[filmscanners] Re: Noise in Polaroid SS 4000 scans

["James L. Sims" <jlsims@knology.net>]

Harry,

In the past, when I have upgraded to a new release of Silverfast, the
installation has defaulted to "Autosharpen".  That has messed up several
scans before I caught it.

Jim Sims

Harry@vdKrogt.nl wrote:

>Hmmm,
>
>The first one was the scan I made with Silverfast 6, that I upgraded to
>just today. No processing, just saving as a HDR file, 4000 dpi. What I
>did, is just copy the part I sent to you and put it in a new photoshop
>file, downsample to 8 bit, save it and send it to you.
>The same with the second file I sent you, that was the Vuescan Raw file:
>so no processing, no sharpening, just taking a part of the Raw Vuescan
>(latest version) file that was saved to my HD, make it 8 bit and crop to
>make a file large enough to send to you.
>
>Is there somebody out there near Leiden, the Netherlands with a SS4000
>where I can pick up a negative, scan and compare with your scan, or take
>my negative and scan with your scanner?
>
>Harry
>
>
>-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
>Van: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
>[mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk] Namens Arthur Entlich
>Verzonden: vrijdag 13 juni 2003 1:00
>Aan: Harry@vdKrogt.nl
>Onderwerp: [filmscanners] Re: Noise in Polaroid SS 4000 scans
>
>
>As it turns out, Harry sent me two scans.  The first one was not the one
>on the web as I understand it, the second one, which I got in a second
>email is, I believe, the one from the web.
>
>My verdict on the first one he sent stands are grain.
>
>However, the second one is a slightly different story.
>
>It appears that some type of digital processing of this image was done
>post scanning, or during scanning. Specifically, the earlier one had its
>orange masking on it, while the second one looks like a film profile
>(and perhaps other processing) was done on it.  If those images were
>taken from the same roll of film, then these artifacts are a result of
>the digital processing.  In the second image, I do see many individual
>pixels that have considerable and distinct differences.  It looks like
>the image may have been over-sharpened causing the grain to be vastly
>exaggerated due to the stepwise nature of sharpening algorithms.
>
>Perhaps Harry can enlighten us more of what he did on that second scan
>he sent me.
>
>I still do not believe this is noise. The reason being, it is again most
>visible in the lightest areas of the negative (the dark parts of the
>positive inversion) which is not normal for CCD sensors to manifest
>noise in.
>
>If the two scans I was sent are both from the same film stock, same
>chemical processing, (they are the same subject matter) then the
>artifacting was created in the digital processing of the scan, not by
>the scanner or the film, per say.  However, even the first scan is
>relatively grainy, IMHO.
>
>However, I do very little shooting with negs, so I'm not the best judge
>of grain size norms.
>
>Art
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>----------------
>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 or 
body