bernard_lazareff

<p>More on the preceding scans:<br /> "<em>Both scans were downsampled to 2200x1467</em>"; not quite correct. That size is the size of the Epson 1600dpi scan. Only the Nikon scan was downsampled.<br /> Also, at the scale of the 100% crops, the full image would be about 20inch tall (unless you are viewing them on a Retina display)</p> <p>As concerns focus:</p> <blockquote> <p>I said Epson's were a no because several of your members in other threads said the focus was basically mushy.</p> </blockquote> <p>I don't understand "mushy focus". Here's what I would state:<br /> Epsons (and all flatbeds as fas as I know) don't have autofocus. Focus is achieved by adjusting the height of the film carrier above the glass. Two issues with Epson V700/750 film (or slide) carriers: 1) they are flimsy; 2) the height adjustment is very basic. Reportedly the film carriers are better in the last generation V800/850; I don't have first-hand experience.<br /> Good focus is essential to achieve quality scans. Simple method, short version: adjust height using Epson built-in adjusters and/or cardboard shims to obtain the maximum Jpeg file size, scanning the same portion of film.</p> <p>Be sure that your slides sit in the carrier with emulsion side (concave) up. </p>

<p>100% crop from the Epson V-700 2200x1467 image</p><div></div>

<p>100% crop from the Nikon LS-2000 2200x1467 image</p><div></div>

<p>100% crop from the Nikon LS-2000 2200x1467 image<br> (Failed; pixel dimensions <700, file too large ??)</p>

<p>Penny, to help you make your decision based on facts, I've taken a pic previously scanned with my Nikon LS-2000 @2700dpi, and re-scanned it with my Epson V-700 @1600dpi (that scanner is reported to have an effective resolution of 2400dpi, so I'm using it conservatively). Both scans were downsampled to 2200x1467, about right to print 8x10 inches (apart from the aspect ratio); some will claim that you need 300dpi on the print, but most mail-order printing services are happy with 160-180dpi, and so am I. </p> <p>I show, in that order:</p> <ul> <li>The full image downsampled to fit into the PN restrictions</li> <li>A 100% crop from the Nikon 2200x1467 image</li> <li>A 100% crop from the Epson 2200x1467 image</li> </ul> <p>The colrs don't match, but that is not the issue.<br> Hope this helps</p><div></div>

<p>We responders must pay attention to the OP:</p> <blockquote> <p>Kodachrome slides for both <em><strong>web and prints (not huge)</strong></em></p> </blockquote> <p>With all due respect for the technical performance of the Minolta 5400 (I really mean it: I'd be glad to trade my LS-2000 for an Elite 5400): <br> - Its optical resolution is not really needed for the OP's stated goal<br> - ICE is nice, but I've been scanning lots of B/W without ICE; with canned air or a hand blower, I get clean scans. <br> - A flatbed will be required anyway for the other two planned applications, and will process more slides per hour, especially if you buy a second slide tray. <br> I would suggest to Penny Jones the following. If possible, find someone who will let you have a try at scanning a few of your slides with their flatbed. Have a critical look at the resulting files. Yes, a dedicated 35mm scanner will deliver better results. And an Imacon even better. And a drum scanner even better. But you need to buy what does the job for you.<br> Buy a flatbed (you need one anyway). If you're still unsure about the quality it delivers for slides, put a cap on the flatbed scanner price so that you can still later buy a dedicated 35mm scanner. If confident about flatbeds for your slide scaning, I suggest the better Epsons (700/800) that will scan 12 slides in one go. And buy a second slide holder. If you need to scan several hundred slides, you'll soon realize that every efficiency gain is worth getting. <br> Good luck</p>

<blockquote> <p>Kodachrome is unhappy with some scanners</p> </blockquote> <p>?? As far as I know, what's true is that, with <em>any</em> scanner, infrared dust removal can't be used with Kodachrome. So your slides must be clean.</p> <blockquote> <p>the Epsons that I was looking at are probably a no, despite the good reviews</p> </blockquote> <p>?? again puzzling. Medium resolution slide scanning + opaque documents seems like ideal case for Epson V700/750/800/850. But if you have more precise and/or reliable information, just follow it.</p>

<p>sorry if this is too obvious, but did you try:<br> ConfPanel > DevManager > Action > Check for changes</p>

<p>Change the gamma to raise the midtones? (in addition to mild desaturation)</p>

