| Author |
Message |
Don
Guest
|
 Posted:
Fri Oct 07, 2005 6:25 pm Post subject:
Re: Strategy for scanning complete 35mm negative collection |
|
|
On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 03:16:25 GMT, theo <hazel_iz@earthlink.net> wrote:
| Quote: | On 6 Oct 2005, redtag chummed the waters:
Final question, ...using Vuescan? Would it be
quicker? Could I then use post scan processing - so saving time?
It has been a good thread up to this post, but can I feel the sharks
thrashing the waters now?
|
Those "sharks" are harmless compared to the rabid Vuescan apologists.
For one, the "sharks" base everything they write on *facts*. Rabid
Vuescan apologists, by contrast, just spew obscenities and insults.
| Quote: | this group whom I expect will "suggest" you read the archives for all the
discussions re: Vuescan rev.x.x.x and the similarly functioning Silverfast
xx by LaserSoft .
|
Over here in reality we called that "being informed".
Are you suggesting *not* to read the archives? Interesting advice...
It's clear why rabid Vuescan apologists would rather run away from
facts because these documented facts (i.e. the archives) expose all of
the many Vuescan problems.
As you so ably demonstrate, they prefer to close their eyes and just
lash out. Shooting the messenger hasn't solved a single Vuescan bug!
Don. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
theo
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Oct 07, 2005 7:21 pm Post subject:
Re: Strategy for scanning complete 35mm negative collection |
|
|
Chomp! You broke my boogy board! I'm drowning in your invectives!
Welcome back Don.
| Quote: |
Are you suggesting *not* to read the archives? Interesting advice...
|
Such "straw man" dissembling and prevarication from the zealous promoter
of "objective facts". Why no commentary on Silverfast, which I noted in
the same sentence.
Perhaps it was unsportsmanlike of me to have aided in the chumming, Don.
Sharks are so very focused.
Your contributions in this and earlier threads for other topics have been
informative (most recently NIST re. storage media) if not as entertaining
and diversionary.
Why don't you have the last word.
Regards,
Theo
Pessimists remain morose precisely because they are too right too often. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Roger
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 08, 2005 1:25 am Post subject:
Re: Strategy for scanning complete 35mm negative collection |
|
|
On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 03:16:25 GMT, theo <hazel_iz@earthlink.net> wrote:
| Quote: | On 6 Oct 2005, redtag chummed the waters:
Final question, ...using Vuescan? Would it be
quicker? Could I then use post scan processing - so saving time?
|
<cough><choke><:-))
Each program has it's strong points and its week points.
Each additional step in scanning will add time to the scan process.
Each step in post processing will add time to that work.
As an example, using *either* VueScan or Nikon Scan my LS5000ED takes
about 20 seconds per image be they slide or negative. Adding IR
cleaning (scratch and spot removal) will easily take that to 30
seconds or a tad more. I'm not counting the set up for each image in
either program.
With color correction, faded slide restoration, grain reduction you
can easily take it out to two minutes per scan, but it's work that
won't have to be done later.
You can also set either up to use a photo editing program. Nikon
wants to use their own program, but it still lets you do a fair amount
of editing. Depending on what you do this can take considerable time
using either program.
As a side note VueScan has far more *user* selectable features where
they, or most of them are automatic in Nikon Scan. You may, or may
not find that feature an advantage. Just remember that more user
settings are more places where you can go wrong so it has a much
steeper learning curve. Not everything in Nikon Scan is intuitive to
the first time user, but it is far simpler to use. Still there are a
lot of post processing options available within the scanning program
without having to do any real hands on editing.
Some people swear by it and some swear at it. I use both Nikon Scan
and VueScan and have few complaints with either. I was able to use
Nikon Scan right off the bat. It took a while to get proficient with
VueScan. You'll find people have favorite software and hard ware and
what some love, others hate.
Then again Photoshop CS has a much steeper learning curve than Jasac
Paint Shop Pro, or even Photoshop Elements. Even though Photoshop has
more features, converting from TIFFs to JPGs and resizing them
requires you learn how and then create a macro while Paint Shop Pro
has the feature built in and you only enter the path to the input and
output files, what kind you want and the size. There are a few more
items, but the one is far simpler to learn to use for that task and it
is one whale of a lot less expensive. Photoshop Elements does it much
like Paint Shop Pro.
| Quote: |
It has been a good thread up to this post, but can I feel the sharks
thrashing the waters now? There is at least one zealot and one flamer in
|
Circling at least. <:-))
| Quote: | this group whom I expect will "suggest" you read the archives for all the
discussions re: Vuescan rev.x.x.x and the similarly functioning Silverfast
xx by LaserSoft . Those are the only oft-mentioned contenders in this
otherwise unpopulated category.
|
Me? I have no favorites, at least not yet.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
| Quote: |
For the record, I used Manufacturer supported programs as well as VueScan
for: Epson 2480 Photo LE ( the mini-ADF for 4x6s has hung very seldom),
Kodak RFS3570, PIE PrimeFilm, Minolta Scan Multi Pro; and saved everything
as a TIF despite the subsequent conversions to be suitable to an audience
of computer monitor or TIVO/TV watchers blinking to the dissolve rate of
the slideshows. Too late to get honorable mention in the will.
Promise the kids you'll emerge for their high school graduation ceremony
but don't expect them to remember who you claim to be....
Regards, |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Roger
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 08, 2005 1:25 am Post subject:
Re: Strategy for scanning complete 35mm negative collection |
|
|
On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 17:54:19 +0200, Don <phoney.email@yahoo.com>
wrote:
<snip>
| Quote: | Final question, should I use the standard supplied Nikon software, or
are there any great time advantages in using Vuescan? Would it be
quicker? Could I then use post scan processing - so saving time?
