john_a._mozzer

<p>To me, key thing is whether the scanning at 1200dpi is being done at 100 percent. If so, then it is the same thing as saying the original is being scanned at 1200 pixels per inch. Your pixel dimensions make me suspect you are okay.</p>

<p >That's exactly the resolution that I use when scanning reflective copy (photographic prints, printed ephemera, etc.) on my Epson flatbed scanner. I like to express that resolution as 1200 pixels per inch at 100 percent, considering possible future print size is not applicable.</p>

<p >Thank you, Bob. In fact, Photo Impact Imaging sets up a channel on their Noritsu scanner for each customer, and they set up a channel for me with the grain filter turned off.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Good to hear from you.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> </p>

<p >The added resolution seems to have gotten past the threshold of grain aliasing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p > </p>

<p >I think so.</p>

<p>Photo Impact Imaging told me they don't turn the grain removal filter all the way up when they do use it. They achieve a sweet spot by turning it up only so much, so perhaps that is why it appears to be a good implementation of it in my comparisons. I have experienced bad implementations of it from other photo labs.</p>

<p>Re: sharpening. I think there is a setting for it. I am pretty sure all of my Noritsu scans, by A&I and Photo Impact Imaging, were done without sharpening. I find that sharpening makes film grain look worse, so I never use it.</p>

<p>Here's the second comparison:</p><div></div>

<p>Here's the second comparison.</p>

<p>I finally found a photo lab with Noritsu scanning equipment that will turn off its default grain removal filter for me, after searching for one for a few years.</p>

<p>In late 2012, A&I turned it off when they did about 3,000 Noritsu scans of 35mm film negatives for me. But the customer service person who was helping me back then is no longer with the company, and they were purchased since that time. In late 2014, A&I's current manager said "there's no de-grain filter" on the Noritsu.</p>

<p>Richard Photo Lab and ScanCafe did test Nortisu scans for me in late 2014 and mid 2015, respectively. Both of them were either unable to figure out how to turn off the grain removal filter, or they don't want to. In late 2015, North Coast Photographic Services didn't answer my inquiry about whether they can and/or will turn it off.</p>

<p>Finally, early this year, Photo Impact Imaging here in Los Angeles did over 500 Noritsu scans of 35mm film negatives for me, with the grain removal filter turned off as requested. In fact, the operator was befuddled over why it is such a big deal for other photo labs with Noritsu scanners to turn it off. They have become my photo lab of choice for scanning film.</p>

 

<p >Here are a couple of comparisons showing the grain removal filter on and off, consisting of test scans that Photo Impact Imaging did for me. These images are drastically blown up and cropped from the original scans of the 35mm film frames. But I am able to see the difference at typical view sizes on a monitor. </p><div></div>

<p>No reaction to my comment? Well, this happens to me a lot. I don't have time to read a post of interest immediately when it is posted. So I catch up reading the original post and comments several days later. By that time, the original poster has moved on, and everyone has lost interest.</p>

<p>It doesn't seem to me Tony's problem was resolved. Getting sidetracked with discussion of his shooting technique, whether his shots are in focus, and whether to shoot on film in the first place is not the answer. I am interested in Tony's problem, because I am no longer able to find any service that will scan film with Noritsu equipment without the default grain removal filter turned on. A&I (under new management), Richard Photo Lab, and ScanCafe are all doing Noritsu scans with the grain removal filter on, in my humble opinion, based on my earlier experience of having Noritsu scans done of 3,000 film negatives. Instructions on how to turn it off were once posted on this forum, but either nobody can do it, or nobody believes me it can be done. </p>

<p>Tony, are the pixel dimensions of the scans 5035 x 3339 by any chance?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There will never be an HDR scanner, because HDR isn't necessary in a scan. In fact it would degrade the image.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm thinking high quality scans of film may already be HDR, but gamma 2.2 hides it. I'm not sure. But why else can I bring out hidden detail in shadows, and sometimes highlights, in the scans of my film, and have to mask?</p>

<blockquote>

<p> Experiment if scanning to AdobeRGB color profile gives any advantage in colors over sRGB. SRGB should be good enough and compatible everywhere.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You'd need an Adobe RGB color space monitor to see an advantage of Adobe RGB. At least, that is what engineers have told me. Adobe RGB might do wonders for scans of Kodachrome film, but I've never been able to see it on my iMac.</p>

<p>My guess:</p>

<p>1.) Walmart uses Noritsu scanners. In fact, a relative who works for Walmart told they do, if memory serves.</p>

<p>2.) They have the grain removal filter on.</p>

<p>I can't tell from your samples, because I can't enlarge them enough to see whether they have the tell tail "wax museum look".</p>

