wayne_larmon

July 25, 2012

Can I buy/download for free i1Display Pro but software only without sensor?

</blockquote>

The version of the i1DP puck that NEC sells is firmware locked so that it will not work with the X-Rite software. According to Will Hollingworth, Senior Manager, Product Development, NEC Display Solutions of America, Inc.

His exact words: "Note that the NEC SpectraSensor Pro is not supported in the X-Rite software" See <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=55382.msg476865#msg476865">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=55382.msg476865#msg476865</a>

After reading this, I bought a PA241W, the retail version of the i1DP, and bought Spectaview by itself from NEC's web site. So I can use the i1DP with Spectraview with my PA241W, and can use the i1DP with the XRite software on my non-NEC monitors. I live in the US.

May 20, 2012

Sadly a manual hand capture is the last available option for many motion picture films that are too brittle and decayed to be run through a film gate.

</blockquote>

Charles, I was researching macro lenses that work at in the 1:1 magnification range and came back to the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/183199-USA/Canon_2540A002_Macro_Photo_MP_E_65mm.html">Canon Macro Photo MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Manual Focus Lens for EOS</a>. I found this interesting user review:

By cafool 1/18/2012 MP-E 65 f/2.8 used for fragile film cap Using lens on home made copy stand, Manfrotto slide, light box to capture ancient 16mm film frame by frame. Film is too brittle to run through any commercial machine. Canon 5D with this lens set slightly over 2x macra works well. Really tough to get things set up and, because film is warped laterally and linearly and will crack if any attempt made to flatten it, focusing is critical and must be done on each frame. 300 feet of film to go.

So at least one other person is doing what you need to do. I'll bet that the "Manfrotto slide" is a <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/554343-REG/Manfrotto_454_454_Micrometric_Positioning_Sliding.html">Manfrotto 454 Micrometric Positioning Sliding Plate</a>. But I wonder what the "home made copy stand" is? It would have to include some kind of bellows, because the MP-E 65 has no focusing ability: you focus by moving the lens back and forth.

Which wouldn't work with my Xtend-a-slide because it attaches directly to the lens. Instead, we'd need some kind of <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?atclk=Format_DSLR+and+35mm+SLR&ci=3062&N=4277997927+4289366209">macro focus rails/bellows</a>. Hmm.

Still researching....

May 16, 2012

While I am only recently familiar with the author "Ctein" he has thus been remarkably interesting in his many writings. From what I gather he is a master printer who use to specialize in making "Dye Transfers" which is sadly now another lost fine art medium forever lost when discontinued by Kodak. <a href="http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/01/scan-film-with-camera-1.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">(link)</a>

</blockquote>

Hmm, I found the most interesting part to be the user comments below <a href="http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/01/scan-film-with-camera-1.html">Part one of Ctein's blog</a>. Whereas Ctein flatly states that film scanners produce better results than anything that can be done with a DSLR and refuses to provide examples (!), one of the user comments linked to several articles by Peter Krogh that has examples showing better results with DSLR scanning than could be achieved with a good Nikon film scanner. Read the comment <a href="http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/01/scan-film-with-camera-1.html?cid=6a00df351e888f88340162ff2f343b970d#comment-6a00df351e888f88340162ff2f343b970d">posted by: davide | Saturday, 07 January 2012 at 01:45 PM</a>

However, this statement from part two of Ctein's article seemed to make sense. After referring to several lenses, he said

Any of these lenses will work well down to about 1:5 magnification. Below that, things get iffy. 1:1 magnification is really the worst situation to be in; hardly any lenses perform well there unless they've been designed specifically for that magnification.

<a href="http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/01/how-to-scan-film-2.html">How to 'Scan' Film with a Camera—Well (Part 2)</a>

This seems to correlate with what I see with my setup. Even though people talk about problems with shallow depth of field and film flatness, this isn't what I see. On my images, none of the image is significantly sharper than any other part. This correlates more with my "macro" lens not performing well at 1:1 or 1:2 magnification ratios. If I was having DOF or film flatness issues, then I would see parts of the image be sharper than other parts of the image. So pay attention to recommendations about lenses that work well at 1:1 magnification.

