-----Original Message-----
From: filmscanners_Digest_owner@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:filmscanners_Digest_owner@halftone.co.uk]
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 7:00 AM
To: haydnthomas@samarts.com
Subject: [filmscanners_Digest] filmscanners Digest for Sat 1 Mar, 2003
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Topic: [filmscanners] Fw: Re: Nikon LS-4000ED Depth of Field
=======================================================
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 13:46:27 -0800
From: Dieder Bylsma <scanners@spacemoo.com>
----------------------------------------
>
>Is the auto strip feeder in the LS4000 significantly different in
>design to the LS30/2000? I stopped using it when I found out that
>strips tended to curl in the machine, and the frames at the end of a
>neg strip ended up horribly out of focus on one side. It worked ok on
>frames in the middle of a strip.
yes it is.
whereas in the LS30/2000 the film feeder rolled up the film at the
end of the self-contained unit into one tiny little roll, the LS-4000
has a completely different design with its strip feeder. I can only
speak with certainty about the LS-4000 since that is what I have.
With the LS-4000, the path of the film is set to go straight
*through* the film scanner to the other end where a roll-film
attachment can be attached to handle spools of up to 40 frames
(standard 36 frame roll of film). Even when it isn't being used to
handle long strips of film, because there is more leeway at the back
of the scanner, so long as the film is relatively flat when it enters
the scanner, it will stay flat. The scanner will not make it more
curly like it did with the PITA LS-30 strip film feeder attachment.
hth,
Dieder
-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 08:49:09 +1100
From: Julian Robinson <jrobinso@pcug.org.au>
----------------------------------------
Derek - your results sound pretty good, if your DOF is the same as mine
(sorry I don't remember your DOF result). Your auto feeder seems to be
excellent, I want one. The manual holder result is the same as mine.
Re Rob's question - I think I remember that there is a significant
difference between the LS4000 autofeeder and LS30/2000, but don't
remember
what. Does the LS4000 feeder manage to keep the film straight unlike
the
LS30/2000 which curls it up into a tight spool?
Julian
>Didn't find much difference btwn the auto strip feeder and the manual
>strip holder when it came to total focus plane variation on the same
piece
>of film. They were quite close, but the autostrip feeder actually
proved
>a little bit better at a delta of 16 nikon units vs. 21 nikon units for
>the manual holder.
>
>Am planning on measuring same with both a glassless and AN glass slide
>mount for further comparison.
>
>Thanks and sorry for the delay.
>
>Derek
Julian
Canberra, Australia
Satellite maps of fire situation Canberra and Snowy Montains
-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-
Topic: [filmscanners] RE: JPEG2000/PNG on PS7.0 and PSP8.0
=====================================================
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 08:41:56 +1100
From: Julian Robinson <jrobinso@pcug.org.au>
----------------------------------------
Robert - your figures for the compression ratios fo JPEG2000 seem very
low
to me, I am interested to know why. I get more towards 2:1 mostly, with
the worst figure ever around 15% and an average around 40%. You get an
average around 12%. Perhaps my images are lacking detail, or are yours
especially grainy? Not criticising, just would like to have a handle on
all
this.
From my own part-finished investigation, I think I agree with Paul that
compression to about 20% seems to give results that are pretty good even
for archival purposes. Although I can see a difference if I look very
hard
at the blown up image, it is really only obvious even blown up to 2-300%
or
so and not visible to me at normal viewing.
The one thing I did notice was that the fnord plug in with Photoshop
gives
surprisingly different results from the Lurawave add-on to Irfanview at
the
same compression ratios. What I noticed was that doing a 10% size
save
showed the fnord result through photoshop to be very noticeably worse
than
the lurawave result through irfanview. Fnord exaggerated motley skies
and
made slight differences to detail like hair. The two files are the
same
size within a few bytes. (To objectify the difference between original
and
compressed, I layer the two images, take the difference (almost a black
image) then expand that difference image by tweaking the upper limit in
"levels" from 255 to 4 or 8. This gives you an exaggerated version of
the
difference image.)
I don't even know which bit of software makes the difference although I
suppose it is the plugin (fnord or Lura), not the mother program (PS or
irfanview).
The other thought is that if you get only 12% or so compression, and I
get
50%, then obviously different files cope better with compression. So,
maybe it is not such a good idea for us to compress to a set file size
like
"10%", but we should really be compressing to a standard quality? If
this
is true then it becomes more problematical because lurawave's 95%
quality
setting is nothing like the same compression or quality as fnord's 95%
quality setting - they use completely different parameters for quality.