<p>Can you ask them whether they are using Noritsu equipment? </p>

<p>I read <em>Scanning Negatives and Slides</em> by Sascha Steinhoff, and the section quoted by <strong>Colin O</strong> in the original post above, in 2009. Scanning for archival purposes also means future-proofing, and the quoted section didn't make sense to me. Therefore, I asked Sascha for clarification by email. Sascha wrote in an email dated Oct 19, 2009, " . . . the described effect depends very much on the scanner. my example was nikon. as every scanner has its own characteristique the effect my not be given with other scanners."<br>

<br /> Also, in 2009, I had two different services scan the same negative film strips as a test. One scanning service, ScanDigital (now in Torrance, CA), used a Nikon Coolscan, at 4000 pixels per inch per my instructions. The other scanning service, A&I (now in Burbank, CA), used Nortisu equipment at its Ultra High resolution setting, over 4000 pixels per inch, per my instructions. When comparing scans displayed at 100 percent on my MacBook Pro monitor, I saw digital noise in the Nikon Coolscan scans, and film grain (pleasing to me) in the Noritsu scans. For that reason, I chose to have about 3000 negative film images scanned on the Noritsu by A&I, rather than on the Nikon Coolscan.<br>

<br /> I agree with you, Colin O, that 2000 pixels per inch is not enough for scanning 35mm film for archival purposes. However, I get the impression, the Nikon Coolscan has some sort of sweet spot when it comes to resolution, apparently lower than its its optical resolution.</p>

<p>Thanks, Alan. That is exactly how I think about it.</p>

<p>I have a conspiracy theory, though. Noritsu makes the feature for turning off the grain removal difficult to find, to make their customers pay a lot of money for a service contract.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Well, I think the root of the problem is that grain noise in the Noritsu scans (which machine BTW?) is generally pretty bad for what it should be.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>All I know is that A&I calls it the Noritsu 1700SA on their website and a brochure.</p>

<p>So do you think the grain in my above examples looks bad?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>. . . my experience with scanning was that above 4000 ppi you were merely getting larger scans of the film 'grain'.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But it seems to me, I created useable images with those crops to tiny portions of the scans, in my above comparisons . . . I mean, if I wanted to use that small a portion of an image rather than the entire image. Or if I wanted to zoom in on the image to that extent in a video consisting of still images.</p>

 

<p>Film types show in the above comparisons:</p>

<p>1 of 3<br>

Eastman Kodak 5247, tungsten film, shot in 1988 (motion picture film repackaged by RGB Labs, Hollywood, for still photographers. This information reveals my age.)</p>

<p>2 of 3<br>

Kodak 5096 Gold 200-2, amateur negative film, shot in 1991</p>

<p>3 of 3<br>

Kodak CM 400 5079, amateur negative film, shot in 1987</p>

<p>See attachment Noritsu 1700SA Scans: Wax Museum Look VS Film Grain 3 of 3</p><div></div>

<p>See attachment Noritsu 1700SA Scans: Wax Museum Look VS Film Grain 2 of 3</p><div></div>

<p>Currently, I am doing Photoshop work on Noritsu scans that A&I did for me in 2013. I would like to take this opportunity to show people two different looks that their Noritsu equipment is apparently capable of producing. I have created three comparisons as JPEG's to demonstrate the two different looks to you.<br>

<br /> All of the Noritsu scans were done at A&I's Ultra High Res size, which turned out as 6305 x 4181 in the scans done for me. Each image in these comparisons have been cropped to approximately 948 x 820 pixels; therefore, they show very small sections of the scans, likely at a significantly enlarged size on your monitor.<br>

<br /> Experts here on this forum, familiar with Noritsu equipment, have informed me that the look at left in each of these comparisons is the result of a grain removal feature. I did not want it, and have adopted my photographer friend's "wax museum look" label for it. Test Noritsu scans that I had done in 2009 did not look this way; the Noritsu equipment at A&I had been changed since that time.<br>

<br /> The customer service person who was helping me at the time (and is no longer there) said that I was their first customer to complain about it. At any rate, he helped me get the look shown on the right side of each comparison, by noting "scan in film grain mode" on the work orders. It was not easy, because as we worked our way through my very large order in batches, the wax museum look kept coming back to haunt me. All scans with the wax museum look were rescanned at no charge.<br>

<br /> I am puzzled. When you search "Noritsu scans grain removal", about the only thing that comes up in the search results is my previous post on this forum. Hasn't anyone else noticed this about Noritsu scans? Doesn't it bother anyone else? Don't you want to leave your choice of such filters to after scanning? Or do you think the different looks shown in these comparisons is something else (i.e., no sharpening, over sharpening, etc.)? Keep in mind the magnification in these comparisons.</p><div></div>

<p>I hated the results of the degrain filter on Noritsu scans by A&I (http://aandi.com/scanning). A friend aptly referred to it as a "wax museum look". For some weird reason, it kept coming on by default when A&I was doing Noritsu scans for me last year, and I had to constantly ask them to re-do certain scans with it turned off, which they did at no additional charge.</p>

