Is there any way to install Vuescan as a plug-in to Photoshop 6???
Second question: If so, is it worth doing?
-lee-
----- Original Message -----
From: <filmscanners_Digest_owner@halftone.co.uk>
To: <llockwood@attbi.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2002 7:00 PM
Subject: [filmscanners_Digest] filmscanners Digest for Sun 28 Apr, 2002
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Topic: [filmscanners] Flextight Photo on loan - got two questions
> ============================================================
> Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 15:53:18 -0400
> From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@ix.netcom.com>
> ----------------------------------------
> > The Getting Started manual states in two places that the film is
> > inserted in
> > the holder emulsion side up. However, the Flextight Photo manual
states
> > that the film should be loaded emulsion side down.
>
> Hi Simon,
>
> At least with the Leafscan 45, you DO load the film into the holder
emulsion
> side down, AND the holder is placed in the scanner upside down,
therefore
> emulsion side up...so for the Leaf, what you say makes perfect
> sense...except the Leaf has the CCD on the top, and the light source
is on
> the bottom. I am guessing with the Imacon, the light source is on the
top,
> and the CCD on the bottom?
>
> Either way, the emulsion faces the CCD, just like in an enlarger, the
> emulsion faces the paper... Check to see if the holder goes in upside
down,
> which would make both statements you said correct.
>
> Austin
>
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-
>
> Topic: [filmscanners] Installing PS 7 under OS X
> ===========================================
> Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 23:14:49 -0400
> From: Julian Vrieslander <julianv@mindspring.com>
> ----------------------------------------
> On 4/26/02 9:29 AM, "Simon Lamb" <simon@sclamb.com> wrote:
>
> > When you install the PS 7 upgrade under OS X, does it in effect
install two
> > versions, those being the native OS X version and the other being
the native
> > OS 9.2 version? Also, does it install over the top of PS 6 or
should I
> > remove PS 6 first?
>
> I ran the installer CD while booted in OS X (10.1.4). It created one
folder
> containing a carbonized Photoshop 7 and a carbonized ImageReady 7.
These
> applications will run in either OS X or OS 9.
>
> Strangely, I read a report from someone else who claimed that he ended
up
> with separate OS X and OS 9 applications. I can't explain that.
Maybe he
> was smoking something and had double vision. Or perhaps that was the
design
> for some of the beta versions.
>
> The PS 7 installer creates a new folder - it does not install into the
PS 6
> folder, and you should not choose that folder as the install location.
I
> let OS X application installers use their default locations, usually
at top
> level in /Applications. This is because many of the updaters are
stupid -
> they expect to find files in the default location, and fail if they
don't.
>
> I think (altough I am not certain of this) that if you are installing
the PS
> 7 upgrade product, it will see a pre-exiting PS 6 installation as
proof of
> prior purchase. Then you only need to enter the new s/n from the PS 7
> product. After installing PS 7, you can delete PS 6. If you delete
PS 6
> before installing PS 7, you may need to enter a s/n or mount a CD from
an
> earlier version.
>
> --
> Julian Vrieslander <julianv@mindspring.com>
>
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-
>
> Topic: [filmscanners] LS-8000ED examples
> ===================================
> Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 18:54:20 +0900
> From: "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com>
> ----------------------------------------
>
> "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@atkielski.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> The scan was performed with the Nikon glass MF strip holder, 14-bit
mode, 4x
> sampling, dICE turned on, GEM and ROC off, superfine scan (1 CCD) off,
auto
> focus and exposure, no other adjustments from defaults.
> <<<<<<<<<<<
>
> How long did that take for the scan?
>
> Presumably 1x sampling, not superfine (i.e. using all 3 CCDs) would be
> faster? How much faster, and how much worse?
>
> >>
>
> Hmm. From French culture to American kitsch. How far the great have
> fallen<g>.
>
> Getting the original close to your result requires a major change to
the
> blue channel. Moving from consumer digital to scanned film, I've been
quite
> surprised at the radical color adjustments that are required. I
suppose
> that's unavoidable?