Still investigating, but it seems to me that archiving at 5:1 is looking
pretty good as a real life compromise.
Julian
> > From: Robert Logan
> >
> > Ok, my 1st proper analysis of compression with
> > JPEG2000 on a full roll of film. Saving with
> > the 'fnord' JP2 plugin in PHotoshop, of 20
> > 30Mb-50Mb files, 48 bit scans, and using the
> > 'fnord' Super PNG plugin on the same files
> > (and then PNGcrushing them) gives the following
> > results.
> >
> > Orig TIFF = 850 Mb
> > JPEG 2000 = 747 Mb
> > PNG/crush = 758 Mb
> >
> > The JPEG 2000 is better, over a good analysis,
> > and saves the colour profile data too. I will now
> > move to archiving totally in JP2 ... after a long
> > wait from y2K.
>
>You're going to convert all your TIFFs to JPEG2000 just to save 11% of
>your space, and suffer the longer decode times when you view them?
>Wouldn't it be easier just to buy a little more disk space?
>
>I intend to convert all my TIFFs to JPEG2000 (as soon as my image
>cataloger software, ThumbsPlus, handles the format--RSN), but I'll use
>5:1 or 10:1 lossy compression. That provides some meaningful space
>advantage.
Julian
Canberra, Australia
Satellite maps of fire situation Canberra and Snowy Montains
-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 14:28:46 -0800
From: "Robert Meier" <filmscanner@meierlim.com>
----------------------------------------
>-----Original Message-----
>From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
>[mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Julian Robinson
>your figures for the compression ratios fo JPEG2000 seem very low to
>me, I am interested to know why. I get more towards 2:1 mostly, with
>the worst figure ever around 15% and an average around 40%. You get an
>average around 12%. Perhaps my images are lacking detail, or are yours
>especially grainy? Not criticising, just would like to have a handle on
>all this.
One other possibility is that he works with 16-bit TIFFs and you with
8-bit TIFFs. If you go beyond 8 bits the compression ratio falls pretty
fast. As a matter of fact, jpeg2000 even allows to bypass parts of the
algorithm after 5 bitplanes because compression is not very significant
anymore (because there isn't much correlation anymore). Therefore, for
images with many bitplanes it makes sense to use a bigger compression
ratio as not that much is lost.
Robert
-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-
Topic: [filmscanners] Re: Nikon LS-4000ED Depth of Field Revisited
=============================================================
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 20:34:25 GMT
From: golder@netzero.com
----------------------------------------
Rob,
Unfortunately, I can't say. I've never owned the LS30 or LS2000.
Maybe somebody else has had experience with both.
Derek
golder@netzero.com wrote:
>Didn't find much difference btwn the auto strip feeder and the manual
>strip holder when it came to total focus plane variation on the same
>piece of
film.
> They were quite close, but the autostrip feeder actually proved a
>little bit better at a delta of 16 nikon units vs. 21 nikon units for
>the manual holder.
Is the auto strip feeder in the LS4000 significantly different in design
to the LS30/2000? I stopped using it when I found out that strips
tended to curl in the machine, and the frames at the end of a neg strip
ended up horribly out of focus on one side. It worked ok on frames in
the middle of a strip.
Rob
-------------
How do you know if you never try?
(Rob Geraghty 25 June 2002)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in
the message title or body
-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 21:16:12 +0000
From: Tony Terlecki <ajt@mrps.demon.co.uk>
----------------------------------------
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 03:29:24PM +1000, robg@wordweb.com wrote:
> golder@netzero.com wrote:
> >Didn't find much difference btwn the auto strip feeder and the manual
> >strip holder when it came to total focus plane variation on the same
> >piece of
> film.
> > They were quite close, but the autostrip feeder actually proved a
> >little bit better at a delta of 16 nikon units vs. 21 nikon units for
> >the manual holder.
>
> Is the auto strip feeder in the LS4000 significantly different in
> design to the LS30/2000? I stopped using it when I found out that
> strips tended to curl in the machine, and the frames at the end of a
> neg strip ended up horribly out of focus on one side. It worked ok on
> frames in the middle of a strip.