The second Peter Keogh article <a href="http://www.dpbestflow.org/camera/camera-scanning#film">has a section displaying lens mounted systems</a> and I see that there are better options than the Xtend-a-slide I use. (But I think that the lens working well at 1:1 is more important.)

There is more useful information in the user comments below both sections of the Ctein articles. Including several interesting comments by people that used to work at companies that did repro work professionally. (One also brought up the 1:1 issue.)

So my lesson of the day is that we have "lies, damned lies, and macro lenses."

May 16, 2012

Thanks for the information on mold removal! I don't have any experience with film processing. What is a "standard dilution of photo flow"? And I have never removed a slide from its cardboard mount. I did get a box of 100 Gepe slide mounts, but never was brave enough to try to cut apart a slide. (I was amused that the Kodak Extachrome target was mounted in the same Gepe plastic mounts, so I guess the mounts are considered suitable.) I do have a bottle of Photographic Solutions Pec-12, but I've never had any luck with it actually removing anything. (Other than emulsion that is incompatible with Pec-12, like B/W Polaroid print emulsion. :-( )

Have you considered renting camera equipment to do a feasibility test? From a company like <a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/">Lensrentals.com</a>? They rent lenses and DSLR bodies.

One interesting lens is the Canon <a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/macro/canon-mp-e-65mm-1-5x-macro">Canon MP-E 65mm 1-5x Macro</a> The most significant aspect is that it can achieve 5x magnification. "1X" magnification equals an object the size of the sensor. A frame of 8mm film is considerably smaller than a DSLR sensor, so you need greater magnification than 1x. If you are using a FF (Full Frame) sensor. My 60D is an APC crop sensor, so 1X magnification is the size of an APC frame.

You'd still need to have a tripod and (probably) a remote shutter release. And some method of holding the film. Daylight balanced CFLs from Home Depot should be good enough for testing. But these <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Full-Spectrum-Light-Bulb-Fluorescent/dp/B0018OS06S/ref=sr_1_1?s=hi&ie=UTF8&qid=1325384972&sr=1-1">Full Spectrum Light Bulb - ALZO 27W Compact Fluorescent - Case of 4 - Daylight Balanced 5500K</a> are probably better for photographic use than Home Depot bulbs. (The white translucent diffusing disk on the Xtend-a-slide sucks up a lot of light. I found that I needed four 100 watt equivalent CFLs to get exposure times a bit shorter than 10 seconds, at ISO 100 and F/8. With the bulbs only a few inches from the end of the Xtend-a-slide. I can live with sub 10 seconds. Anything longer makes me antsy.)

If you go with an Xtend-a-slide, note that it will most likely need a step-down adapter to mate with any particular macro lens. (Check the specs of the lens...) If you are going to try renting, you need to get all this stuff ahead of time so you don't waste rental time chasing down accessories. If you don't go with the Xtend-a-slide and mount the film another way, then you most likely will need macro focusing rails to do accurate focus.

Ah, I previously mentioned "focus peaking". AFAIK, none of the DSLRs have focus peaking. I think that the Sony NEX-7 has it. Focus peaking is typically used by videographer. I think that there are external video monitors that connect to DSLRs are designed for videographers and have focus peaking built in. <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/755854-REG/Sony_CLM_V55_CLM_V55_Portable_Monitor.html">This one</a> mentions "Peaking support - enhances the images along the edges of the screen for precise focusing." I think this would be very helpful for fine tuning manual focus.

Another ah. Consider the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/817846-REG/Sony_NEX_7_B_NEX_7_Digital_Camera_with.html">NEX-7</a> It has 24 megapixels and there are adapters for mounting non-Sony lenses. You really don't need the "R" (reflex), because you will mostly likely be using a DSLR in Live View mode, so why buy a mechanism you don't need? What you need is a large sensor to get decent image quality. The NEX-7's sensor is APC. Going to any kind of FF DSLR means a considerable jump in cost. The NEX-7 has focus peaking built in.

