Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.apps > #8685 > unrolled thread

Scanner software for Mac

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.apps

Contents

  Scanner software for Mac Paul Förster <paul.foerster@gmx.net> - 2012-03-27 11:59 +0200
    Re: Scanner software for Mac Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2012-03-27 07:57 -0400
      Re: Scanner software for Mac Paul Förster <paul.foerster@gmx.net> - 2012-03-27 14:31 +0200
        Re: Scanner software for Mac gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2012-03-27 07:20 -0700
          Re: Scanner software for Mac jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2012-03-28 05:28 +1300
            Re: Scanner software for Mac Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2012-03-27 12:52 -0400
              Re: Scanner software for Mac jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2012-03-28 06:42 +1300
                Re: Scanner software for Mac Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2012-03-27 14:44 -0400
                  Re: Scanner software for Mac jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2012-03-28 08:17 +1300
                    Re: Scanner software for Mac gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2012-03-27 13:04 -0700
                  Re: Scanner software for Mac Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2012-03-27 21:01 +0000
                    Re: Scanner software for Mac jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2012-03-29 02:28 +1300
                      Re: Scanner software for Mac Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2012-03-28 09:59 -0400
                        Re: Scanner software for Mac jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2012-03-29 05:16 +1300
                      Re: Scanner software for Mac Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2012-03-28 11:00 -0400
                        Re: Scanner software for Mac jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2012-03-29 05:16 +1300
                Re: Scanner software for Mac Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2012-03-30 23:40 -0400
              Re: Scanner software for Mac dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2012-03-28 10:16 +1100
          Re: Scanner software for Mac Ed Anson <EdAnson@comcast.net> - 2012-03-27 18:07 -0400
            Re: Scanner software for Mac gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2012-03-27 15:14 -0700
            Re: Scanner software for Mac Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2012-03-27 22:40 -0400
        Re: Scanner software for Mac isw <isw@witzend.com> - 2012-03-27 10:09 -0700
          Re: Scanner software for Mac dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2012-03-28 10:26 +1100
          Re: Scanner software for Mac Paul Förster <paul.foerster@gmx.net> - 2012-04-01 15:08 +0200
            Re: Scanner software for Mac Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2012-04-01 20:29 +0000
              Re: Scanner software for Mac isw <isw@witzend.com> - 2012-04-01 23:15 -0700
                Re: Scanner software for Mac "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2012-04-02 17:45 +0000
                  Re: Scanner software for Mac Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2012-04-03 19:55 +0000
                    Re: Scanner software for Mac Michael Siemon <mlsiemon@sonic.net> - 2012-04-03 15:14 -0700
            Re: Scanner software for Mac isw <isw@witzend.com> - 2012-04-01 22:41 -0700
              Re: Scanner software for Mac Paul Förster <paul.foerster@gmx.net> - 2012-04-02 19:42 +0200
        Re: Scanner software for Mac Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2012-03-27 22:11 -0400
          Re: Scanner software for Mac dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2012-03-28 14:20 +1100
            Re: Scanner software for Mac Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2012-03-28 20:56 -0400
        Re: Scanner software for Mac "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2012-04-02 17:21 +0000
          Re: Scanner software for Mac Paul Förster <paul.foerster@gmx.net> - 2012-04-02 19:50 +0200
            Re: Scanner software for Mac "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2012-04-04 02:11 +0000
              Re: Scanner software for Mac dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2012-04-04 13:37 +1000
                Re: Scanner software for Mac isw <isw@witzend.com> - 2012-04-03 21:01 -0700
                  Re: Scanner software for Mac Paul Förster <paul.foerster@gmx.net> - 2012-04-05 15:50 +0200
                    Re: Scanner software for Mac isw <isw@witzend.com> - 2012-04-05 21:23 -0700
                      Re: Scanner software for Mac Paul Förster <paul.foerster@gmx.net> - 2012-04-08 10:15 +0200
              Re: Scanner software for Mac Paul Förster <paul.foerster@gmx.net> - 2012-04-05 08:51 +0200
    Re: Scanner software for Mac Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2012-03-27 22:00 -0400
      Re: Scanner software for Mac Paul Förster <paul.foerster@gmx.net> - 2012-04-01 15:09 +0200
        Re: Scanner software for Mac Paul Sture <paul@sture.ch> - 2012-04-01 16:14 +0200
        Re: Scanner software for Mac Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2012-04-02 00:57 -0400
          Re: Scanner software for Mac Paul Förster <paul.foerster@gmx.net> - 2012-04-02 19:35 +0200
    Re: Scanner software for Mac Howard.not@home.com (Howard) - 2012-03-28 22:03 +0100
      Re: Scanner software for Mac Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2012-03-28 16:26 -0700
        Re: Scanner software for Mac Howard.not@home.com (Howard) - 2012-03-30 00:22 +0100

