carlos_rodriguez3
-
Posts
2,148 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by carlos_rodriguez3
-
-
<p>Art:</p>
<p>Very interesting points. However, my initial claim doesnt dispute the fact that epson scanners cannt scan beyond 2400-2600 dpi, but that you need to put the scanner software at 4800 dpi in order to get 2400 dpi numbers.</p>
<p>Peter:</p>
<p>Here are the results for the fence picture horizontally. I scanned the slide vertically, so the fence would be horizontal to the front of the scanner. As I commented, the results are much less impressive. The 2400 version just shows a "ghost" fence, but the 4800 dpi version shows some fence. It is very faint, but I see it there.</p>
<p>And I am still intrigued and excited with this discovery</p>
<div>
</div> -
<p>Art:</p>
<p>Very interesting points. However, my initial claim doesnt dispute the fact that epson scanners cannt scan beyond 2400-2600 dpi, but that you need to put the scanner software at 4800 dpi in order to get 2400 dpi numbers.</p>
<p>Peter:</p>
<p>Here are the results for the fence picture horizontally. As I commented, the results are much less impressive. The 2400 version just shows a "ghost" fence, but the 4800 dpi version shows some fence. It is very faint, but I see it there.</p>
<p>And I am still intrigued and excited with this discovery</p>
-
<p>Peter:</p>
<p>I scanned the slide vertically. It seems you were right. At 2400dpi there is almost nothing there. But still at 4800 dpi rhere is some detail and some lines. It is different, but much less defined.</p>
<p>I am at the office and the scanner is here, but I am using a laptop. Once I have acces to my house PC, wchich has a large screen, I will post the examples. This will be done this night</p>
-
<p>To Peter Carter:<br>
I used Epson software, provided by the product. I am using TIFFs.</p>
<p>I will put the slide sideways and test it that way. I let you know what I got</p>
-
<p>I forgot to tell you the slide is a Kodak Elite Chrome 100. Here is the original slide:</p><div></div>
-
<p>I have read tons of threads on scanning. Most of them suggest Epson 4490 and V500 users to scan at 2400 dpi. The fact that those scanners are not dedicated film scanners (have a glass, not perfect focus), limits their true scanning capability to 2400 or less dpi.</p>
<p>But then I got curious. I found an almost perfect slide with a fence that goes to the distance at the limit of my scanner sensitivity. In my original scan at 2400 dpi, the fence (at the end) looks smudgy and undefined. Epson claims the scanner optical dpi is 4800 so I did a small test. And what I found was surprising: the fence looked better, not perfect, but better.<br>
I reduced the picture to 50% and no detail went missing (at least to my eyes). So I concluded that the true dpi of the scanner was 2400 dpi, BUT (big but) you need to use 4800 dpi to obtain it. I am not sure why, but I made several test with different sharpening and curves and found that almost all of them the 4800 dpi version was better. I used a high contrast of the picture in magnify the details.</p>
<p>This contradicts everything I have read on this scanner. I dont know, maybe I am missing something, but this is what I found. I included a comparison version of the same portion of the fence (the critical part). And I also included the complete picture. What do you think about this?</p>
<p>Just think you would be interested</p>
<p>Carlos Rodriguez</p>
<div>
</div> -
<p>I am so sorry to hear that. I suffer from optical neuritis and my vision is blurry. I cant also read books or dirve a car. By all means I am legally blind and have a visual acuity of 20/400 (L) and 20/160 ® eyes.</p>
<p>Yes, you still will be able to frame and use cameras. Manual focusing will be a lttle bit difficult but not impossible. Just bracket your focusing or your small apertures. I use AF 90% of the time. Use moemory and touching to sense to learn the buttons of your camera. Use a HoodYe loop or similar to see the LCD (if digital). You may also need a screen magnyfier to check your picture in the PC. If you are using film cameras, just use 10-20X loupes to see negatives.</p>
<p>Here is an example of my sight:<br>
<p>Here is an article I wrote on Low vision photography</p>
<p>I hope this helps you.</p>
-
<p>Liverpool department stores sell Nikon accesories. Also try that</p>
-
<p>Great interview. I am from Mexico and I feel honored</p>
-
<p>I recntly purchased a Nikon FM#. The kids were all over thold camera. Asking questions about rolls, focus. They want to use them an d they wan to know how to shoot.<br /><br />The message is : Energize this curiosity and questions into a pasion. Let them use them. Let them ask.<br /><br />Film is a laive and there is a lot of interest</p>
-