May 15, 2012

These samples weren't too much trouble--I did the shooting last fall. This time around, all I had to was find the RAW file and reprocess it, so I could document the processing I did in Photoshop.

Looking back at the sample image, it doesn't look (from the 100% crop) that I am getting all the detail that is in the slide. The grain looks a bit mushier than it should. This is why I'd like for somebody that has a good film scanner to shoot the same Kodak target and display a 100% crop. I still get more than enough resolution for our needs, but because you will be shooting much smaller film stock, your needs are more critical.

I use a decent lens (Canon 60mm macro lens), the camera is mounted on a solid tripod and I use remote shutter release. The Xtend-a-slide is solid--most of it is machined out of aluminum and there is a steel plate on the end that the slide/film mount adheres to. (The film mount is made from a thick circle of mostly opaque Plexiglass material with rubber magnets glued on, that stick to the steel plate. Look at <a href="http://www.photosolve.com/main/product/xtendaslide/index.html">the web page</a>.

If you wanted to use an Xtend-a-slide, the owner of PhotoSolve would probably sell you a few disks and the rubber magnet material so you could make your own mount to match your film stock. He is reasonable--I've emailed him a few time with questions.

I use my 60D in live view mode. Most of the time I use auto-focus. But for this test of the Kodak Ektachrome target, I did a few shots with manual focus. The one I showed was the best of the lot. Focus is critical for this. One thing that would help is if the camera had focus peaking. (which accentuates the areas of contrast to so you can identify when it is exactly in focus.) The 60D doesn't have focus peaking, so manual focusing is still a bit imprecise, even when the LCD is in 10% magnification mode.

There are also better lenses. My Canon 60D macro lens was about $450. There is a Zeiss 50mm (I think) macro lens that is about $1,200. This might yield a sharper image.

I would be interested in any information you have on mold/fungus mitigation. I'm part way through digitizing my family's photo archives and I have a ways to go.

May 12, 2012

Apparently I can only attach a single image to a post. So here is the 2nd image sample

[Edit. Here is the target I shot:

<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/172321-REG/Kodak_8752222_Q_60E3_Target_35mm_Ektachrome.html">Kodak #Q-60E3 Color Calibration Target- 35mm Ektachrome Film (IT-8)</a> So anybody can duplicate this test by buying their own copy of the Q-60E3 target.]<div></div>

May 12, 2012

Would it be too much to ask you to post a sample?

</blockquote>

OK, I'll try. This is my first time uploading image samples to Photo.net.

If all goes well, there are two samples from the same image. I shot an "IT8.7/1-1993 2009:11 Q-60E3 Target for Kodak Ektachrome." I used my 60D and shot RAW. I converted it with ACR in CS5. The only adjustment was to lower exposure about -0.25 to eliminate blown highlights in a few of the solid colors. I shot emulsion side in, so I needed to flip it horizontally. There are a few dust spots--I didn't remove them. (I redid the RAW conversion just now to verify the PP steps.)

One image is the entire frame, resized to 1920x1280 using Bicubic Sharper. The second image is a 100% crop from the same image. i.e., I cropped a section out and didn't resize at all. The original RAW file is 5184 x 3456.<div></div>

May 12, 2012

Sadly a manual hand capture is the last available option for many motion picture films that are too brittle and decayed to be run through a film gate. To date the biggest frustration has been with the limitations with scanning devices and discouraging support for using a digital camera.

</blockquote>

Have you looked at the <a href="http://www.moviestuff.tv/moviestuff_home.html">telecine equipment from MovieStuff</a>? They have machines that are designed to work frame-by-frame. They say this about one of their machines:

The sprocketless drive protects your customers' films from the potential damage typically found on other sprocket driven projectors and transfer devices. <a href="http://www.moviestuff.tv/wp_xp.html">http://www.moviestuff.tv/wp_xp.html</a>

I still haven't dug up samples. My wife's garage sale was arduous and I'm still recovering.

