richard_porter2

<p>hi guys - hope you see this!<br>

I've picked up a polaroid sprintscan 45 ultra but without any software or even the film carrier or holders - still it was dirt cheap!!<br>

Michael Bergman said a couple had mentioned an 'aftermarket film holder ... machine cut... it has both glass and metal holders' - but who is/was it by?? Anyone know where I could get new (cheap!) or used film carrier and film holders for sizes up tp 5x4 - either the original polaroid (came with the scanners) or aftermarket versions. Or if any of you guys decided to go for the glass film holders that were discussed originally perhaps I might be able scrounge some of your unused polaroid film holders!!</p>

Thanks Roger. It looks the best so far. Is that due to it being done with Noise Ninja instead of Noiseware or is it down to technique etc?

Hi roger, Just tried sending you another email (assuming you got the others at rsmith02@gmail.com) but now can't use yahoo!? Tried to tell you to ignore the previous emails as I can't see how the scans I emailed today could be any better than the one you took from here. I tried to change the defaults hewlett packard scanner settings (normally at 200 dpi) but when I tried it at 1200 dpi it hated it and took ages (won't even try at 4000 or 9600dpi). When I tried to get this to a file size small enough to send you, the best I could get was no more than a partial strip of the full scan (which was better than nothing and should have been possible to email you but for some reason I just couldn't access it to email it today). So unless I can get a better scan of the print then I'm stuck!

Hi Roger, Thanks for your latest effort - I can see a distinct improvement! Like you say, it's working from a print rather than an original tranny but I think it gives a good idea of what is possible with a 'grainy' kodachrome. I could probably email you direct a scan of the chromalin print using my hp flat bed scanner at maximum TIFF setting (the absolute best I could do) if you thought it might make a difference? Mind you, you have a different noise reduction software to Emre so it might be interesting to see if your methods, system can improve on what you and Emre achieved together?

Hi Roger, Thanks for having a go. I printed off your version so I could compare it with the two other stages before and could see a slight sharpening but it is almost imperceptible. Is this typical or might their be ways to noticeably sharpen the image? What do you think?

Hi Roger, Unfortunately I'm about to be chucked off the computers today and won't be able to get back on till next week. I know it's not ideal but it would be useful if you could have a go with the image I posted at 1.23 pm on the 18th as that will allow me (and everyone else) to compare your results with Emre's as you will be using the same starting point. TTFN

Hi Roger, Unfortunately I don't have the original tranny so had to make do with the chromalin print from the scan of it. But I can remember there was nothing 'wrong' with the original tranny (other than deliberately underexposed) and there was no apparent grain - it only appeared during drum scanning. In any case, I would not be able to scan the original tranny myself as I don't have the means - could you have a go with the image file I posted above (the later one)using your software? - it would be interesting to compare the differences (if any) between software etc.

Hi Roger, I was going to email you but the computer decided to play up! I was, however, later able to do a better scan of the chromalin print at the highest jpeg setting I could and put it on to photo.net, so I hoped you (and everyone else) would get to see it.

Have you seen Emre's latest go at removing the grain noise? Do you think this image could be improved further by sharpening with photoshop? If so, it looks like this is a good way of getting a nice usable scan from a noisey kodachrome. But it may not be the best solution as other methods/software might produce a better scan of the original kodachrome? I hear Vuescan is as good as digital ice and some people report no problems with kodachromes while leaving digital ice on. So has anyone tried a direct scan of a kodachrome using Vuescan's infra red scanning facility?

Hi Emre, I noticed a slight halo effect in the scan before but it is more marked now. I assume from what you said that the more you minimise/remove grain, the softer the image becomes. Do you have a sharpening facility (eg photoshop)? If so, will it not take your smoother image and give a more pronounced boundary to edges so the image looks sharper? Why does the spitfire metal look more silver than before?