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#8708

On 03-27-2012 18:07, Ed Anson wrote:
> On 3/27/12 10:20 AM, gtr wrote:
>> I did the same a number of years ago with a cheap Cano scanner that no
>> longer works under Lion. I used their software. If their software won't
>> work for you, I'd contact Canon.
>
> I used to use CanoScan. While upgrading to Lion, I contacted Canon and
> they informed me that they are no longer supporting that software. They
> recommended (and I purchased) VueScan.

I have a Canon N650U purchased when I was using OS 9.
The scanner part was mediocre and the bundled OCR, editor, etc. sucked.
Was even worse when they ported it to OS X, and it has not been upgraded 
since.  SANE is better.

-- 
Wes Groleau

    Measure with a micrometer, mark with chalk, and cut with an axe.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8693

In article <9tdq8cFguU1@mid.individual.net>,
 Paul Förster <paul.foerster@gmx.net> wrote:

> Hi Warren,
> 
> > Care to elaborate? We've been using VueScan for a good ten years; we've
> > scanned (literally) over a thousand images, prints, negatives, slides,
> > documents and whatnot.  We don't even use particularly good scanners
> > (Canon 8400F at the moment). Granted, VueScan is a bit quirky to set up
> > (or rather, to understand how to set up), but once you do, it does what
> > it's supposed to do.
> > 
> > Anyway, it's about as good as you're going to get without spending a
> > bunch of money. You could Google for Iris Powerscan. I've never used it,
> > but I'm told it's very good.
> 
> ... I'm not worried about spending money. I registered VueScan and 
> payed the price as I do for any other piece of software I use.
> 
> The story is this: I'm currently in the process of digitizing the whole 
> family image archive. That includes 110 format negatives, the most 
> crappy Polaroid instant photo shit, 60x60 negatives (two half-scans 
> necessary because of physical constraints of the lamp), 35 mm films 
> which are everything else than flat and all such stuff. Many negatives 
> date back to the 1960s and some are even older. You can imagine the 
> quality...
> 
> Anyway, I have a long list of things I would wish VueScan had. It's not 
> its image correction features, though there are some points as well, 
> it's more user interface stuff, loads of small things that make using 
> handling VueScan's interface by far less effective as it could be.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> The save, print, Rotate and magnifier buttons don't belong in the lower 
> right corner. Moving the mouse there is way too long, i.e. all 
> essential controls are seperated too much.
> 
> The selection frame should have an inner marking that shows where to 
> move the mouse to turn it to the hand allowing to move the whole frame.
> 
> The selection frame's area should be clearly defined. I found that the 
> upper and left lines of the frame seem to include the scanned area 
> while the right and lower edges don't. The whole frame should either 
> completely surround the scanning area or are part of it but not both.
> 
> Considering the state of the negatives, I can't just lock the *exact* 
> image colors, exposure, etc. Even if I calibrate the negative base 
> colors I get different results. Interestingly, if you tick for example 
> color correction on one image frame, then it shows a beautiful image 
> for one negative strip. Then, move the selection frame to the next 
> image on that same strip and all is lost, though the both images look 
> beautiful with the frame positioned around the first image. I know, 
> things like fading and color correction have to evaluate an image and 
> determin certain values based on that evaluation. Of course, that 
> evaluation naturally different for each and every picture. What I would 
> like is a features that allows applying the exact image properties of 
> scanning one image to another.