>
> David J. Littleboy
> davidjl@gol.com
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>
>
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-
>
> Topic: [filmscanners] Polaroid SprintScan 120 Film Holders --
questions
> ==================================================================
> Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 23:48:13 -0500
> From: "James L. Sims" <jlsims@knology.net>
> ----------------------------------------
> Victor,
>
> With regard to the 35mm carrier, I set the filmstrip in so that the
spaci=
> ngs are a little
> ahead of the support bars. There are "teeth" on the retaining frame
that=
> will engage into
> the perfs as you lower the retainer. The slide the retainer into the
loc=
> king position,
> slowly, until the spacings are aligned with the support bars.
>
> It gets a bit confusing with the 120 carrier. With Insight, you can
sele=
> ct the image format
> on the Preview tab. Unfortunately, not all 120 format cameras index
the f=
> ilm consistently
> nor accurately. Insight does provide some overscanning to compensate
for=
> the variances but,
> if the camera indexing mechanism gets a little "gummy", the spacings
may =
> widen beyond
> Insight's margins. At that point the camera, or back, may need
maintenan=
> ce. The frame
> spacing on my old Kowa Six's vary from about .125" to .212" and that
is p=
> retty much within
> the scan zone of Insight. Just make sure the first frame is closely
crop=
> ped to the leading
> edge of the carrier. I haven't tried it but there is also an option
to s=
> can the full strip.
>
> In VueScan, you can adjust the frame pitch with the "Frame Spacing",
on t=
> he Device tab. I
> use the term "Frame Pitch" because this adjustment seems to be the
distan=
> ce from the leading
> edge of one frame to the leading edge of the next frame. With my
experie=
> nce, the dimensions
> are assumed to be in centimeters. "Frame Offset" defines the lead
positio=
> n of the frame. You
> will have to play around with these setting to get what you need. My
bes=
> t results were
> obtained with a "Frame Offset" setting of -.247 and a "Frame Spacing"
of =
> 6.25. These
> setting may not work for you.
>
> In SilverFast, there is a button on the image panel that is labeled
"6.6"=
> =2E this button
> toggles the format between 6X6, 6X7, and 6X9. There seems to be ample
ov=
> erscan to cover
> varying spacing.
>
> Hope this is helpful,
>
> Jim Sims
>
>
>
> Victor Landweber wrote:
>
> > To the list --
> >
> > A few questions about SprintScan 120 film holders:
> >
> > 1. How can I get 35mm film to stay aligned with the dividers and not
sh=
> ift
> > when I close the 35mm film holder?
> >
> > 2. Is there a way to get the scanner to recognize the spacing of my
6=D7=
> 4.5
> > negatives? My camera spaces the images very differently from that
marke=
> d on
> > the 2=BC film holder. The only solution I've thought up is to select
on=
> e of
> > the other film sizes with the hope that it will include the intended
ne=
> gative.
> >
> > 3. Does anyone have any experience in filing out the SprintScan 120
fil=
> m
> > holders so negatives can be scanned full-frame? Please say how you
did =
> it,
> > and how it's working for you.
> >
> > I have Polocolor Insight, SilverFast AI 5.5, and VueScan.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > -- Victor Landweber
> >
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
-=
> -----------------
> > Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
fil=
> mscanners'
> > or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message
ti=
> tle or body
>
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-
>
> Topic: [filmscanners] Re: Installing PS 7 under OS X
> ===============================================
> Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 02:48:25 -0400
> From: Jeff Moore <jbm@jbm.org>
> ----------------------------------------
> 2002-04-26-23:14:49 Julian Vrieslander:
> > I think (altough I am not certain of this) that if you are
installing the PS
> > 7 upgrade product, it will see a pre-exiting PS 6 installation as
proof of
> > prior purchase. Then you only need to enter the new s/n from the PS
7
> > product. After installing PS 7, you can delete PS 6. If you delete
PS 6
> > before installing PS 7, you may need to enter a s/n or mount a CD
from an
> > earlier version.