<p>@ Robin Smith<br> Both pics were processed in a similar way: use vuescan to produce files with minimal and identical processing: same exposure, same film base color; Both were processed with <em>almost</em> the same profile, except in the second case I arranged for the profile to reserve some luminance headroom above the white patch of the IT8 chart. For the second pic, the only post-processing was to set the black and white points (the histogram had a lot of headromm above highlights). The first one clips the highlights, and as a consequences, its midtones are placed higher than in the second pic.<br> The colors (hues) had better be the same.The images I showed are not meant to be in final form; probably an S-curve would be appropriate. BUT, that intepretive part had better start from technically accurate colors.<br> Below, the histograms of the two pics.<br> To summarize.</p> <ol> <li>Profiling allows to obtain accurate colors without fiddling or guesswork (whether from the operator or some black-box recipe of the scanning software).</li> <li>Plain vanilla profiling clips at the luminance of the IT8 chart (more precisely at the luminance of a fictitious perfect white reflecting target)</li> <li>The -U option of argyll/colprof allows to reserve some headroom and to <em>decide</em> where the white (and black) point should be placed. The 4.0 value I used in initial test is probably overkill. </li> </ol><div></div>

<p>@ Les. I had a look at ColorPerfect literature; I can see that their concerns meet mine in several respects: leave a minimum of initiative to the scanning software, preserve highlights, use film-specific data. I trust it is a valid solution, but I can't evaluate all possibilities, just need to find something that works for me.<br> @ Louis. I can see the benefit of a smaller size color reference card. Indeed, carrying the Wolf Faust A4 target on location is not very convenient. I might give a try to a ColorChecker or ColorPassport. As to stability, after 10 years of using the Wolf Faust target, I bought a new one: putting the two side by side my eyes cannot see any difference; should be good enough to profile photos, that are generally evaluated relying on visual memory, without the original as reference.</p>

<p>Thank you for the demo and nice pictures.</p> <blockquote> <p>The later Vito B and C have solid bodies but lack the charm and pocketability of this camera</p> </blockquote> <p>Fully agree. Have Vito IIa, B (large finder) and CLR. IMO, the Vito II has more "class". </p>

<p>@ Les Sarile</p> <blockquote> <p>Sample below shows the Coolscan with Kodak Portra 160VC using Vuescan's specific film profile (...) straight-up auto scan using Nikonscan</p> </blockquote> <p>I definitely won't champion the presets of vuescan vs any other software. Indeed, I wrote in my OP: Leave a minimum of initiative to vuescan. <br> This said, the NikonScan Neutral looks better than <em>most</em> vuescan presets (I gave up on those), but... was the dress really desaturated red as in the NikonScan thumbnail, or brighter as in Vuescan Autolevels? Or...? As I already stated, how can a piece of code decide without a calibration reference, just from data internal to <em>one</em> picture, decide what were the true colors? That is the reason why I prefer to use profiling. </p> <blockquote> <p>BTW, how many frames have you already scanned</p> </blockquote> <p>Definitely less than 20k. And not trying to establish a position as top scanner dog. Just to share some specific experience potentially useful to others. Beyond that, to each his/her own. </p> <blockquote> <p>what kinds/brands of films are you scanning</p> </blockquote> <p>Mostly Reala, some Portra, Fujicolor200, Kodak UC200. </p>

<p>@ Louis Meluso</p> <blockquote> <p>being a piece of photographic paper, it's not an ideal target to shoot with film</p> </blockquote> <p>Could you please explain what specifically is not-ideal? The only problem I can think of is specular reflections, or, said differently, the light beam geometry of taking a picture under "natural" conditions differs from the (a?) definition of reflection density and PCS coordinates. In what way would a ColorChecker avoid that issue? </p> <blockquote> <p>Bracket your exposures in 1/3 stops to find the ISO/ASA your scanner likes best with nominal settings</p> </blockquote> <p>One beauty of color negative film is the exposure latitude. I'd rather not put myself in a situation where exposure is critical to 1/3 stop. Possibly I miss your point. <br> Anyway, thank you for your interest and response. </p>

<p>And the second example, using the profile created with -U4.0</p><div></div>

<p>Another example, first using profile created without -U option<br> (repeat, made mistake trying to upload enormous tiff file)</p><div></div>

<p>Another example, first using profile created without -U option<br> (repeat, made mistake trying to upload enormous tiff file)</p>

<p>Another example, first using profile created without -U option</p>

<p>Next, same with -U4.0, then set white (and black) points at edges of histogram</p><div></div>