Based on my experience scanning a few hundred 35mm slides, every 
transparency is its own thing, and you're not going to get a "one size 
fits all" set of parameters. I believe the primary reason for that is 
because while a contrast ratio of 100:1 is about the most you can expect 
from any sort of reflective image (a photographic print), a decently 
exposed transparency or negative can exceed that by an order of 
magnitude or more. Unlike reflective images, I believe transparencies 
are very close to the limit of the capabilities for most scanners, and 
individual adjustment is the only way to get acceptable scans, 
especially in the dark areas.

Because of that extreme contrast ratio, I wound up having to set white 
and black levels individually for each slide, and I gave up totally on 
trying to add any sort of color or contrast correction into the mix. I 
used GIMP for all that.

And a hint: do not include any of the slide mount in the active area of 
the scan. That is a "perfect black" which is not representative of any 
part of the actual image, and it will mess with the way the scanner 
handles the dark areas of the image. My scanner's slide holder can 
accommodate four slides, and I found it necessary to set the scan area 
individually for each slide, for each and every batch, in order to scan 
the maximum image area and none of the mount. This is due to the 
inherent lack of precision in the way the slides were positioned in the 
holder. The fact that different batches of slides came with different 
mounts (plastic, cardboard, ...) having slightly different outside 
dimensions and apertures did not help.

Isaac

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8705

In article <isw-2898C6.10092227032012@[216.168.3.50]>,
 isw <isw@witzend.com> wrote:

> Based on my experience scanning a few hundred 35mm slides, every 
> transparency is its own thing, and you're not going to get a "one size 
> fits all" set of parameters. I believe the primary reason for that is 
> because while a contrast ratio of 100:1 is about the most you can expect 
> from any sort of reflective image (a photographic print), a decently 
> exposed transparency or negative can exceed that by an order of 
> magnitude or more. Unlike reflective images, I believe transparencies 
> are very close to the limit of the capabilities for most scanners, and 
> individual adjustment is the only way to get acceptable scans, 
> especially in the dark areas.
> 
> Because of that extreme contrast ratio, I wound up having to set white 
> and black levels individually for each slide, and I gave up totally on 
> trying to add any sort of color or contrast correction into the mix. I 
> used GIMP for all that.
> 
> And a hint: do not include any of the slide mount in the active area of 
> the scan. That is a "perfect black" which is not representative of any 
> part of the actual image, and it will mess with the way the scanner 
> handles the dark areas of the image. My scanner's slide holder can 
> accommodate four slides, and I found it necessary to set the scan area 
> individually for each slide, for each and every batch, in order to scan 
> the maximum image area and none of the mount. This is due to the 
> inherent lack of precision in the way the slides were positioned in the 
> holder. The fact that different batches of slides came with different 
> mounts (plastic, cardboard, ...) having slightly different outside 
> dimensions and apertures did not help.
> 

This is very sensible advice. Scanning lots of different negs is good 
enough for proof sheeting or for making a thumbnail facility, but not 
for much more. 

I guess if you have a ton of stuff to get through it might be as quick 
to sort through the stuff to group like with like as much as possible 
and to take some time and care in this, rather than to rely on scan 
software to control for differences. Then decide on the quality you 
are happy with, that will determine if you need to do negs and 
trannies separately or in batches.

-- 
dorayme

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8819

Hi Isaac,

> Based on my experience scanning a few hundred 35mm slides, every
> transparency is its own thing, and you're not going to get a "one size
> fits all" set of parameters.

... I have scanned about 600 or 700 negative film strips now, each 4-5 
images. My experience is the same as yours, only, these strips are not 
just 35 mm, but also old 60x60, 110 and other funny formats. Colors 
even vary from image to image inside the same strip of film, no matter 
if I lock the film base color or not.

> Because of that extreme contrast ratio, I wound up having to set white
> and black levels individually for each slide, and I gave up totally on
> trying to add any sort of color or contrast correction into the mix. I
> used GIMP for all that.

... VueScan does that too, that's fine.