May 12, 2012

I can, but not until tomorrow. It is about midnight here and I need to get up early tomorrow.

Thus far, I have only digitized 35mm slides. I'm real familiar with decay because the slides were stored in cardboard boxes, directly on a concrete floor in a basement, for about 40 years. There was a lot of fungus, mold, and random non-linear fading. I got a lot of mileage out Photoshop's clone and healing tools. And, most recently, content-aware fill. Photoshop's auto-color correction is sometimes surprisingly effective with weird color fades.

You mentioned 8mm and 16mm. Are these movies? Digitizing movies would be very tedious using this method. (But I don't know of any affordable alternative.) Also, the Extend-a-slide is designed for 35mm. Various 35mm slide mounts and 35mm film stock. But they are hand made and it is possible that the owner owner of Photosolve would custom make mounts for 8mm and 16mm--you'd have to write and ask.

I agree that a flatbed is sub-optimal for scanning small format film. The best flatbed scanners (Epson V700) are considered marginally adequate for 35mm. I wouldn't expect much with 8mm and 16mm. A DSLR and macro lens is more promising.

I noticed an old reel of 8mm movie film in the next room. I have a 35mm film mount for my Xtend-a-slide. I think that it would work well enough to do a feasibility test with the 8mm film. I'll try to set it up and see how it works. (My wife is having a garage sale tomorrow and I promised I'd help, so I might not be able to do this until Sunday.)

May 11, 2012

I'm happy with the results I get with my Canon 60D, a <a href="http://www.photosolve.com/main/product/xtendaslide/index.html">Photosolve Xtend-a-Slide</a>, and a Canon 60mm macro lens. All my stuff is family snapshots (that were stored poorly for 50 years), so I don't need SOTA reproduction--an 18 megapixel 60D is overkill.

I mount my 60D on a tripod and use remote shutter release. I use four daylight balanced compact fluorescent lamps as illumination (and a piece of black foamcore board between me and the lights, so they don't shine in my eyes. I cut a hole in the foamcore that the end of the Xtend-a-slide sticks through.) With the 60mm macro lens, I get 1:1 duplication. Some of my slides are APC format and they fill the frame on my 60D. The Xtend-a-Slide has no optics--there is nothing between the slide (or negative) and the lens.

Is this the kind of setup you are talking about?

September 27, 2011

I recently had a hard drive crash that is making me consider a new way of storing my photos. I lost 1 years worth of photos that I had stored on a usb external 1tb drive, from july of 2010 to last week. whats disappointing is that was the time I've done my most traveling and had taken many photos.

</blockquote>

First, are you sure that your drive is really dead? Did you take the drive out of the USB enclosure and try to mount it somewhere else? (Like in a USB dock or in another USB enclosure?) Beyond that, there are other techniques that people use to rescue data from malfunctioning drives.

I'm not an expert in doing these advanced techniques, so I'm not going to say anything more. Google....

I just didn't want you to give up on the drive too early. If there is a chance to rescue the images.

Example. Several weeks ago the drive in my sister's computer went bad to the point that Windows wouldn't boot. And it sometimes couldn't get through the BIOS. I removed the drive and tested it with a drive testing program. The program would run for about five seconds before declaring the drive bad.

OK, the drive was bad so we bought a new one and I restored it to factory fresh with recovery disks. But I put the old drive in my USB doc and looked around and found that the part of the drive that holds her Thunderbird email was still OK, so I was able to copy that off and restore it onto the new drive.

The point being that if she had just said "the drive was bad" (which it was) and left it at that, her email would have been lost. Sometimes "dead" isn't really dead.

August 11, 2011

You wont be able to install it on 4 platform (and run them all .. 2 will be use as demo only) and only open 2 let say.. due to the way Adobe now communicate via internet to make sure you copy is legal, and to authenticate the serial use.. 2 copy only can be serialize with 1 serial number.

