frank_bilki

Lex,

I also encountered the same problem with my LS5000 out of the box, and am yet to receive a meaningful explanation, solution, or workaround. Nikon were particularly useless -- despite repeated emails I never heard from them.

I'm also based in Perth, although I'm working in the U.S. on an extended project at the moment. I'll be back home at the end of this month and would be happy to compare notes.

My original post is at:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0082dN

The one thing the guys at the store where I bought the scanner were able to suggest is to do the scan-time level manipulation (in NS4) using the LCH editor rather than the standard RGB sliders (refer to my post for full details).

Back when I made my original post I'd begun to wonder if quality control might somehow be responsible, so maybe there's some basis to your "Friday afternoon build" theory.

Sorry I can't be more helpful, other than to assure you you're not alone!

A minor addition to BG's solution is to analyze your panorama using one of the commonly available stitching programs (such as PanaVue) so that lens distortion, light fall-off, and camera leveling errors are removed.

However, instead of stitching the pano with those products, which can lead to ghosting at the interface between images no matter how hard you try, try "stitching" each image on its own. You'll end up with a series of individual images with lens distortion and light fall-off removed, which you can then use as the source images in BG's workflow. This makes the mask-painting much more reliable and ultimately leads to a better pano.

In desperation I used this technique to stitch 3 images shot with a 20mm lens (usually considered to be a very poor choice of lens), with a handheld camera, pointing downwards at probably 20 degrees, and achieved a quite acceptable result without taking hours of work.<div></div>

Hi David,

For what it's worth, the angular separation between the sun and moon last friday was only about 11?, which is about the same distance as the width of your clenched fist held at arm's length. That makes them pretty close together; at that separation you'd need to have exceptionally clear weather, and you'd have to know *exactly* where to locate the moon relative to the sun. (When the moon is this close to new, it's basically back-lit, so it won't be much brighter than the sky itself).

Some time back I recall seeing a bit of an informal competition amongst astro-photographers to see who could photograph the 'newest' moon. A one-day old moon like the one you attempted would be a fine effort.

Frank

David,

Try this website:

http://www.ga.gov.au/nmd/geodesy/astro/

It's Australian, but there is a link you can follow to get (or you can manually enter) the details of any other worldwide location if you want.

To get the moonrise/moonset, follow the "Compute your own Moonrise/Moonset times" link, then to determine the Azimuth at this time, follow the "Compute your own Sun and Moon Azimuth & Elevation" link.

Another way is to download an astronomy program such as SkyMap Pro (http://www.skymap.com), which, amongst many other things, will allow you to calculate rise/set and azimuth/altitude parameters at any time and for any location you need.

Don't forget that topographic maps are "projected", which means real world shapes have been distorted to convert them from a spheroidal earth to a flat map (think what happens to a mostly intact orange peel if you try to flatten it.) In reality the distortion of shape is imperceptible, but the process will cause a slight deviation between "true" north, which is what astronomical programs work with, and "grid" north, which is what your map grid is oriented towards. You'll need to apply this correction, called the Grid Convergence, to accurately position the rising/setting moon relative to foreground objects. This information will be printed on the marginalia of your map.

Grid Convergence may be several degrees, and given that the full moon only appears around half a degree in diameter, forgetting the correction can easily throw off your position. Of course, if you're only interested in a rough indication of where the moon will be, you can omit this calculation altogether :-).

Hope this helps.

Frank

Marc,

You are affected by CCD leakage. There have been a couple of threads posted on this forum over the last couple of months that relate specifically to your problem. For example, try looking up:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0082dN

There was another more recent post, but I can't find the link.... Plus if you search the WWW for 'CCD leakage' you'll turn up some other information.

The store where I purchased my 5000 (which I've now had for a few months) has given me a workaround that partly reduces the effect. Simply use the 'LCH Editor' in Nikon Scan 4 to adjust your black and white points (only on the Lightness channel) instead of using the traditional RGB curves. As you do this, the RGB histogram display will automatically update anyway, so you can still see the effect of your changes in the 'usual' place.

Whilst this workaround doesn't completely eliminate the leakage, it does significantly reduce it. If you're shooting film with the specific intention to scan it, you can further minimise the effect by keeping your trannies half a stop or so lighter than you would normally do (just don't blow out the highlights). Obviously you won't have this luxury if you're working through an archive of existing images. I bracketed many of the existing images that I'm now scanning and have learnt that whilst I would print or project a darker version, a lighter version (subject to preserved highlights) actually scans better.

I'm curious to know from other users whether this problem is more prevalent on the 5000, or whether it also affects the Coolscan V.

Regards,

Frank

Conclusion to this saga:

Just spoken with my local camera store. They've tested my scanner with another 5000 'out of the box' and an older 4000. Turns out they were able to get perfectly useable scans with my own scanner by manipulating the histogram endpoints in a different way than what I've been doing (using the LCH curves rather than the RGB curves). Certainly nothing as flare affected as what I've been getting. The results from my scanner exactly match those from the second (new) 5000, and in both cases they were much better than those from the 4000.

It seems that the problem has been due to operator error. I am, of course, yet to reproduce their 'new' results myself, but they are willing to send the unit to be tested under warranty if I remain unconvinced.

