Filmscanners mailing list archive (firstname.lastname@example.org)
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[filmscanners] Re: Noise in Polaroid SS 4000 scans
To further this discussion, the first scan I received has the
distinctive orange mask found with most negative color films. When I
took it into photoshop and inverted it, as a result, the colors were
very inaccurate, leaning heavily to the cyan, which is to be expected,
being that the deep orange would convert to a cyan positive. This is
the Silverfast 6.0 image, I assume.
The second image you sent me, (the one I'm assuming was from VueScan)
has the orange masking striped away. The image is indeed an inverted
positive, and when I do invert it in Photoshop, I get a color corrected
(orange mask removed) positive.
At minimum, the Vuescan raw mode removed the orange mask. But it seems
to do more than that, in that it seems the contrast is higher as well,
or it has been sharpened, or both.
Again, I don't see this as a scanner hardware issue. Did you try
Insight, just to see what it will do?
> 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?
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: email@example.com
> [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] 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.
Unsubscribe by mail to email@example.com, with 'unsubscribe
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or