Hi Emre, thank you for having another go at the scan of the chromalin - it looks much better now. I've done a print off of the scan I posted and your improved version to compare how effective Noiseware is. I notice in your version the spitfire surfaces look much more silvery now - is this accidental or did you alter it dleiberately? Also, more importantly, your version is noticeably less sharp than before - can this be improved? I can also make out a sort of 'halo' effect around sharp edges eg around the propeller blades now.

To everyone else, how do other noise reduction softwares compare with |Noiseware? And what about Vuescan - does anyone use it and can they match (or improve on?) Emre's efforts with Noiseware?

Thanks guys!

Phew! It's loaded this time, mind you only the top half of the image has appeared. Still the width is okay and you get to see the sky which is where the grain effect is most noticeable.

Hi Emre, I think the size you did before was okay as I find it helps to print it off so no relying on what it looks like on screen. Think I may be able to post another scan this time so here goes!<div></div>

Sorry guys, it's not loading! I'll try sending a copy to Roger - fingers crossed Roger gets it and can do something with it!

another scan of the full chromalin at maximum jpeg

Hi Emre, Roger and all! The scan you looked at was a close up of a small area of the chromalin print of the scan. I scanned the print on an HP scanjet 4570 flat bed scanner at nearly maximum jpeg setting - when it appears on the monitor it is horrendous but the print itslef is not so bad but clearly show the grain/noise problem. I'll try another scan of the print at life size using jpeg at maximum quality. It would be interesting Emre if you could have another go with your noiseware software and see a before and after? Your first example looks intriguing as it does seem to reduce the 'grain' but the sharpeness is hammered. If you then used an unsharp mask on the image would it look much better or did you do that anyway?

Roger, I can't be sure what level of sharpening was used on the original scan on the Linotype drum scanner but am pretty sure that sharpening is left till the end. Am I right in thinking that if shapening is used too early it could actually exacerbate the apparent grain on Kodachromes? The chromalin print looks basically fine (if anything a touch dark rather than overexposed) but the original tranny was underexposed to maximise colour saturation.

Lots of people seem to like Vuescan but would it be able to produce scans of kodachromes without this noise problem? I'm pretty sure the Linotype scanner does not have any digital ice or infra red cleaning and relies on photoshop to clean up images. Lots of peole say don't use digital ice etc on kodachromes but since it does not have it anyway, might some downloadable scanning software like Vuescan work after all (I've heard Vuescan's infrared cleaning software is as good as digital ice?)?

Or is downloadable software to handle scanning noise the best answer to this specific kodachrome prolem? Oh, and Julio mentioned wet scanning should avoid grain problems but since the tranny was scanned on a drum scanner anyway, aren't they always wet mounted when this equipment is used?

Hi again, hope this works - it's a partial blow up of the chromalin print I was sent showing the 'grain' problem of the scanned Kodadachrome (64ASA). It's been scanned on a linotype drum scanner (don't know which model) and apparently no dust removal tools (like digital ICE) are used - scans are improved with photoshop. Can't tell you any more than that. Scans of trannies normally come up nice on this equipment (as you'd expect!) but clearly Kodachromes are a problem due to the unique dye layers/density etc. This is a problem that has to be sorted 'in-house' but there's lots of opinions. Any more ideas/experience/examples of downloadable software to handle grain/noise in kodachromes?<div></div>

Hi, Does anyone know what the solution is to scans of kodachromes

that look very grainy (but there's no grain in the tranny itself)?

It's not real grain but appears to be noise generated during

scanning. What techniques are there to combat this eg in photoshop?

Are there any dowloadable software packages that work well to

eliminate grain and other problems caused by scanning kodachrome?

I've heard about Vuescan but does anyone know about software from

www.neatimage.com that'supposed to cut noise from kodachromes? People

must have found answers to these problems with kodaachromes by now?

Thanks Roger for your comments about raw scans etc but advising me to take the tranny to get scanned properly is a bit late now! I'm looking for answers to help now and, as I said before, it would be a whole lot easier if people can go through the various problems that can occur with scanning Kodachromes (I see others have mentioned problems with noticeable 'grain' which they can't get round - if others have had such problems, how did they resolve it?) and give us answers to those problems. Forget about my specific problems (if it helps) and just tell us what you know.