> And a hint: do not include any of the slide mount in the active area of
> the scan. That is a "perfect black" which is not representative of any
> part of the actual image, and it will mess with the way the scanner
> handles the dark areas of the image.

... yes, I know. :-)

> My scanner's slide holder can
> accommodate four slides, and I found it necessary to set the scan area
> individually for each slide, for each and every batch, in order to scan
> the maximum image area and none of the mount. This is due to the
> inherent lack of precision in the way the slides were positioned in the
> holder. The fact that different batches of slides came with different
> mounts (plastic, cardboard, ...) having slightly different outside
> dimensions and apertures did not help.

... I never use the plastic mounts. I put the negatives directly on the 
scanner glas. The reason is that there is no way to put a rolled up 
negative slide insode that darn mounting frame. Instead I put it on the 
glas and put another layer of glas on top of that. I went to a good 
glas manufacturer and had them make me a special white glass (mostly 
light and color neutral) so I can flatten the negative at least a 
little, increasing sharpness drastically because the slide gets 
flattened. Of course, I have to accommodate for the extra glass by 
moving the VueScan sliders a little (mostly brightness).

That's all not the problem. My problem was (or is for that matter), 
that there is no way to lock and unlock all color settings exactly as 
they are from image to image. At least I didn't find a way yet. VueScan 
determines great colors for one image and, moving the selection frame 
to the next image, the colors get crappy. What I need is, have VueScan 
determine great colors for that one image, lock all settings and have 
it not evaluate the next image but exactly apply what it found for the 
first image. That would help me a lot. VueScan's lock image color and 
lock film base color features don't *exactly* do that. Hope this 
explains better what I meant.
-- 
cul8er

Paul
paul.foerster@gmx.net

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8826

While people who CAN scan slides are paying attention here, can someone
tell me whether there's a way to do it without some kind of slide-scanning
hardware? My Epson Artisan 610 has a number of adjustable stuff in its
software, but I suspect there is no way to scan slides. . . Or is there?


-- 
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist with iPad

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8831

In article <jladr6$m5r$1@dont-email.me>,
 Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:

> While people who CAN scan slides are paying attention here, can someone
> tell me whether there's a way to do it without some kind of slide-scanning
> hardware? My Epson Artisan 610 has a number of adjustable stuff in its
> software, but I suspect there is no way to scan slides. . . Or is there?

To scan slides or negatives, you need a source of light *behind* the 
film, *and* a way to make the light source inside the scanner shut off. 
Does your scanner have (even as an optional add-on) such an attachment?

Or ... there are things like this:

http://www.abstractconcreteworks.com/essays/scanning/Backlighter.html

but I don't think they do a really good job.

To do a good job on slides, a scanner needs to go well above the 300-600 
dpi that works plenty well enough for reflective sources like photos or 
documents.

The problem is that slides are only about one inch across and they 
contain an awful amount of "information", both spatially (number of 
"pixels") and also contrast ratio (brightness span from "black" to 
"white"). Depending on what use you want to make of the resulting scans, 
slides can be beneficially scanned at up to 4800 dpi, or even more, and 
many flat bed scanners will struggle (and fail) trying to handle the 
2000:1 contrast ratio of a well-exposed Kodachrome.

Absent a dedicated slide scanner or a good flat-bed scanner with a 
transparency adapter, probably your best shot is to get -- or make -- an 
adapter to illuminate the slide and hold it in front of a good digital 
camera. That won't get you as high as resolution as the slide can 
deliver, and the same for the contrast, but still, the results might be 
plenty good enough to suit you.

Isaac

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8838

On Mon, 2 Apr 2012 06:15:58 UTC, isw <isw@witzend.com> wrote:

> Or ... there are things like this:
>  
> http://www.abstractconcreteworks.com/essays/scanning/Backlighter.html
>  
> but I don't think they do a really good job.
 
Some years ago I had an HP flatbed scanner that came with a device 
like that. I managed to get some good results with it, with both 
35mm and 110 slides. It was useless for negatives, however.