>
> The former works. I got my PS7 upgrade and installed it onto a new
> machine I'd just begin migrating to; seeing no 6.0 in place, it asked
> for the 6.0 serial number.
>
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-
>
> Topic: [filmscanners] Re: LS-8000ED examples
> =======================================
> Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 22:13:55 +0200
> From: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@atkielski.com>
> ----------------------------------------
> David writes:
>
> > How long did that take for the scan?
>
> Hmm ... I didn't time it. Maybe 6-7 minutes, I guess.
>
> > Presumably 1x sampling, not superfine (i.e.
> > using all 3 CCDs) would be faster? How much faster,
> > and how much worse?
>
> 1x sampling would probably be nearly four times faster, logically, but
I
> haven't timed that, either. I don't think it would look much worse.
In
> fact, I haven't really tried to see the difference between 1x and 4x;
I only
> use 4x because the scan is still pretty fast, and I used to use it on
the
> LS-2000.
>
> > From French culture to American kitsch. How
> > far the great have fallen<g>.
>
> Well, it was a good test subject. Too bad the DOF was so deep, as the
> background adds a lot of clutter.
>
> > Getting the original close to your result requires
> > a major change to the blue channel.
>
> Yes, but all the Nikon scanners I've had tend to produce bluish or
> bluish-green scans. I don't know why. The correct usually consists
of
> boosting red and green and reducing blue. The exact exposure of the
film
> makes a difference, though, as I'm pretty sure there is a slight color
shift
> in Provia in underexposed vs. overexposed areas.
>
> One thing I notice is that the red is not blinding, as it has been in
most
> of my scans in the past. This means that (1) maybe the exposure I
used made
> a difference (as far as I can tell, this particular shot just happens
to be
> perfectly exposed); or (2) Provia 100F has been modified to reduce its
> propensity to yield very vivid reds (or the 120 emulsion is actually
not the
> same as the 135 emulsion); or (3) the LS-8000ED does not emphasize
reds, and
> previous Nikon scanners did (?). Historically, I've noticed that red
is
> always almost totally saturated in Veliva and Provia scans--so much so
that
> when I boost saturation, I usually do it only for the blue and green
> channels, otherwise the red will burn holes in the retina.
>
> > Moving from consumer digital to scanned film,
> > I've been quite surprised at the radical color
> > adjustments that are required.
>
> They aren't as radical as they seem. A surprising small shift in the
> respective gammas for the three channels corrects the color.
>
> Also, the film itself tends to shift with exposure. My impression is
that
> as exposure goes up (at least for Provia), the red goes up and the
blue goes
> down. However, on the light table, the slide looks exactly like the
> _corrected_ version of the scan, so it can't be just the film. Maybe
the
> scanner itself shifts colors based on exposure.
>
> > I suppose that's unavoidable?
>
> I've never obtained a scan that didn't require color correction.
Note,
> however, that I never try to correct anything in the scanner; I always
make
> all corrections in Photoshop, and I leave the original scan relatively
raw
> as it leaves the scanner.
>
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-
>
> Topic: Flextight Photo on loan - got two questions
> =============================================
> Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 20:38:03 +0100
> From: Simon Lamb <simon@sclamb.com>
> ----------------------------------------
> I have been given a Flextight Photo to use for the weekend and I have
a
> question for any users out there.
>
> The Getting Started manual states in two places that the film is
inserted in
> the holder emulsion side up. However, the Flextight Photo manual
states
> that the film should be loaded emulsion side down.
>
> Can anyone tell me the correct way to load the film. I did find one
35mm
> Scala slide was consistently out of focus when the emulsion side was
down
> but was in focus as soon as I changed it to be emulsion side up.
Funny
> thing is that just about every other image was in focus all the time I
have
> been doing it emulsion side down.
