oskar_ojala

Remember that MS markets SQL Server as their "serious" RDBMS platform, I'm not quite sure what the intended market for Access is, as you can do many lighter tasks in Excel pretty well. Maybe they only designed Access to be used as an ODBC front-end? Anyway, I suggest you search the net, there are plenty of apps for EXIF extraction, image cataloging etc. available for free, but they're probably not as comfortable to use as the proprietary professional image-management systems.

<i>I presume the way to do it would be to store the paths to the files in the database rather than the files themselves and then create some sort of link which would display the image.</i>

 

<p>Your assumption is correct, the Right Thing to do in an SQL-RDBMS is having links to the files, as the SQL datatypes are designed more with text and numbers in mind, rather than raw binary data. The modern way to do this is with a browser-interface to dynamic pages, I believe someone named Balint Kis posted not-so-long-ago a link to his software that did this for free by using open-source tools (and I think you replied to that thread.)

 

<p><access-criticism>If you want to connect to webserver and use ASP or similar to browse/manipualte the data, I suggest you look at more "serious" DB's, as the "advanced-features-made-easy" software like Access are usually not easier but less advanced than the "advanced-only" tools.</access-criticism>

Well you can have a version of MySQL for free and it runs on many more OS's than Access. It all depends on your needs. Personally, I like archives that last, so that I don't have to redo everything and there are plenty of conversion tools for Access, but basically you're limited to the Windows-platform and the technical limitations of Access unless you wish to fool around with conversion. This might work perfectly for you or it might not, depends on your needs.

 

I can't see any other reasons, but I'd go crazy using Access on a regular basis, so I'm probably not the best person to judge...

Emulsion up and the image is right way around (ie. not reversed). However, as the rule of thumb is emulsion to emulsion in the darkroom, I instinctively put emulsion-side down. I tested on my 3200 whether resolution was affected and it was not.

If you want to be skeptical, then we should talk about how the software on this thing will be... I'm not so worried for the "useless" data that comes with 5400dpi, computers develop quickly and you can resize in an image-editing program. Doing adjustments to contrast, color, cropping, dodging and burning tends to take more time anyway (for me at least), but granted, 5400dpi will be overkill for some 400-speed film. At least they've put decent interfaces on it, SCSI is getting more niche all the time.

 

It'll be interesting to see the results when people actually get to test it...

Carl, don't be so negative, the press release promises many new features besides 5400dpi. The Minolta SDIII has been ny many regarded as breaking new ground in terms of price/performance and reports on the net indicate it's fast. My Epson 3200 does a 3200dpi 16bit scan of a 6x6 slide in 2.5 min., which makes the Canon FS4000 seem like a dinosaur. I'd say it's reasonable to expect a considerable improvement in speed.

Either an USB 2 or a Firewire add-on card with appropriate reader should be your best choice. FWIW, I've got an Asus mobo and my USB 2 works very smoothly for those 150 MB scans. Haven't tested my Firewire, though, but it came practically free.

<i>A bit slimy, if you ask me.</i>

 

<p>I agree, but the manufacturers are getting awfully well away with it...

I agree with Emre, <a href="http://www.imagemagick.org">ImageMagick</a> is a damn-near ideal tool for this.

The mouse was invented in 1967 by Doug Engelbart (a true visionaire) and was used in the Alto computer in 1973.

 

Postscript came in 1985.

Depends on what you mean by "digital imaging". ACM and SIGGRAPH archives could probably offer interesting tidbits around the subject.

 

However, raster displays started to become common in the 80's, being prohibitively expensive in the 60's. Also, driving a raster display requires a fair amount of computing power, so this limited the spread of raster displays. The military and the CIA have deep pockets, though, so I'd assume they started experimenting with digital imaging applications somewhere in the 60's.

 

Mathematics, however, was pretty advanced by the 60's, so common algorithms for digital imaging could be developed early on (I don't have access to my bookshelf right now so I can't give any exact dates...)

Read <a href="http://www.photo.net/learn/drange/">Dynamic Range explained</a>. 4.8 is a ridiculously high figure: it's merely the theoretical maximum achievable for a 16 bit A/D converter. Same goes for the other dynamic ranges listed. The only way to know which of the mentioned scanners has better dynamic range is to test them, so don't base your purchasing decision on that. A $300 Minolta Dual Scan III also claims a dynamic range of 4.8, so if it was true, why would anyone buy a drum scanner with a measly range of 3.8?

 

<p>Comparing resolution is easier, since if someone claims 4000dpi, then the CCD is expected to be a model able to do 4000dpi, whether the lens is good enough or not.

What's interesting is that a new Rolleiflex 6008AF kit goes for about $3000 from Robert White and it gives the possibility to shoot 6x6 if one pleases, so the H1 had better offer some magic to be interesting.

 

I don't know how much "eos-1v tech" should be pursued, MF photography is always a bit slower paced than 35 mm.