Hi again all. I'm supposed to be getting a chromalin to see how 'bad' it is but I'm still waiting. I can't wait forever and do nothing meantime and it will be too late if it isn't fixed soon. Okay, they've not asked for my help but come on guys, what would you do - nothing?! I'm trying to be 'pro-active' here (hate that word!) and hope that since Kodachromes frequently pose problems scanning, people can make good general suggestions. My best bet is to get tips on the most likely anwers to the most typical problems with Kodachrome and email them (and hope they don't take umbrage). I don't even know if they know about Kodachromes. All I can do is be as helpful as I can and forget about who should know what. I want them to use the image, whatever it takes. Okay, I don't know specifically what's wrong but it seems from various refernces on the net that in general it's best to scan Kodachromes without ICE (ie avoid normal infra red scanning) and to concentrate on ROC and GEM. But are these options available on most scanners, including older drum types? As I said, I have to assume they have access to Photoshop so what success have you guys had with the options/controls available through Photoshop. Obviously, a successful Kodachrome will depend on the scanner/software being used and the nature of the tranny itself etc but this is not a new problem so enough of you will have already been through it already to know what to do and help provide others with a general guide. Please, this is a forum to help fellow photographers, so lets not get bogged down in specific critcisms (like who should be doing what), just try to offer positive suggestions. There's just too many references on the net to Kodachrome scanning problems as it is and not enough anwers so maybe we (ie you guys) can make this the best place to find all those answers!

Hi guys, thanks for the contributions so far. Yep, of course I shouldn't be in this position trying to find a way for a publisher to use my picture but if I don't then they probably won't use it at all! I just hope that I can get enough info on what the problems might be and (more importantly!) what are the solutions. Robert's suggestions sound promising but I guess it depends on whether they are using similar systems. It probably would help to know what scanner they're using but I'm trying not come across as questioning their knowledge/professionalism! Like I said, all I am reasonable sure of is that they either use or have access to Photoshop. Has anyone any before and after images they could post showing typical problem Kodachrome scans and your solutions? Reckon it would be useful anyway.

HI, Problem is I'm not using anything! They are! So it's a bit tricky! I assume it's professional equipment - I assume they've got photoshop but can't say any more than that!

Hi again, thanks guys but I really need to know what can be done with existing equipment/software - I can't ask them to get new stuff! What steps do they need to take to produce acceptable scans off Kodachromes. As a last resort, what software might help (if it can be downloaded off the net)? Can anyone run me through matters like 'gamma' , s-curves, etc ie controls/techniques they can adjust to improve the scan?

Hi, A publisher wants to use one of my transparencies but unlike all

the others this one produces 'awful' results. Since this was on

Kodachrome (unlike the others) it has to be due to the film's unique

layers, density etc. I'm assuming they have a drum scanner and access

to software like Photoshop but what is the solution? I hear Digital

Ice is best switched off but what else can work. I hear Vuescan is

recommended for Kodachrome but I can't ask them to buy stuff (and

there's no time to wait!. Surely, someone must have found out how to

get good scans from Kodachromes by now?! What if the tranny is a bit

dark? Help!

Hi,

Does anyone know how to dismantle the shutter speed knob on the ECTL?

I've dismantled the camera and got as far as removing the knob

assembly from the body and dismantled sufficient parts to disconnect

it from its leads but cannot totally dismantle the assembly as cannot

see how the ASA film speed dial is attached on the end. Often there's

a grub screw but that doesn't appear to be the answer. It doesn't

look like a simple push fit as it is resistant to leverage and I

don't want it broken!

Does anyone know where I can get a replacement contact wheel for this

assembly which is broken. I might be able to repair it but it would

be tricky so better to get a new or used replacement from somewhere -

but where?! I can email photos of the problem if anyone can help.

Here's hoping!

Hi Alan not George!- sorry). Just tried again and found axco does come up on a google search - don't know why it didn't the first time?! Still, would like to know of other potential sources worldwide anyway. Answers anyone?