Now I have an Epson scanner with a light in the lid. Much, much 
better, and it came with a set of frames for holding down various 
sizes of negatives, though not 110s sad to say. The only problem is 
the unit is a few years old now and the Epson software (which is 
quite good, by the way) has to run in Rosetta, which is why I'm 
reading this thread.

And while we're talking about slides and negatives: Some of my 
slides and color negatives are over 50 years old. Kodachrome and 
Kodacolor have held up well. Ektachrome slides have faded badly; to 
the eye they look pink. The same is true of the few non-Kodak slides
I have. (A few of the Ektachromes have blotchy green things on them;
they look like mold or lichens or aliens or something.) With some 
effort I have been able to recover the color of many of them, but 
some I just had to convert to B&W. The moral of the story is: if you
have old Ektachrome slides and you want to keep them, scan them 
right now before they get worse.

-- 
John Varela

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8864

"John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Apr 2012 06:15:58 UTC, isw <isw@witzend.com> wrote:
> 
>> Or ... there are things like this:
>>  
>> http://www.abstractconcreteworks.com/essays/scanning/Backlighter.html
>>  
>> but I don't think they do a really good job.
>  
> Some years ago I had an HP flatbed scanner that came with a device 
> like that. I managed to get some good results with it, with both 
> 35mm and 110 slides. It was useless for negatives, however.
> 
> Now I have an Epson scanner with a light in the lid. Much, much 
> better, and it came with a set of frames for holding down various 
> sizes of negatives, though not 110s sad to say. The only problem is 
> the unit is a few years old now and the Epson software (which is 
> quite good, by the way) has to run in Rosetta, which is why I'm 
> reading this thread.
> 
> And while we're talking about slides and negatives: Some of my 
> slides and color negatives are over 50 years old. Kodachrome and 
> Kodacolor have held up well. Ektachrome slides have faded badly; to 
> the eye they look pink. The same is true of the few non-Kodak slides
> I have. (A few of the Ektachromes have blotchy green things on them;
> they look like mold or lichens or aliens or something.) With some 
> effort I have been able to recover the color of many of them, but 
> some I just had to convert to B&W. The moral of the story is: if you
> have old Ektachrome slides and you want to keep them, scan them 
> right now before they get worse.

Most of the slides I'd like to scan are Fujichrome.  Any experience with
them?

-- 
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist with iPad

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8867

In article <jlfkkc$9d8$1@dont-email.me>,
 Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:

> "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2 Apr 2012 06:15:58 UTC, isw <isw@witzend.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> Or ... there are things like this:
> >>  
> >> http://www.abstractconcreteworks.com/essays/scanning/Backlighter.html
> >>  
> >> but I don't think they do a really good job.
> >  
> > Some years ago I had an HP flatbed scanner that came with a device 
> > like that. I managed to get some good results with it, with both 
> > 35mm and 110 slides. It was useless for negatives, however.
> > 
> > Now I have an Epson scanner with a light in the lid. Much, much 
> > better, and it came with a set of frames for holding down various 
> > sizes of negatives, though not 110s sad to say. The only problem is 
> > the unit is a few years old now and the Epson software (which is 
> > quite good, by the way) has to run in Rosetta, which is why I'm 
> > reading this thread.
> > 
> > And while we're talking about slides and negatives: Some of my 
> > slides and color negatives are over 50 years old. Kodachrome and 
> > Kodacolor have held up well. Ektachrome slides have faded badly; to 
> > the eye they look pink. The same is true of the few non-Kodak slides
> > I have. (A few of the Ektachromes have blotchy green things on them;
> > they look like mold or lichens or aliens or something.) With some 
> > effort I have been able to recover the color of many of them, but 
> > some I just had to convert to B&W. The moral of the story is: if you
> > have old Ektachrome slides and you want to keep them, scan them 
> > right now before they get worse.
> 
> Most of the slides I'd like to scan are Fujichrome.  Any experience with
> them?