<p>This post is supposed to be humorous. Dont take it too seriously<br /><br />Let the guilt began.<br /><br />This is my list of rolls of film taken by year. 2004 whats my peak. From then it just went down. Thanks to this kind of groups (I shoot film) I was enthusiastic. I tried to shoot more, but laziness and economics sometimes are in the way. <br /><br />2003 - 300+<br />2004 - 280<br />2005 - 145 (buy first DSLR)<br />2006 - 25<br />2007 - 0<br />2008 - 0<br />2009 - 25<br />2010 - 10<br /><br />But my promise is to shoot as much as I can. I will try to get those numbers up, because I feel guilty. I will shot what I have stored in my fridge (30 rolls) and will buy more. I think I am in my maniatic phase, LOL. I am fascinated by films: structure, smell, viewing them, archiving them, scanning them. <br /><br />Ah, but the honeys of digital, as a seductive mistress, creates a trap of lust and instant gratification<br /><br />So, what year was your peak on number of rolls? And what have you done to the film industry since then?</p>
-
<p>I read in a different thread that Ferrania USA reintroduced Afga 35mm film to the US. I checked Ebay and found several stocks of fresh film. Expiring dates range from 12/2010 to 7/2011. I may be wrong, but this means somebody is manufacturing this film again.This include almost all the range of Afgfa 35mm film, except Scala and ISO 50. Even slides are being reintroduced.</p>
<p><a href="http://reviews.photographyreview.com/blog/agfa-film-re-introduced-in-north-america/2/">Here is the article</a></p>
-
<p>I found this provider (<a href="http://www.digitalpickle.com/index.shtml">Digial Pickle</a>) for scanning sercies using google. And I like their options for scanning 35mm negatives and slides. They include options for resolution, and saving to TIFFs (which NorthCoats labs dont do).</p>
<p>Any reviews? Good or bad?</p>
-
<p>I have around 100,000 digital pictures. Average by year is 20,000. So it would take me 45 years at this rate to reach 1000,000 pictures. I am 40 now, I need to live until I am 85 years old. It is possible, but very unlikely.<br>
Maybe our kids will reach this number if they appply (LOL) and start at age 15</p>
-
<p>Forgot this:<br>
My own scans dont look grainy. The film is regular Kodak Gold 400</p>
-
<p>Normally it would matter, because I just use their scans from Sam's as thumbnails of my negatives, but I am curious.</p>
<p>I uploaded a real size section of the picture. Why the picture looks so grainy. The images is 2400 dpi but the output image is a large 72 dpi picture. Is this the problem? Or maybe the sharpening? The final picture is around 2200x3600 pixels, so it is around 6Mp</p>
<p>The picture looks excesively sharpened but I am not sure. Whats your opinion?. I need something to go and talk to the technician. Whats your experience with the Fuji Lab SP 3000?</p><div>
</div> -
<p>Just to share with you:</p>
<p>I already have thumbnail scans from all my negatives (14,000 pictures). I also have all my prints scanned, including 2000 old pirnts ranging from 1910 to 1990.</p>
<p>And now, I am in the process of scanning all my negatives and slides in high resolution. I calculate they will be around 6000 scans. I am using a Epson 4490 which is not optimal, but it gives me nice resuls. The project will take me between 8 months to 1 and a half years, depending on time availbable and current state of negatives. I can only work on this two or three hours a day, so the process will take time.</p>
<p>I am color correcting some of them, changing exposure and saving to TIFFs. But I try to do this in batches and getting the best scans I can but not extending too much the process geting into particular pictures problems. Some of the negatvies are severaly damaged, but I still have the print scan. In some cases the print scan is in better shape than the negatives. This happened because I didnt care much for negatives before 2000. After 2000 I cleaned and preserved them in archival pages. The quantity of dust is in most cases nanegable. I am not using ICE for any picture. I plan to apply some ICE to just a few extrememly important pictures, since it takes around 5 mintues to complete one picture. I dont apply unsharp mask to any of them. I did some test and sharpening is perfectly controllable in PS</p>
<p>What can I say, the experience is amazing. I have already rediscovered some negatives which I didnt knew I had. By doing this I am recreating my family history of 15 years from 1990 to 2005.There is something magic about having all this negatives in physical form. It is incredible how even kids are fascinated by slides, considering most young adulsts dont know what they are, LOL.</p>
<p>Has anyone done this kind of project before? I mean doing all their negatives in one run? Any recomendations?</p>
<p> </p>
-
<p>Something simpler I just thought:</p>
<p>One thing nobody cannt argue is that Velvia should be consistent from one part of the frame to the next. So if we fragment each color of the picture by 100 segments. Red, Blue, Green and Greyscale from 0 to 100.</p>
<p>In your tests, check the response of Velvia to each segment of the spectrum and you should find similar responses to the same exact segment of the spectrum in all the pictures. But you need to evaluate RGB and Greyscale separately. Use Excel to take note of every value you find and create the curves according to each color.</p>