</blockquote>

I thought that the way it worked was that you can install as many copies as you want with a single serial number/license, but only two can be activated at any one time. i.e., if you already have it installed and activated on two machines, open it on one of the machines and do "Help/Deactivate" The program will communicate with Adobe's activation server so the activation server will know that you only have a single copy activated. You can then install and activate on a third machine. If you want to later use it on the 2nd machine, you need to deactivate one of the other copies first. (Whenever you start a de-activated copy, you need to activate before the program will run.)

Also, if you back up your C: drive (for Windows) with some kind of disk clone program so that you can restore to another drive if your system drives dies, it is a real good idea to deactivate any activated programs before doing the clone copy. If you don't and your C: drive dies and you restore onto a replacement drive, Adobe's activation server will still be counting the copy that was on the dead drive so you won't be able to activate it (assuming that you have two copies installed and activated.) I followed this procedure a bunch of times, because I keep outgrowing my C: drive and need to clone it to a new, larger one every year, or so. I always deactivate all Adobe programs before cloning.

Wayne

July 19, 2011

Andrew, I think we have exhausted this argument. I feel that "raw" denotes an image file that is as close to being unprocessed as possible and that there is no intrinsic reason to require that a raw file must be generated by a digicam sensor, so that it is possible to have raw files that consist of scanner sensor data.

You feel otherwise. It is apparent that neither of us are going to change each other's minds. So....is it time to declare that this horse is dead?

July 18, 2011

Actually scanning yes indeed. Pre-scanning nope, not at all. Its a low rez (screen) version much like we use in our real, raw processors. IF this product is taking this long for a prescan, something is very wrong!

</blockquote>

Because for fine work you need to make a few cycles of "full res scan" "examine the full res scan at 100%" "Change scanning settings", "full res scan", etc. Just like we do when processing digicam raw files. By saying "preview, scan, and you are done" you are describing a low-fi workflow that isn't comparable to how most of us (on these forums) work.

See the link above and consider what raw data implies (yes, implies) in a day when scanning is a very old and dying process.

</blockquote>

The link to <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml">Understanding RAW Files</a>? This is circular logic because the article defines a raw file as coming from a camera. With all due respect to Michael Reichmann. I'm not going to accept a web article from him as the final word. But if your position is that a raw file can only come from a digicam because MR says so, then I guess we can't go any farther. (But other than defining a raw file as coming from a digicam, what he describes is the same as a Vuescan raw workflow.)

Actually, I've moved beyond scanning myself, because I find that I get better results shooting slides with my 60D + 60mm macro lens + PhotoSolve Extend-a-Slide. For several reasons, but primarily because my 60D gives me an honest 11 1/2 bits (according to DxOMark), and affordable scanners <a href="http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20V700/page_7.htm">only give 8</a>. My family's faded, underexposed, hue-shifted slides need heroic measures in Curves and I need all the bits I can get.

But there are still many people that are using Vuescan and scanners to digitize their analog collections. A Vuescan (or Silverfast, which offers much the same thing) raw workflow has the same advantages that we get with digicam raw workflows. Why argue against it?

July 18, 2011

That’s what every bloody scanner drive does anyway. You make a prescan. You adjust if necessary to produce an appearance you desire and make the big scan and you’re done (scanning). What’s the purpose in altering a process that’s been done in just about every one of the dozen’s of scanners I’ve operated over the decades and coming up with this silly raw notion?

</blockquote>

Because prescanning and scanning can take a long time with high resolution scanners. Upwards of over an hour per image for high res medium format. And four or five minutes with 35mm. Some people find it attractive to only have to scan once in these circumstances.

People also like to be able to redo renditions. It is valuable to have the data from the sensor's CCD available so that you can re-render without needing to rescan. Which might be impossible if you don't have access to the original.

Well, and for the all the reasons why people use raw files from cameras.

