Jump to content

ethervizion

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    152

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by ethervizion

    Windows XP & Monitor Profiles

    in The Digital Darkroom: Process, Technique & Printing

    Posted

    Windows does absolutely nothing with the default profile on it's own. It's simply used as a tag for ICC aware applications.

     

    Using Adobe Gamma gives you LUT based calibration (and of course, your profile must then reflect that calibration, which is why it generates a new one for you). Outside of ICC aware applications, all you'd get is the calibration provided by Adobe Gamma (no adjustment based on the profile). Without Adobe Gamma Loader, you then get NO adjustment outside of ICC aware applications.

     

    The moral of the story: calibration applies all the time; for LUT based calibration, you need something like Adobe Gamma Loader to apply it when you start your system; profiles in the Windows display settings does nothing except inform ICC aware applications which display profile to use.

    Do you use JPEG 2000?

    in The Digital Darkroom: Process, Technique & Printing

    Posted

    Royalty fees are not the issue. Part I of the JPEG2000 standard (most people would not need any of the features beyond Part I) does not have any royalties associated with the technology. A lot of software supports JPEG2000. The problem? In my opinion, a lack of native support in popular web browsers. If only Internet Explorer were to support it (natively, without having to download a plugin), we would see an explosion of people using it over JPEG.

    have Kodak Q60 target - now what?

    in The Digital Darkroom: Process, Technique & Printing

    Posted

    <p>Tom, EZcolor will probably serve your needs, but might also be a waste of money. Monaco Optix<sup>XR</sup> is a good and highly recomended product for Monitor calibration and profiling, but EZcolor has mixed reviews. It allows profiling of both scanners and printers; since scanner profiling is relatively simple, I'm assuming that aspect works fine (I don't have personal experience with this product), but the printer profiling (based on scanning prints) is going to be rather limited.</p>

     

    <p>According to B&H, the difference between the Monaco Optix<sup>XR</sup> with and without EZcolor is $129. The link I provided in my previous message is a tutorial for using the FREE <a href="http://www.littlecms.com/iphoto/" target="_blank"><b>IPhotoMinusICC</b></a>. I've used this and have been happy with the results. Another alternative, between free and $129, is the Profile Mechanic (Scanner) software by <a href="http://www.dl-c.com/" target="_blank"><b>Digital Light & Color</b></a>. I don't have any personal experience with this product either, but their Picture Window Pro software is highly regarded. You save some money since you already have a target (sold separately from Profile Mechanic); I believe EZcolor includes some targets.</p>

    Partition Magic ?

    in The Digital Darkroom: Process, Technique & Printing

    Posted

    This thread seems to be going off on a tangent here. John, from what you've described, partitioning your drive will not help you (though, there are many good reasons to partition your drive).

     

    We need more information on your problem. What software are you using to scan? Is it standalone or a TWAIN driver used with other software such as Photoshop? What kind of error messages are you getting? A more thorough description of your problem would really help. If it really is a shortage of memory, then the things that might help are: more memory; increased swap file size; unload programs from memory. However, since you haven't provided much information, there is no way to tell if memory is really the issue.

    Reflective fringing when using strip holder with Elite 5400?

    in The Digital Darkroom: Process, Technique & Printing

    Posted

    Okay, I've checked some scans and I'm getting about the same as you along the long edge and I find that in the worst case it's about 40 pixels in height (acceptable to me). I cannot seem to find an example in any of my scans of the more extended effect your seeing on the narrow edge.

     

    Could it be that the "slot" in the holder matters? Are these scans with the effect on the narrow edge either the first or last slot in the film holder? Also, are you using the grain dissolver? I wonder if the diffused light source might mitigate the effect.

     

    Short of finding any consistency to the effect, your idea of painting the edge with a matte finish seems reasonable. I would just make sure that the paint strongly adheres to the plastic and does not start to chip off inside the scanner!

    Reflective fringing when using strip holder with Elite 5400?

    in The Digital Darkroom: Process, Technique & Printing

    Posted

    Well, now that you point it out, I do kind of get that effect from my scans. However, I can't tell how "big" it is in your crops. With my scans, I can hardly say that it "encroaches quite a way into the scan," but I guess that is a matter of opinion. I do get enough of the frame to satisfy me -- much more than from a mounted slide or a typical borderless print.

     

    I'll see if I can post an example which shows the magnitude of the "encroachment" on my scans.

    Scanning a print VS. Interpolation?

    in The Digital Darkroom: Process, Technique & Printing

    Posted

    Me thinks you should stop talking to these people. You can only lose information every time you perform an output and/or acquisition procedure. You are correct. The only way printing and scanning could be better is if you use a bad interpolation method.

     

    By printing and scanning, you are effectivly using the printer's interpolation method (if any) and the physical properties of the print medium to interpolate. The only logic I can see behind this is that this could provide more "visually pleasing" interpolation. But, again, that just means you should be using a better interpolation method in Photoshop. I would recommend using Qimage for print interpolation.

    Need help quick before the wife changes her mind!

    in The Digital Darkroom: Process, Technique & Printing

    Posted

    I'm sorry, but there's no such thing as software-only ICE. Real ICE requires hardware that scans an infrared channel to make a map of dust, scratches, etc., and then uses software to intelligently remove it (i.e., it is a hardware+software solution). Software-only dust and scratch removal (which is NOT ICE) can only guess what are dust and scratches rather than image detail.