>
There is no great modification which ensures the film says perfectly
flat so this is can still be a problem with the outermost edge of the
outermost frame of a strip but it depends upon how much curl the film
has at the edge in the first place. I have terrible problems with Tri-X
but other emulsions that are flatter like XP2 and many of the thinner
based films do not present any problems. Only solution I've found is to
cut the last neg and place it in a glass mount if sharpness across the
entire frame is needed.
--
Tony Terlecki
ajt@mrps.demon.co.uk
-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-
Topic: Canon 10D - WAS Re: Canon IDs vs Pentax 67II
===============================================
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 23:30:13 -0800
From: "Karl Schulmeisters" <karlsch@earthlink.net>
----------------------------------------
Canon comes out with yet another camera - this one is a real 'prosumer'
version using the EOS 30/Elan 7 body and functions...
On the 'mechanical shutter' issue, This is from the DP Review site
They are different types of noise. Random noise, which is what we
> are all used to seeing, won't increase with the exposure length. The
> problem is that semiconductors are never fabricated perfectly and each
> photosite will be a little different than its neighbour. As such, each
> site typically has a small current that adds to the accumulated charge
> as one integrates (exposes).
>
> With a short exposure, this current is so small that it really doesn't
> effect the image all that much. However, over a long exposure that
> current can add up and get to a point where it becomes visible and
> hurts the image. The upside, however, is that this noise is
> predictable and can be completely removed via a process of dark frame
> subtraction. That is, you take the image, then you close the shutter
> and capture the image of the dark shutter blades for the same time and
> in the same temperature (dark current is dependant on the ambient
> temperature). The second image contains only the noise, so it can be
> subtracted from the first image and all the dark noise goes away. This
> is what the 760 currently does, and is likely what Kodak will add to
> the 14n at a later time. You can also do this manually on any camera
> using Photoshop or a similar package.
>
> Some of Canon's cameras (I believe the D60 has it and the 1Ds might as
> well) have logic at the photosites to measure this dark current and
> remove it without the assistance of the second exposure. This saves
> the trouble (as the dark frame subtraction would require a minute for
> a 30s exposure) however it also eats up some of the photosite space.
----- Original Message -----
From: <focus@adnc.com>
To: <karlsch@earthlink.net>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 9:29 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Canon IDs vs Pentax 67II
Again, it's worth noting that the E-20 can work in both modes, but only
gives half the resolution in the "software shutter" mode. There must be
something about "software shutter" operation that limits/impairs
resolution.
Karl Schulmeisters wrote:
> My understanding of the physics of the imagers is that you get much
> better performance if you keep the imager dark until you take the
> image. So the image quality does depend on the shutter. And by
> keeping the imager dark, you don't have to reset it prior to capturing
> the image so you minimize shutter lag.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Austin Franklin" <austin@darkroom.com>
> To: <karlsch@earthlink.net>
> Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2003 12:07 PM
> Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Canon IDs vs Pentax 67II
>
> Hi Karl,
>
> > for SLR digicams, there is a real shutter.
>
> It has to do with the sensor type, and interline sensors, that the
> cheapo digicams use have an electronic shutter.
>
> > That's in part why
> > they have so
> > much better image quality
>
> They have better image quality because the sensors are so much better,
> not because they use a shutter!
>
> > and less shutter lag than consumer
> > digicams.
>
> I don't believe that has anything to do with the shutter, I believe
> it's
the
> sensor and camera design, shutter or not.
>
> > I can elaborate on why later.
>
> Please do ;-)
>
> Regards,
>
> Austin
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
--
> ------------
> Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
> filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in
> the message title or body
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in
the message title o r body
-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-
Topic: Nikon LS-4000ED Depth of Field Revisited
==========================================
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 15:29:24 +1000
From: "Rob Geraghty" <robg@wordweb.com>
----------------------------------------
golder@netzero.com wrote:
>Didn't find much difference btwn the auto strip feeder and the manual
>st=
rip
>holder when it came to total focus plane variation on the same piece of
film.
> They were quite close, but the autostrip feeder actually proved a
> littl=
e
>bit better at a delta of 16 nikon units vs. 21 nikon units for the
>manua=
l
>holder.
Is the auto strip feeder in the LS4000 significantly different in design
to the LS30/2000? I stopped using it when I found out that strips
tended=
to curl in the machine, and the frames at the end of a neg strip ended
up=
horribly out of focus on one side. It worked ok on frames in the middle
of a strip.
Rob
-------------
How do you know if you never try?
(Rob Geraghty 25 June 2002)
-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