<p>Use several pictures to test your curves and it may work. Non-linearity is again not a problem because we are not using curves, we are using statistical values. </p>
<p>I hope this helps</p>
-
<p>To the OP:</p>
<p>It is possible to replicate the look of Velvia, but it could be more complex than we think. Some posters on this thread have suggested you to shoot Velvia and a DSLR and compare both pictures. The problem with this approach has been also mentioned. There are too many variables.</p>
<p>Non-linear responses is not really the problem. The problem is the quantity of situations the Velvia could be used for. You may match a particular picture using a particular set of curves fro RGB, but the next picture will not have the same RGB curves. Depending on how you set your experiment, you could see a pattern of response to color. In this particular case (and only in this case) you could interpolate the curves.</p>
<p>But the problem continues, because this is not a problem that you solve by interpolating two points in a scale of color. The problem is a multipoint interpolation problem (sorry, if this doens translate right). In the real world this means interpolation between differnt kinds of pictures (darkness, colors). The precision of your model depends on the quality of your formulas (for curves) your correct interpolation and quantity of points of references. You can use finite and matrix mathamatics to solve this problem easily.</p>
<p>After you have your model, you need to apply to real life examples. And you amy need to perfect it. So we are talking about a serious engineering project.</p>
<p>I have not tested many Velvia emulators before, but what I have seen is just a simple curve RGB to apply to all pictures. And this clearly, will not work correctly. However you may find a righ recipe for an aproximation without using complex mathematics. Is possible, but it will not be precise.</p>
<p>Why emulate Velvia or Kodachorme? Well, one reason, at least for me is that Kodachrome doesnt exist anymore. Even if I purchased some rolls on Ebay it would be expensive to send to the only lab in the US that process it (from Mexico).</p>
<p>Anyway, I would be interested in any Kodachrome or Velvia emulations out there.</p>
<p> </p>
-
<p>This is a real and serious question. Some landscapes I have appear to have tiny stars-like objects. The first one I got was in Tulum, Mexico, photographed with film (slide). It was midday so there was no chance to get a planet in the picture. Later I assumed it was some kind of reflection created by the filter (maybe the soon was at the right angle from the filter glass plane)<br>
But it was a mystery. And now I have two more pictures with star-like objects in plain day. The last one I got (the one I am uploading) was shot in the "Pico de Orizaba" volcan in Mexico. I used a Nikon D40x with a 55-200mm lens at f/11 and 1/2000 seconds at ISO 400. The suns was behind me.<br>
So I ruled out a planet. Does somebody have any experiences with this kind of phenomena?<br>
Is it optics flare, ufo, orb, planet, meteor?</p>
<p> </p><div>
</div> -
<p>1 - You have all the rooms of your house, restaurant you vist, movie theaters, deparment stores metered with the correct EV and you KNOW by memory everything.<br>
2 - You arrive to any new place and inmediatly estimate the EV. And later, when you have a camera, you check it out. If you are correct, it makes you happy. If you are not you recheck all day your mind algorithm and new "If"s<br>
3 - You spend more than 4 hours daily checking photo forums, stores, ebay and anything related to photography in the internet<br>
4- You feel guilty if you dont shoot at least 10,000 photos a month<br>
5 - You have some version of CAS (Camera adquisition syndrome). That means you have purchased more than 20 objects related to photography in the past 8 months. And you DONT tell you wife about it.</p>
-
<p>1 - You have all the rooms of your house, restaurant you vist, movie theaters, deparment stores metered with the correct EV and you KNOW by memory everything.</p>
<p>2 - You arrive to any new place and inmediatly estimate the EV. And later, when you have a camera, you check it out. If you are correct, it makes you happy. If you are not you recheck all day your mind algorithm and new "If"s</p>
<p>3 - You spend more than 4 hours daily checking photo forums, stores, ebay and anything related to photography in the internet</p>
<p>4- You feel guilty if you dont shoot at least 10,000 photos a month</p>
<p>5 - You have some version of CAS (Camera adquisition syndrome). That means you have purchased more than 20 objects related to photography in the past 8 months. And you DONT tell you wife about it.</p>
<p>Any more suggestions?</p>
<p>LOLLLLL</p>
-
<p>Thanks so much for your help.</p>
<p>I must inform you I just found "manual" profiling in Noise Ninja and the results were much better. For some reason auto profiling didnt get it right</p>
-
<p>Here is the complete picture with the best look I got</p><div></div>
Any still use their old Nikon Film Cameras
in Nikon
Posted