<p>Self-solution. <br> As often happens, writing down my problem helped me solve it. The magic bullet is the -U option for argyll's colprof command, that provides just what I needed, some headroom in the color space above teh white patch of the IT8 target. Specifically I used:<br> colprof" -v -D"RealaLS2kC" -qm -ag -U4.0 Mire-02-1<br> where Mire-02-1.ti3 is the output of the scanin command (reads patch values). <br> Profiling my "raw" scans (see in OP meaning of "raw") with the resultant profile results in tif files that are intrinsically "dark", because thay now have headroom above the IT8 white. Possibly -U4.0 was overkill, but at least I'm safe in the sense that high values are protected. Now I can set the black and white points to my liking: all the information is there. <br> First example: image produced <em>witout</em> the -U4.0 option. Cloud highlights are blown. </p><div></div>

<p>@ Les Sarile<br> I started with Nikon Scan. My recollection (many years ago) is that it was either auto-colors of some kind, or fiddle with sliders until image "looks right". Vuescan has (in my eyes) one important plus: scan from preview, that saves significant time. If you are familiar with Nikon Scan, can you please tell me (saves re-installing, etc) if it allows:<br> - to avoid scanning twice (preview + actual scan)<br> - to accept any valid film profile created externally (Argyll or other)<br> Thank you for your interest and feedback</p>

<p><em><strong>Goal</strong></em>: obtain true colors (or a good first approximation to reduce fiddling) from scanned negative film, using a shot (same film) of an IT8 reflective target. I use vuescan and a Nikon LS-2000.<br> <em><strong>Previous attempts</strong></em>. Profile film inside vuescan. More detailed description: preview blank frame, lock exposure, preview again, lock film base color, scan taget (color balance: none), profile film, save and activate profile. Scan again the IT8 (color balance:neutral); the lighter patches of the gray scale (GS) of the IT8 have a definite blue cast(???). Neutralize that with a right click; now in color balance:manual. Start scanning regular frames. Bluish cast for the first dozen frames, then (without reason) shifting into a yellow cast(???). Pull hair in despair.<br> <em><strong>Current effort</strong></em>. Leave a minimum of initiative to vuescan. Again, lock exposure and film base color; color balance: none; generic color neg; output color space: deviceRGB; output: 48bit Tiff; no tiff profile. I call this a "raw" scan for lack of better word, fully aware it's not the same as a vuescan raw. Vuescan does the conversion to positive, and nothing else. More important: everything inside the vuescan black box is frozen (at least I believe).<br> Scan IT8 target. Produce profile "X" with Argyll (kudos to the developer of Argyll!). Profile type: shaper-matrix. Scan regular frames. Using Picture Window Pro (probably same can be done with PS) for each "raw" scan <em>assign</em> the "X" profile, then <em>convert</em> to AdobeRGB. IT8 target looks OK. So do the scene shots, <em>mostly</em>.<br> <em><strong>Current problem</strong></em>. Looks like the white patch of the IT8 target is mapped (by the profiling) to maximum white in the colorspace. Fair enough. But, whenever a part of the scene (clouds...) is recorded on film at a higher point (on the HD curve) it saturates.<br> <em><strong>Possible solutions; advice solicited</strong></em>.</p> <ol> <li>Modify the X, Y, Z values (and/or L, A, B) in the IT8 target calibration data, to correspond to a light level 1/4 or 1/8 of original; should leave some headroom for lighter tones.</li> <li>(to be combined with [1] above): change from shaper-matrix to gamma-matrix profile, because I expect the polynomials in the shaper to behave poorly when extrapolating.</li> <li>Generate synthetic IT8 target combining data from two different (known) exposures, at, e.g., nominal and nominal +3 stops. Need to fudge values as in [1] above</li> <li>Discover magic option in profile software, to the effect that X=Y=Z=100 maps to white hue, but (say) 1/8 of max luminosity.</li> </ol> <p>Your input is welcome. I am not interested in solutions involving "auto white balance" and the like; no piece of software can guess what the scene really was like.</p>

<p>@ Bill Lynch; Interesting! what chemicals kit are you using?</p>

<p>These people have a nice assortment of small screws, starting at 1mm diameter.<br> http://www.nwsl.com/NWSL_Online_Catalog.html<br> But you need to know the size you need.</p>

<p>Louis,<br> Thank you for the examples and the info on lighting. And the reminder of the effectiveness of dark shiny material for the base. But what prompted my question was the striking depth of field of your camera pics. So (I should have been more specific to start with), what typical combination of sensor size, focal length, and f-stop do you use? I would guess that to achieve large depth of field on a small object, a small sensor is an advantage. Of course, all things equal, a good macro lens helps.<br> B.</p>