>
> One other thing. Is it possible to do a RAW scan. I want to scan
some
> Delta 100 and send a RAW file into Photoshop so that I can do all the
> manipulation myself.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Simon
>
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-
>
> Topic: LS-8000ED examples
> ====================
> Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 11:01:51 +0200
> From: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@atkielski.com>
> ----------------------------------------
> I've uploaded some more scan examples for any interested parties,
scanned
> with the Nikon LS-8000ED.
>
> This is a scan of a Provia 100F transparency, in medium format, 6x6.
The
> picture was taken with a 150mm lens (equivalent to 90mm on a 35mm
camera),
> roughly 1/250 at f/5.6 or so, as I recall. The photo was shot
handheld.
> The location was the Disney Studios Park in Paris.
>
> The scan was performed with the Nikon glass MF strip holder, 14-bit
mode, 4x
> sampling, dICE turned on, GEM and ROC off, superfine scan (1 CCD) off,
auto
> focus and exposure, no other adjustments from defaults.
>
> The files are as follows:
>
>
>
> ... A reduced-size copy of the raw scan from the scanner. This is a
16-bit
> TIFF of about 2 MB; it is identical to the original, apart from being
> downsampled to 1/223 of its original size (from 8964 pixels on a side
to 600
> pixels). You can see that the entire frame is covered. The blurred
stuff
> just to the left of the frame itself is just a reflection of the
> transparency on the side of the film holder.
>
> Since this is a TIFF, you won't be able to see it in your browser, but
you
> can download it and open it in Photoshop.
>
>
>
> ... An original-size excerpt from the original scan, showing detail
> resolution. No unsharp masking or anythign done. This part of the
photo
> was also the original focus point in the photograph itself.
>
>
>
> The scan after adjustment in Photoshop. Adjustment consisted of
changing
> the curves to brighten up the scan a bit and to make the color balance
match
> the original transparency on a light table. The original transparency
has
> better contrast, but this is the best that can be done for a CRT
display. I
> also cloned out a tiny spot of Newton's rings in the sky in the
original.
>
> If you want to see how well the scanner holds the shadows, load the
TIFF and
> crank up the curves in Photoshop; you can see that there is more
detail in
> the shadows than are normally visible on a CRT.
>
> Overall it seems to do a pretty good job.
>
>
>
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-
>
> Topic: Polaroid SprintScan 120 Film Holders -- questions
> ===================================================
> Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 20:24:47 -0700
> From: Victor Landweber <victor@landweber.com>
> ----------------------------------------
> To the list --
>
> A few questions about SprintScan 120 film holders:
>
> 1. How can I get 35mm film to stay aligned with the dividers and not
shift=
> =20
> when I close the 35mm film holder?
>
> 2. Is there a way to get the scanner to recognize the spacing of my
6=D74.5=
> =20
> negatives? My camera spaces the images very differently from that
marked on=
> =20
> the 2=BC film holder. The only solution I've thought up is to select
one of=
> =20
> the other film sizes with the hope that it will include the intended=
> negative.
>
> 3. Does anyone have any experience in filing out the SprintScan 120
film=20
> holders so negatives can be scanned full-frame? Please say how you did
it,=
> =20
> and how it's working for you.
>
> I have Polocolor Insight, SilverFast AI 5.5, and VueScan.
>
> Thanks.
>
> -- Victor Landweber
>
>
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-
>
> Topic: SS4000 with OSX?
> ==================
> Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 22:30:19 -0400
> From: Martin Greene <camerabuggy@earthlink.net>
> ----------------------------------------
> I have just installed OS X and am using an SS4000 with Silverfast AI.
At
> the moment I have to revert to OS 9.2 in order to scan. It looks like
> Silverfast will in time come out with a version for OS X. If and when
it
> does, will the SS4000, utilizing a Scusi drive, operate under OS X?
>
> Martin
>
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-
>
> Topic: Test - please ignore
> ======================
> Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 06:28:38 +0000
> From: "David -" <dab2000@hotmail.com>
> ----------------------------------------
>
> Test - please ignore
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device:
>
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