My Fujichromes from 40+ years ago are awful. On the other hand, I 
thought they were pretty bad back then (I only used it when I couldn't 
get Kodachrome...) I have some Ektachromes, and many of them have faded;
they recover reasonably well in VueScan, less well in the Epson software
(I have one of the Epson scanners like John's, as well as my trusty
Nikon Coolscan V.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8830

In article <9tr2avFibnU1@mid.individual.net>,
 Paul Förster <paul.foerster@gmx.net> wrote:

> Hi Isaac,
> 
> > Based on my experience scanning a few hundred 35mm slides, every
> > transparency is its own thing, and you're not going to get a "one size
> > fits all" set of parameters.
> 
> ... I have scanned about 600 or 700 negative film strips now, each 4-5 
> images. My experience is the same as yours, only, these strips are not 
> just 35 mm, but also old 60x60, 110 and other funny formats. Colors 
> even vary from image to image inside the same strip of film, no matter 
> if I lock the film base color or not.
> 
> > Because of that extreme contrast ratio, I wound up having to set white
> > and black levels individually for each slide, and I gave up totally on
> > trying to add any sort of color or contrast correction into the mix. I
> > used GIMP for all that.
> 
> ... VueScan does that too, that's fine.
> 
> > And a hint: do not include any of the slide mount in the active area of
> > the scan. That is a "perfect black" which is not representative of any
> > part of the actual image, and it will mess with the way the scanner
> > handles the dark areas of the image.
> 
> ... yes, I know. :-)
> 
> > My scanner's slide holder can
> > accommodate four slides, and I found it necessary to set the scan area
> > individually for each slide, for each and every batch, in order to scan
> > the maximum image area and none of the mount. This is due to the
> > inherent lack of precision in the way the slides were positioned in the
> > holder. The fact that different batches of slides came with different
> > mounts (plastic, cardboard, ...) having slightly different outside
> > dimensions and apertures did not help.
> 
> ... I never use the plastic mounts. I put the negatives directly on the 
> scanner glas. The reason is that there is no way to put a rolled up 
> negative slide insode that darn mounting frame. Instead I put it on the 
> glas and put another layer of glas on top of that. I went to a good 
> glas manufacturer and had them make me a special white glass (mostly 
> light and color neutral) so I can flatten the negative at least a 
> little, increasing sharpness drastically because the slide gets 
> flattened. Of course, I have to accommodate for the extra glass by 
> moving the VueScan sliders a little (mostly brightness).

My sense of it is that a scanner's depth of field is quite sufficient to 
deal with a modest amount of film warpage insofar as focus is concerned. 
My Microtek scanner's transparency holder could accommodate both 
positives (slides) and negatives, but because of the way the holder was 
built, the two were held at different distances from the imaging 
mechanism. I tried both positions, and could not see any difference in 
sharpness even at 4800 dpi. I suppose it's possible that your technique 
would reduce geometric distortion (by a very little bit), but I didn't 
notice it being a problem. Plus, every extra piece of glass means two 
more surfaces to cause reflections and collect dust ...

Isaac

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8837

Hi Isaac,

> My sense of it is that a scanner's depth of field is quite sufficient to
> deal with a modest amount of film warpage insofar as focus is concerned.
> My Microtek scanner's transparency holder could accommodate both
> positives (slides) and negatives, but because of the way the holder was
> built, the two were held at different distances from the imaging
> mechanism. I tried both positions, and could not see any difference in
> sharpness even at 4800 dpi. I suppose it's possible that your technique
> would reduce geometric distortion (by a very little bit), but I didn't
> notice it being a problem. Plus, every extra piece of glass means two
> more surfaces to cause reflections and collect dust ...

... I found a huge gradient in sharpness changing with warpage. Putting 
an extra glass layer on top of any transparency, no matter whether 
negative or positive, improves the situation here a lot. But then, the 
warpage of my old negatives is really really bad. Imagine a third of a 
pipe. They're rounded up to that point, length-wise. So I don't just 
get steady sharpness thoughout the whole image but a huge geometry 
correction.
-- 
cul8er

Paul
paul.foerster@gmx.net

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8707

On 03-27-2012 08:31, Paul Förster wrote:
> Anyway, I have a long list of things I would wish VueScan had. It's not
> its image correction features, though there are some points as well,
> it's more user interface stuff, loads of small things that make using
> handling VueScan's interface by far less effective as it could be.