<p>I started this forum topic, and posted screenshots showing a section of Noritsu scans with and without the degrain filter:</p>

<p>Noritsu 1700SA Scans-A Difference Then & Now<br>

http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00b4jX</p>

<p>I have no idea whether your set up involves the same degrain filter, though. I am not familiar with the different models, supplied software, etc.</p>

<p>I had a similar experience with Noritsu with respect to technical support. They wouldn't talk to me to answer technical questions, though I had about 3,000 images scanned on their equipment. I also started this forum topic, with a technical question about resolution, which they refused to address:</p>

<p>Determining Precise Resolution & Area of Film in Noritsu Scans<br>

http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00bz5u</p>

<p>I've seen the $5.00 extra charge for Noritsu scans as TIFF's on the A&I website. But they didn't charge me that. I would ask them whether they will waive it.<br>

In my experience with having Noritsu scans done by A&I a little over a year ago:<br>

The pixel dimensions of the Noritsu Hi Res scans (about 50.4 MB) are 5035 x 3339.<br>

The pixel dimensions of the Noritsu UltraHi Res scans (about 79.1 MB) are 6305 x 4181.<br>

No, the Noritsu scans are not 16-bit. They are 8-bit. <br>

I believe that I ruled out North Coast Photo because I figured out they apparently don't do the UltraHi Res size. I could be wrong about that, though.</p>

<p>A&I didn't charge me extra for providing Noritsu scans as TIFF's. Did you ask them?<br>

Personally, I wouldn't do any scanning as JPEG's. It's lossy compression, and you can't bring back the loss, no matter what you do.</p>

<p>Here's my way of putting it. Dpi is only metadata in the image file, and means absolutely nothing, unless it is associated with a "print size" or "document size". Apparently, some applications will show the dpi and not the print size, which has lead me astray. For example, in Apple's Preview 5.0.3., the Inspector will show the dpi and pixel dimensions, but not the print size.</p>

<p>One time I asked a service to drum scan a few 35mm transparencies at 4,000 dpi. I meant for them to set the scanner to sample the original film at 4,000 pixels per inch. This happened before I used Photoshop. When I opened the image files with Apple's Preview, the Inspector showed 4,000 dpi as the resolution. So I was satisfied. I do remember wondering why the file sizes were only around 38MB each, but I didn't question whether the scans really consisted of a resolution of 4,000 pixels per inch of the original transparencies for over two years.</p>

<p>Finally, I brought those image files into Photoshop and looked at Image Size. To my surprise, I saw pixel dimensions of only 2926x4326, and a document size of .0732 x 1.082 inches, about 75 percent of the size of a 35mm film frame. The scanning service, so accustomed to the standard of 300 dpi established by the graphic arts industry, was thrown by my request. I should have told them that I wanted 4,000 dpi at 100 percent. 300 dpi is meaningless unless you are intending to print at a certain size, you are a book or magazine designer, or something like that. Well, what if you have no immediate plans to print at all?</p>

<p>The Noritsu scans of 35mm film negatives that I had done at A&I have 72 dpi at a print size of 87.569 x 58.069 inches in the metadata. The pixel dimensions are 6305x4181, which is the only thing that matters, because I will never be printing them at all, let alone at a size of 87.569 x 58.069 inches.</p>

<p>Drum scans from West Coast Imaging very nicely have the true resolution in the metadata. For example, their lowest priced drum scans of 35mm film have 3800 dpi in the metadata, meaning they were sampled at 3800 pixels per inch at 100 percent. I like it that way. To me, it's better to think in terms of the amount of samples you are getting, just as audiophiles speak in terms of sampling rates of 44.1 kHz, 48 kHz, 96 kHz, etc., when digitizing music. But I think this way because I never print, unlike many people on this forum.</p>

<p>At any rate, let your scanning service put whatever dpi and print size they want in the metadata. You can always change that metadata with an application like Photoshop, without actually changing the image data.</p>

<p>Tango drum scans that I had done by West Coast Imaging of black & white negatives in greyscale mode have the embedded ICC profile name Gray General.</p>

<p>Can anyone explain the Gray General ICC profile? I'm using Adobe Photoshop CS6, and don't see Gray General under Color Settings. So far, I've been using the embedded profile as my working space, not doing any converting to and/or assigning of a different working space.</p>

<p>The images look correct down the road (i.e., as JPEG's on Apple mobile devices, still with the embedded Gray General tag). Nevertheless, I wonder whether anybody can explain exactly what Gray General is. Or, perhaps explain your workflow with similar greyscale mode scans, in regards to working space.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Also, anyone know how to stabilize 8mm roll film dated from the early 40's? I am pretty sure its nitrocellulose. It smells horrible, you know the acetic acid (stop bath) smell.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Are you sure its not Vinegar Syndrome?</p>

<p>If it is 8mm film for the home market, I don't see how it can be cellulose nitrate.</p>