. SOme scanners are
>>>>sharpening even when the
>>>>sharpening software is set to zero. I am trying
>>>>
>>to
>>
>>>>find out which do
>>>>this, and by how much. Based upon the light
>>>>
>>source
>>
>>>>in the Minolta
>>>>Scanners, the exaggerated grain, dirt, dust and
>>>>scratches, makes me
>>>>wonder what's going on. Typically, the cold
>>>>
>>cathode
>>
>>>>type lighting
>>>>diminishes these things rather than exaggerates
>>>>them.
>>>>
>>>>Art
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>>Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk,
>>with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
>>or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as
>>appropriate) in the message title or body
>>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Everything you'll ever need on one web page
> from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
>
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