I do a lot of that.  I put the SANE plug-in in the appropriate place
for GraphicConverter ($35) to find it.

 From GraphicConverter, I invoke SANE.  It has a preview, but it doesn't 
work very well, and it isn't needed anyway.

Set the geometry to the entire bed, the resolution to 600 (first time, 
since it remembers it)

the color to grayscale or color depending on the photos

Scan

When it completes, the image appears in GraphocConverter.

Rotate, resize, adjust color or contrast, blur, sharpen, whatever
as desired, and save.

The editing is usually much faster than the scan.

Sometimes for tiny pictures, I set resolution to 1200, put as many as I 
can on the plate, and read a book while it scans.  Then with 
GraphicConverter, rectangle select, Cmd-C, Cmd-J cuts out a piece into 
another window to edit and save.

-- 
Wes Groleau

"What progress we are making!  In the Middle Ages, they would have
burnt me; nowadays they are content with burning my books.”
                                     — Sigmund Freud, 1933
"He was never to know that even that was only an illusory progress,
that ten years later they would have burned his body as well.”
                                     — Ernest Jones, 1953

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8709

In article <jkts16$nqn$1@dont-email.me>,
 Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> Set the geometry to the entire bed,

Yes, I used to do this and as you did, mess with the result later in 
image software/ I still have a beaut scanner that I ran on my QS and 
earlier under Classic or 9 proper, a ScanMaker with a big bed. Now 
when I need the odd scan, it is quicker for me to take a pic with a 
camera, than mess about with a scanner.

btw, if you set up a lightbox arrangement and your camera is any good 
and you have a tripod, you can do a reasonable job on negs.

-- 
dorayme

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8729

On 03-27-2012 23:20, dorayme wrote:
> when I need the odd scan, it is quicker for me to take a pic with a
> camera, than mess about with a scanner.

I do that a lot, but for old photographs, the scanner is better.

-- 
Wes Groleau

    Ostracism: A practice of sticking your head in the sand.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8834

On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 12:31:08 UTC, Paul Förster 
<paul.foerster@gmx.net> wrote:

> The story is this: I'm currently in the process of digitizing the whole 
> family image archive. That includes 110 format negatives, the most 
> crappy Polaroid instant photo shit, 60x60 negatives (two half-scans 
> necessary because of physical constraints of the lamp), 35 mm films 
> which are everything else than flat and all such stuff. Many negatives 
> date back to the 1960s and some are even older. You can imagine the 
> quality...
 
I did the same thing a few years ago, and am now in the process of 
taking a final pass through all the slides before I throw them and 
the carrousels they rode in on into the trash. Among them are some 
hundreds of 110 slides. Scanning 110 slides at 3200 or more pixels 
per inch produces good results.

I also have 110 negatives, which are a bitch to scan because of 
their wanting to curl up. If you have found a good way to make 110 
negatives lie flat, please pass the method on.

-- 
John Varela

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8839

Hi John,

> I also have 110 negatives, which are a bitch to scan because of
> their wanting to curl up. If you have found a good way to make 110
> negatives lie flat, please pass the method on.

... yes, I found a solution for me. My CanoScan 5600F is a flatbed 
scanner with transparency unit built into the top. So I went to my 
favorite glass cutter and had them cut me a strip of 40 mm wide by 200 
mm long and 4 mm thick of white glass.

Note, it's white glass! That is the official term. The normal glass you 
get is green glass. You can see the difference if you look inside the 
glass through one of its narrow edges. If its edge appears green, then 
you have green glass, which is way cheaper. If there is no greenish 
tone but all you see is what you would expect, i.e. glass, then that's 
white glass.

It has to be white glass because that's the only glass that is a) 
affordable and b) more or less color neutral. That means, all you have 
to to is increase the scan's brightness by some 0.1% or so.