     

    The ability of VueScan to record the infrared channel and apply the dust and scratch removal at a later date should not be confused with a software-only solution. This still requires a scanner that supports ICE to actually record the infrared channel.

    Buying Photoshop CS

    in Mirrorless Digital Cameras

    Posted

    Of course it's not legit. How could any retailer legitimately afford to sell software so cheap?

     

    If you look at the service agreement on their FAQ page, you will see:

     

    ------

     

    9. Terms of Software Use

     

    9.1 You understand that in order for Net Trade to make you a copy of any software, you acknowledge that you are the legal owner of this same software, and are looking to just make a new copy for archival (backup) purposes only. You also agree to destroy all copies of the software in the event it is ever no longer voluntarily in your possession. You understand that only the licensed owner (with a valid serial number, where applicable) of the various software found on Net Trade may use the services located here. You also acknowledge that the software you have was obtained legally and that you have the legal right to request this backup copy to be made. If you obtained your version though any other means, including any pirated versions, or if you do not already legally own the same version of the software requested, then you may not use this service. Furthermore, you agree to hold Net Trade harmless for any damages that may occur for your failure to follow the U.S. Copyright and other laws as they pertain to the backup you are requesting. When you purchase any backup copy of software through Net Trade, you agree to assume full liability in the event your actions are deemed illegal. Net Trade does not condone software piracy and has every intention of complying with the laws pertaining to the duplication of software.

     

    ------

     

    They are not selling you new software. They are providing a "backup" service under the assumption that you already own the software. An old trick...

    Eizo LCD monitors in Vertical viewing mode

    in The Digital Darkroom: Process, Technique & Printing

    Posted

    <p>Ah, I should have said that an LCD itself is not rotationally invariant. Combined with a polarizing filter (e.g., in sunglasses, which are not rotationally invariant), you will see differences with relative rotation between the two. However, the human eye is rotationally invariant. Imagine that instead of rotating the monitor, you rotated your head -- why would you see anything different, <i><b>assuming that you are looking at the LCD straight on in both orientations</b></i>? As you've touched upon, I suspect that you are experiencing an effect from differing horizontal and vertical viewing angles and that you are not viewing the monitor straight on in both orientations. These two specifications are typically different, and so rotating the monitor will result in different ranges of usability. Desktop monitors often have wider viewing angles, making this less of an issue. Furthermore, the situation might be amplified with a laptop since it is very "moveable"; with a desktop monitor, you are generally sitting in a fixed position, after adjusting your monitor to your preferences.</p>

     

    <p>Anyhow, you can only know for sure by seeing the particular monitor that you are interested. But, I suspect it's a non-issue with a reputable brand. As I've said, I see no such effect with my Dell 1901FP.</p>

    CaptureOne vs. Adobe Camera Raw vs. ?

    in The Digital Darkroom: Process, Technique & Printing

    Posted

    Thomas, this is not a case of coding and decoding, it is a matter of "inventing" (interpolating) information that is not captured by the camera due to hardware limitations. A digital camera sensor is a mono-chromatic device. In other words, it can only capture a luminance (greyscale) image. If three sensors are used with appropriate colour filters, you could capture a full colour image, with each pixel having a red, green and blue component that is directly derived from the image being captured. However, in most situations, it is only practical to have one sensor in a camera, so the Bayer pattern colour filter array (CFA) is used to essentially turn this grayscale device into a colour device. As you know, each pixel only contains one of the required red, green, or blue colour components when using the Bayer CFA. The other components are interpolated from the captured components. This is not decoding; this is educated guesswork based on signal processing estimation techniques and human visual system modeling. Hence, it is an open area of research to get the best image possible from interpolating a Bayer pattern image. If done in camera (as is the case with TIFF or JPEG output) there is the possibility that design choices were made to reduce the computational requirements of the algorithm and thus reducing visual quality. Doing it after downloading onto a computer at least gives you the possibility using the best available algorithms (assuming software companies have been reading the image processing journals!).

     

    Incidentally, not all cameras use the Bayer pattern CFA. Some use proprietary patterns and this opens up a whole other can of worms.

     

    -Karl

    CaptureOne vs. Adobe Camera Raw vs. ?

    in The Digital Darkroom: Process, Technique & Printing

    what does color matching on Minolta 5400 scanner actually do

    in The Digital Darkroom: Process, Technique & Printing

    Posted

    Ken,<br>

    <br>

    I may be incorrect, but my assumption has always been that using colour matching in the Minolta software first assigns the Minolta provided profile to the image (negative, positive, or posi-linear depending on the scanning mode) and then converts to the colour space selected (e.g., AdobeRGB). The output file is untaggged ufortunately, so you have to know that the image is now AdobeRGB and assign this space (not convert!) when opening the file in Photoshop.<br>

    <br>

    I find many problems with all this. The two main ones being: a) you must remember what space you have converted to because this information is not stored with the image; and b) it forces you to use the Minolta provided profiles.<br>

    <br>

    Personally, I prefer to not use colour matching. When opening the image in Photoshop, I assign the custom profile I made of the scanner (you can use one of the Minolta provided profiles, but I find these inadequate) and then convert to AdobeRGB.<br>

    <br>

    You may wish to try out the profiles I made here: <a href="http://www.ethervizion.com/lost_found/" target="_blank"><b>ethervizion.com</b></a>. Even though they will not be perfectly matched to your scanner, people have found them to be much better than the Minolta provided profiles.<br>

    <br>

    Good luck!<br>

    <br>

    -Karl

×
×
  • Create New...