Does he do the DI by channel mixing and a little curve adjustment? It should be pretty easy to get a test image that would look entirely different in real IR than manipulating a color file...certainly nice action, but if you want IR, you need to shoot IR. Soon we'll probably have a polariser-action too...

Ditto what Carl said.

 

And even if it's slightly sharper, even the finest hardware in the world is of no use without software. Better software might come along the way or it might not, my crystal ball is a bit dim now you see :)

<i>16-bit PNGs? I was only aware that PNG files could be saved in 8-bit mode.</i>

 

<p>PNGs can be either palette, 8-bit/channel or 16-bit/channel. PS7 can read 16-bit PNGs but not save, but there's a free plug-in available for both Macs and PCs called <a href="http://www.fnordware.com/superpng/">SuperPNG</a>, which allows you to save 16-bit PNGs (although without profiles when I last tested). I'm looking into saving PSD/uncompressed TIFF and using <a href="ImageMagick">ImageMagick</a> to convert to PNG, as working with PNGs in PS is a bit slow (ImageMagick has a bit of a learning curve, but in return offers many practical adjustments). The profiles can be added removed with ImageMagick or pngcrush or similar if that's what you need.

 

<p>It might well be that the "final" versions of your images need not be 16-bit images, but there are some kinks in PS7's PNG-engine. In general, if you're saving a DVD at a time, I suggest using PSD for editing and then using a batch-conversion on the images to prepare them for the DVD (during which you can go out and enjoy the springtime rather than sit in front of the computer).

RAW is nice for quality, but being proprietary and brand-specific it's a bit risky for archiving. I no longer see any point in archiving in TIFF, I use 8- or 16-bit PNGs, compression can be adjusted as one pleases.

 

If you're a bit computer savvy, having a second, older machine do batch-processing of a couple of gigabytes of images to PNG for archiving would be a good idea (this way, you can work as you like and need not worry about processing times). If you use photoshop, then psd is the fastest and easiest format to work with when you're preparing the image to be archived.

If you're into masochism, then win98 is perfect. If you, like me, are not, then stick with XP. The compatibility mode is quite good, dual booting is an option as is getting a separate computer for your legacy apps. Sooner or later MS will drop support for win98 anyway, so there's no way of knowing when you have to rethink your strategy.

OK, I took a look at the 3600ppi scans I talked about...some have dots which could be considered to be the "peppered grain", but the samples are too few and results too inconsistent to make any conclusions.

 

Bob, you have an FS4000US, haven't you come across any indication of this problem while scanning?

Interesting...I scanned a few slides (Velvia and Sensia 100 mostly, at least on ProviaF) some 2 years ago with a Kodak RFS 3600 at a resolution of 3600 ppi (the maximum of the scanner). I can't say I've come across such "pepper grain", the Velvia skies were definitely much smoother than that in your example, Carl.

 

I must check my scans again when I have the time...the resolutin was not up to the level of the FS4000 anyway...

Ummm...try installing it and running it to see if it works? I don't think there should be any problems. Personally I find there is a decent amount of features in GIMP, but I'm much more comfortable with the interface of PS. I've only used GIMP on Linux, but haven't heard anything negative about the Windows version, although GTK+ apps are sometimes a bit "clumsy" on Windows...

I've had some (not much, in fact) of my work outputted on both the d-lab 3 and a Frontier. One important point is to note that while Frontier's seem to use Crystal Archive, d-lab 3's tend to use Agfa Digital Prestige ("tend" is now based on a limited number of samples), which are radically different papers. As you can understand from Scott's answer, the Fuji paper has radically higher saturation (and higher contrast too). I won't go as far as to say this is a disadvantage - it depends much on the work you print and the look you like.

 

Both are operator dependent, my experience with ameteur labs has been mixed. On a Frontier, I got great results from Reala and NPH, except the radioactive greens in Reala, but my 6x6 slides were poorly printed (poorly and poorly, the med.contrast ilfochrome straightprinted would probably have been far worse). The d-lab 3 produced good results from digital files and Agfa Vista, but its software seems more immature than the Frontier's.

Well I've done all traditional Ilfords, all the APX, all the Deltas and a few more and haven't come across really bad curling. I guess curling largely depends on the air, but APX25 always tended to curl length-wise in a very irritating manner.

Cold weather and time is hard on batteries. I haven't used lithium AA's, but they don't store their charge indefinitely. So it depends on how long you've had those batteries in the camera and how much time you keep the camera in the cold and of course how much automation you use, so it's pretty hard to give a hard and fast estimate.

 

I use NiMH rechargeables now and one charge easily lasts long enough (since I have spares and can recharge, battery life is not a problem). I usually run the batteries several weeks to a couple of months, depending on shooting conditions and how much I shoot.

<a href="http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/cameras/dcsPro14n/sampleImages.jhtml?id=0.3.6.32.5.8.3.4&lc=en">Here are some studio samples by Kodak</a>. I must say that the results look rather impressive, 24x30cm should be quite realistic. They provide details of the shots too.