Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

   


   


   















      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[filmscanners] RE: Noise in Polaroid SS 4000 scans



Hmmm,

The first one was the scan I made with Silverfast 6, that I upgraded to
just today. No processing, just saving as a HDR file, 4000 dpi. What I
did, is just copy the part I sent to you and put it in a new photoshop
file, downsample to 8 bit, save it and send it to you.
The same with the second file I sent you, that was the Vuescan Raw file:
so no processing, no sharpening, just taking a part of the Raw Vuescan
(latest version) file that was saved to my HD, make it 8 bit and crop to
make a file large enough to send to you.

Is there somebody out there near Leiden, the Netherlands with a SS4000
where I can pick up a negative, scan and compare with your scan, or take
my negative and scan with your scanner?

Harry


-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk] Namens Arthur Entlich
Verzonden: vrijdag 13 juni 2003 1:00
Aan: Harry@vdKrogt.nl
Onderwerp: [filmscanners] Re: Noise in Polaroid SS 4000 scans


As it turns out, Harry sent me two scans.  The first one was not the one
on the web as I understand it, the second one, which I got in a second
email is, I believe, the one from the web.

My verdict on the first one he sent stands are grain.

However, the second one is a slightly different story.

It appears that some type of digital processing of this image was done
post scanning, or during scanning. Specifically, the earlier one had its
orange masking on it, while the second one looks like a film profile
(and perhaps other processing) was done on it.  If those images were
taken from the same roll of film, then these artifacts are a result of
the digital processing.  In the second image, I do see many individual
pixels that have considerable and distinct differences.  It looks like
the image may have been over-sharpened causing the grain to be vastly
exaggerated due to the stepwise nature of sharpening algorithms.

Perhaps Harry can enlighten us more of what he did on that second scan
he sent me.

I still do not believe this is noise. The reason being, it is again most
visible in the lightest areas of the negative (the dark parts of the
positive inversion) which is not normal for CCD sensors to manifest
noise in.

If the two scans I was sent are both from the same film stock, same
chemical processing, (they are the same subject matter) then the
artifacting was created in the digital processing of the scan, not by
the scanner or the film, per say.  However, even the first scan is
relatively grainy, IMHO.

However, I do very little shooting with negs, so I'm not the best judge
of grain size norms.

Art


------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in
the message title or body

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body



 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.