And then, you have to practise putting the strips under the glass. THAT 
is the hard part with strong rolled up strips.
-- 
cul8er

Paul
paul.foerster@gmx.net

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8877

On Mon, 2 Apr 2012 17:50:32 UTC, Paul Förster 
<paul.foerster@gmx.net> wrote:

> ... yes, I found a solution for me. My CanoScan 5600F is a flatbed 
> scanner with transparency unit built into the top. So I went to my 
> favorite glass cutter and had them cut me a strip of 40 mm wide by 200 
> mm long and 4 mm thick of white glass.
 
You have a favorite glass cutter?

Where would I find a glass cutter? I'm sure the local hardware 
stores, if they have any glass at all, will have green window glass.

Is Lexan or some other plastic colorless enough?

-- 
John Varela

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8878

In article <51W5y0sPNk52-pn2-vZNBgQ5DrgU3@localhost>,
 "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Mon, 2 Apr 2012 17:50:32 UTC, Paul Förster 
> <paul.foerster@gmx.net> wrote:
> 
> > ... yes, I found a solution for me. My CanoScan 5600F is a flatbed 
> > scanner with transparency unit built into the top. So I went to my 
> > favorite glass cutter and had them cut me a strip of 40 mm wide by 200 
> > mm long and 4 mm thick of white glass.
>  
> You have a favorite glass cutter?
> 
> Where would I find a glass cutter? I'm sure the local hardware 
> stores, if they have any glass at all, will have green window glass.
> 
> Is Lexan or some other plastic colorless enough?

You folk talking glass to keep negs flat? I had a 35mm enlarger where 
special glass (a spacer called something like "anti-Newton") touched 
the neg to flatten, a Leitz Focomat. But small area, for digital and 
flatbed use, you would need much bigger and it should be polished very 
smooth, and it needs to be high quality.

This was before I settled for decades on a motorised Besseler, the neg 
holders were glassless superb metal sandwiches, the 4x5 you could grab 
the edges and pull a lever and it would stretch flat. I mention all 
this because I know how you all so clearly love me and want to know 
every little thing.

-- 
dorayme

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8879

In article <dorayme-9FE3E4.13371004042012@news.albasani.net>,
 dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> In article <51W5y0sPNk52-pn2-vZNBgQ5DrgU3@localhost>,
>  "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 2 Apr 2012 17:50:32 UTC, Paul Förster 
> > <paul.foerster@gmx.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > ... yes, I found a solution for me. My CanoScan 5600F is a flatbed 
> > > scanner with transparency unit built into the top. So I went to my 
> > > favorite glass cutter and had them cut me a strip of 40 mm wide by 200 
> > > mm long and 4 mm thick of white glass.
> >  
> > You have a favorite glass cutter?
> > 
> > Where would I find a glass cutter? I'm sure the local hardware 
> > stores, if they have any glass at all, will have green window glass.
> > 
> > Is Lexan or some other plastic colorless enough?
> 
> You folk talking glass to keep negs flat? I had a 35mm enlarger where 
> special glass (a spacer called something like "anti-Newton") touched 
> the neg to flatten, a Leitz Focomat.


What's needed to prevent Newton's rings is a piece of glass (or 
something) that is not perfectly flat, and/or not in direct contact with 
the film. The rings are an interference phenomenon that shows up when 
the spacing between two nearly parallel partial reflectors is very tiny 
(wavelength of light tiny). A thin piece of cellophane tape under one or 
two corners might be sufficient to prevent them.

I would think that the very slight tint from "ordinary" glass (it's 
dissolved iron that gives it the green cast) would be easy to handle 
with any scanner's color correction or white balance controls. Anyhow, 
if the slide is more than a few years old, the colors may already have 
drifted further than that glass would move them ...

Isaac

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8920

Hi Isaac,

On 2012-04-04 04:01:52 +0000, isw said:
> What's needed to prevent Newton's rings is a piece of glass (or
> something) that is not perfectly flat, and/or not in direct contact with
> the film.

... speaking about Newton Rings 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_rings), I have a number of 
images that I have not scanned myself but received that way which have 
those rings. Is there a way to remove them?
-- 
cul8er

Paul
paul.foerster@gmx.net

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.apps

csiph-web