Its neater raw,

</blockquote>

I still don't understand your definition of "raw" and why a data file that contains scanner data can't be called "raw." Can you describe any circumstance where scanner data could be called 'raw'? Or does your definition of "raw" include "has to come from a camera sensor"?

nor unprocessed, that’s why.

</blockquote>

If it is right from the scanner's CCD then how is it processed?

July 18, 2011

"They" is Ed Hamrick, the sole author and maintainer of Vuescan. Again, the intent is to capture data from the scanner's sensors in as pure as state as possible so that processing can be deferred. This is the essential meaning of declaring an image file to be "raw." Can you define a method of capturing scanner data that is purer than the way than Vuescan does it?

The original purpose of Vuescan raw files were for re-processing with Vuescan. So that you could experiment with different settings in Vuescan without needing to repeat time consuming scans. After some users requested a way of packaging the scan data so that ACR can read the data, Ed added DNG as an alternate way of saving raw files.

Defining "raw" to mean "straight from the sensor, as unprocessed as possible" doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Raw files produced by cameras with Foveon sensors don't require demosaicing. Some Nikon raw files use lossy compression. In any event, PhotoShop had a file format that it called "raw" long before digital cameras produced raw files. Fire up a copy of PS 7, or earlier, and look at the options under "File/Save."

July 18, 2011

Does "reading the raw CCD data" and "the raw data is written to a TIFF file" mean "uncorrected"? Or not? Or are we still going with "The idea that some setting in ViewScan is raw just seems ridiculous to me."?

July 15, 2011

I think the reason why Vuescan calls them raw files is because they are as unprocessed as possible. So that as much processing as possible can be deferred. What is confusing about that?

June 29, 2011

If you have any questions go to the "Contact Us" page that is linked from the site's home page. Phil Williams, the co-owner of the company, was very responsive in answering my questions.

Yes, my 60mm f/2.8 lens will focus down so I get a full frame image (and almost a full frame image on APS slides.) You are correct that the less optics, the better. PhotoSolve sells additional tube elements so that you can add to the XTend-a-Slide if you need more reach. When I was first exchanging emails with Phil I hadn't bought my 60mm lens yet. He was trying to steer me into getting the Canon 100mm lens because the 100mm lens's longer reach is handier when shooting bugs and flowers type subjects. The 100mm macro lens requires several additional PhotoSolve tube extenders. (I went with the 60mm lens because I don't shoot bugs and flowers--I bought the 60mm lens to shoot slides.)

The Xtend-a-Slide is made of metal and is very well built.

June 29, 2011

Try the <a href="http://www.photosolve.com/main/product/xtendaslide/index.html">Xtend-a-Slide</a> from PhotoSolve. It is a much better "slide duplicator" than those cheap things that are on eBay. The Xtend-a-Slide is designed to attach to a macro lens--it has no optics.

It is made from metal, not plastic. It is a bit fiddly to get everything set up, but once you have it set up, using it is very easy.

I'm using it with a Canon 60D and a Canon 60mm f/2.8 macro lens. The Canon 60mm macro lens works well with the basic Xtend-a-Slide. All I needed was a step-down ring from 52mm to 49mm.

I used to use an Epson V600 and Vuescan. The images that I get with the Xtend-a-Slide are a lot better than what I used to get with my V600.

Note that if you have a macro lens, all you need to do to see how well this works is a tripod and something white and translucent and a daylight balanced light source. I already had a Logan slide sorter (with a daylight balanced CFL inside) and that worked well enough for a validity test. But something like the Xtend-a-Slide is needed if you want to scan for real--it is practically impossible to align a camera so it is exactly aligned with the slide if you are using a tripod.

Try it. You have nothing to lose but your scanner.

June 3, 2011

View the sharpening only at a 100% zoom view...

Why can't Adobe use decent interpolation when displaying images at anything other than 100%? Bogus image display at anything except for 100% (or maybe 50% and 25%) is a real headache. Viewing at 100% on a 100 PPI screen doesn't show how a 300 PPI print will look.