So much for CCD leakage and internal reflection. I don't know whether to feel relieved or not. Think I'll try vuescan though.

Thanks all for your feedback and suggestions.

Frank

Hi Graeme,

I was beginning to get an inkling that the mirrors might somehow be involved, but I'd have thought the nimble-fingered engineers at Nikon would have considered the need to scan dark trannies when they designed the scanner! It seems a bit too simple, don't you think, to say that my poor old (new!) scanner can't cope with a dark trannie?

It's interesting that the posts in this thread have ranged from "nup, never seen it" to "get it all the time". I wonder if it's a quality control issue?

I like your idea of dropping the light intensity, and will keep it in mind if I get no satisfaction from PD. (It's easy with NSCAN4 -- just drop the analogue gain. Does Vuescan have a similar option?)But, given the number of trannies in my collection that would potentially be affected by this (lots of twilight urban shots and astrophotos, both of which are dominantly dark with lots of bright highlights!)I'd rather have a scanner that can cope in the first place.

Cheers,

Frank

Hi Graeme,

An interesting theory, but if I understand correctly, the CCD chip scans the entire short axis of the trannie in each step as it travels along the long axis. If your idea is correct, I'd expect the flare to extend *sideways* along an un-rotated landscape format scan. However, I see *vertical* flare, which to me says that the flare/leakage is extending to adjacent pixels in the CCD during any given step in its travel. (When I rotated the trannies the flare appeared horizontal but it was still vertically oriented within the scanning aperture.) Also, if the CCD were remembering charge from a previous step, I'd expect the smear of light to fade away more or less continuously, but I'm quite surprised to see it 'echo' away.

I dropped the scanner off at PD today but will have to wait until at least Monday for them to assess it. Here's hoping they accept that it's faulty, otherwise I could be inventing creative ways to manage that amount of flare!

Cheers, Frank

Some test results with my scanner:

Single / 4 / 16 pass -- no effect

Digital ICE on / off -- no effect

8 / 16 bit output -- no effect

Rotating the trannie -- flare orientation changed relative to the image in both of the test images.

Obviously a problem with the scanner. Interestingly, after viewing the rotated trannies, the flare appears to be more of an 'echo' of the highlight than just a smear of light. Hmmm.

Charles, Carl,

You're right, the scanner is brand new -- it's been out of the packing for all of three weeks.

I've been scanning from uncut strips (why mount trannies that will never be projected?), but I'm going to mount my two worst offenders. (An extract from the second one -- shot during the day -- is presented here with no curve manipulation at all. If you lift the curve you'll see the flare become even worse.) At least by mounting them I'll be able to rotate the image and see what effect that has on the scan, although I don't see what would cause the same flare on a tripod mounted night shot and a day shot in bright sunlight with a different lens.

My camera store is willing to take back the scanner and test it with one of their 5000's, which is another reason to mount the offending trannies. I had hoped for a more direct response along the lines of, "yes, we can see that it's faulty and will replace it immediately", but at least I'm getting somewhere.

I hadn't wanted to jam up the forum with progressive updates, which is why I've gone a little quiet, but I'll be sure to let you know how I get on.

Thanks for your suggestions.

Frank

Thanks, Johann.

I also sent the sample image to my local camera store, who have suggested that I suffer from camera shake! At least they've agreed to test the scanner side-by-side with the LS 5000 they use for their own production work, so hopefully the problem will reveal itself as being unique to my particular unit. I'll post a summary once I've been through the process.

Johann,

What do you do to manage it? Are you merely marking time until you get a response from Nikon? (I've also emailed Nikon and am yet to receive a reply.) Or, have you figured out a way to get around it?

The local camera store where I purchased the unit has suggested that a multi-pass scan may reduce the effect. I'm yet to try this, but it kinda makes sense that if the leakage is in any way random, a multi-pass scan may be useful. Of course, if it isn't random then no number of passes will work. (The offending scans were only single pass.) Beyond that, no-one seems to have discussed this issue past the point of, "such-and-such scanner is/isn't affected by ccd leakage."

Frank

I've recently purchased a new Nikon LS 5000 scanner and have been

disappointed to discover some fairly prominent artefacts caused by

CCD leakage. Some of my scans, particulary those from Velvia

transparencies containing highlights adjacent to dark areas, show

noticeable vertical bloom (when the image is viewed in its un-

rotated orientation). I've read several posts on this and other web

sites that suggest this is a limitation of desktop CCD-based

scanners that we as users will just have to live with. What I'd like

to know, then, is:

1. Just how much bloom/leakage is acceptable? Is there a threshold

value above which we should consider a particular scanner to be

defective?

For example, the attached file shows the first image where I noticed

the effect. Admittedly, the original trannie was underexposed and

I've contrast stretched this thumbnail to within an inch of its

life, but I've since seen the effect on normal daylight photographs

with absolutely no curves adjustments at all (just don't have one on

me at the moment).

2. Given that it's an inherent hardware limitation, does anyone have

any particular workflow suggestions for minimising its effects on an

image? Burning in with the brush about the same size as the

highlight seems like a solution, but my experiments suggest it would

be suitable for only the simplest 'point' highlights, and would be

difficult to use for anything more complex.

What are your thoughts?

Frank<div></div>