It is an extreme bummer that Adobe's flagship image editing program isn't WYSIWIG.

August 14, 2010

PSU >> CORSAIR CMPSU-750TX 750W ATX12V / EPS12V SLI Ready CrossFire Ready 80 PLUS Certified Active PFC Compatible with Core i7 Power Supply

If the power supply has Active PFC (Power Factor Correction), you might need to get a UPS that has a true sine wave output. Most of the cheaper APC UPSs have what APC calls "Stepped approximation to a sinewave" output when running on batteries. This really means that the output looks like a square wave. A lot of power supplies with PFC won't run on this kind of wave form. Check the APC user forums--this has been discussed a lot.

Most of the APC "SmartUPS" series output a true sine wave when on battery power. Note that I said "most of." They have some "entry level" SmartUPSs that output a "Stepped approximation to a sinewave". Read the specs carefully before you buy.

Wayne

July 24, 2010

You'd need ImageMagick, GhostScript, EXIFTool, and a scripting language like ActiveState Perl. All of these are free, but it would be a long detour for a non-programmer. I've been picking away at a similar project for several months.

FWIW, assuming that you are writing in Perl, the general idea is that you'd define a blank canvas in ImageMagick. Then use EXIFTool to get all the metadata from the images. Then load the images in (Perl's) memory. Calculate the sizes of the pieces so they will fit on the canvas where you want. ImageMagick uses GhostScript (open source PostScript emulation) to do rudimentary text generation. You can define a font and font size and fake generate text and ImageMagick will tell you how large it is. Once you know this, you can use ImageMagick to resize the images and place them on the canvas. Ditto with the snippets of metadata that you extracted with EXIFTool. After filling the canvas, then you'd tell ImageMagick to write it out as a single image (as TIFF, JPEG, or GIF.) Repeat as needed for the rest of your images.

It isn't difficult, but it is tedious to learn how to do the tasks that you need to do. The trickiest part for me is doing the junior level high school arithmetic to calculate how much space the different pieces use and calculate where to put them.

If you want to throw some time at it, you can get all the learning resources you need by subscribing to O'Reilly's Safari e-book service. This gives you all the Perl books that you'd need. (You can learn ImageMagick and EXIFTool from the documentation on their sites.)

Cost: all the software is free. O'Reilly Safari is about $40/month. And is well worth it.

A no-programming alternative is BreezeSys Breeze Browser Pro. It has template driven HTML generation. There are template variables for most of the important EXIF fields, so you can generate HTML pages using images and whatever EXIF data you want. They give you a bunch of sample template HTML code. Pick the one that is closest to what you want, make a copy, and then modify the copy. You can probably get up to speed with this in an evening. (The Perl/ImageMagick approach would take a bit longer.)

March 19, 2007

There is no problem at all. The NEF is 12 bit compressed (looseless) file, while the TIFF is a 16 bit uncompressed file (there are 2^16 levels for each channel).

Slight correction. The NEF is 12 bits compressed (12 bits x 1 monochrome channel for each photosite.) The TIFF is 48 bits (16 bits x each of RG and B for each pixel) uncompressed.

Wayne

October 9, 2006

<ul>Holy cow! There's a big difference in price between the 430ex at $240 and the 580ex at $800!</ul>

You must be looking at some kind of package. At B&H, the <a href=http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=348457&is=USA&addedTroughType=search">580EX is $379.95</a>.

The difference between it and the 430Ex is that the 580EX can be a controller and can fire slave flashes remotely. The 430EX can't control slave flashes. If you aren't going to use more than one flash, then you don't need this capability. The 580EX also puts out a bit more power. The 580EX is also larger and heavier than the 430EX.

You can start out with the 430EX. Later, if you decide that you want to use more than one flash, you can get a 580EX and use the 430EX as the slave. If you get a single 580EX, the main thing you gain is a bit more flash power.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by wayne_larmon