Beware of Vuescan because it's extremely buggy and unreliable (check
the archives!!). This is especially critical if you want to scan raw
and archive the originals. You don't want Vuescan to mutilate them
before you even start. Vuescan is OK, for casual use (e.g. tiny web
JPGs and such) where quality is not important.
|
My experience with the Nikon LS5000 ED has been very good with
VueScan.
| Quote: |
Nikon Scan can do everything you want and more. Actually, if you scan
raw for archiving, turn everything off!
|
I use both Nikon Scan and VueScan. Nikon Scan can easily become
confused with dark straight lines. I shot the auto show in Detroit a
few years back and Nikon Scan was chopping the 35s off when it found a
vertical line in quite a few instances. VueScan did not.
| Quote: |
Final thought, if you scan for archiving don't cut corners by trying
to do too much at once. In my book, scanner software is there to
*scan* not to edit! For editing use an image editing program
afterwards. On top of everything mentioned above, you don't want to
edit using a scanner program because that means using a tiny subset of
tools available in a proper editing program and through the "keyhole"
of a scanner preview display.
|
VueScan will open the images for editing in your chosen program. This
works great if you have the time to do the scanning and editing all at
the same time. I use it to rotate images, but that is about it.
However, even editing in VueScan you can work with full screen images
as you can with NikonScan. OTOH I still prefer to do everything other
than scratch and dirt removal and faded slides in Photoshop although I
also use Jasc's Paint Shop Pro (easy) and Photoshop elements.
My biggest problem right now is Charter's News server which is
insisting I have too many connections and I have one. I'm going to
have to find a good subscription service.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Roger
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 08, 2005 1:25 am Post subject:
Re: Strategy for scanning complete 35mm negative collection |
|
|
On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 19:47:20 +1000, Noons <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:
| Quote: | Roger apparently said,on my timestamp of 6/10/2005 4:17 PM:
Don't forget a *good* back up system and a *good* filing system. If
you can't find them they aren't much good.
Yup. As a friend of mine says: it's not a matter of "if" you'll
lose digital data, it's a matter of "when".
|
I have both and I've still been there and done that. I didn't get a
t-shirt for it either.
I find it sad to see a post for help on here every once in a while
that some one needs to recover the images on a disk. Still, it's very
true, that no matter how good your system, sooner of later you are
going to lose some data you can't replace.
| Quote: |
I store images on DVD as well as on-line. I now have over 3 terabytes
of HD storage and two large stacks (redundant) of DVD archival
storage.
Jim Gray, a research scientist for Microsoft, describes
something he calls the "personal Petabyte" as the amount of
storage needed to adequately digitize one's entire life,
including images, text and video. That's 1000 terabytes.
A long way to go, eh? :)
|
Considering how much I've gone through in the past few years, I don't
think it'd come near being enough. <:-))
Just with digital images I shoot about 80 Gigs a year of personal
interest stuff. If I were traveling and recored what I like I could
easily multiply that many times over and that's no video, audio, or
text.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Al Dykes
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 08, 2005 6:38 pm Post subject:
Re: Strategy for scanning complete 35mm negative collection |
|
|
In article <ks7bk151keipnnrsvbee35lh5bhi1hjjh2@4ax.com>,
Roger <Delete-Invallid.stuff.groups@tm.net> wrote:
| Quote: | On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 19:47:20 +1000, Noons <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au
wrote:
Roger apparently said,on my timestamp of 6/10/2005 4:17 PM:
Don't forget a *good* back up system and a *good* filing system. If
you can't find them they aren't much good.
Yup. As a friend of mine says: it's not a matter of "if" you'll
lose digital data, it's a matter of "when".
I have both and I've still been there and done that. I didn't get a
t-shirt for it either.
I find it sad to see a post for help on here every once in a while
that some one needs to recover the images on a disk. Still, it's very
true, that no matter how good your system, sooner of later you are
going to lose some data you can't replace.
|
In business, system administrators that lose data that has been
identified as important to the business get fired.
--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:53 pm Post subject:
Re: Strategy for scanning complete 35mm negative collection |
|
|
On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 16:25:55 -0400, Roger
<Delete-Invallid.stuff.groups@tm.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Beware of Vuescan because it's extremely buggy and unreliable (check
the archives!!). This is especially critical if you want to scan raw
and archive the originals. You don't want Vuescan to mutilate them
before you even start. Vuescan is OK, for casual use (e.g. tiny web
JPGs and such) where quality is not important.
My experience with the Nikon LS5000 ED has been very good with
VueScan.
|
Many frustrated Vuescan users beg to differ as they keep posting
reports of bugs which never seem to get fixed. The best way is to
check the archives and, with that knowledge, do the evaluation.
As I keep saying, it all depends on one's requirements, one's
threshold for quality and - last but not least - one's tolerance for
recurring bugs.
| Quote: | Nikon Scan can do everything you want and more. Actually, if you scan
raw for archiving, turn everything off!
I use both Nikon Scan and VueScan. Nikon Scan can easily become
confused with dark straight lines. I shot the auto show in Detroit a
few years back and Nikon Scan was chopping the 35s off when it found a
vertical line in quite a few instances. VueScan did not.
|
Considering the two-year Vuescan bug saga with Minolta (the "stripes")
this sounds more like Vuescan is *adding* those lines/stripes!?
Nikon Scan gets cranky when trying to turn things off - especially
auto exposure (!) - but it's very reliable and does output quality
data *consistently* which can't be said of Vuescan which oscillates
wildly and unpredictably which each new release.
| Quote: | VueScan will open the images for editing in your chosen program. This
works great if you have the time to do the scanning and editing all at
the same time. I use it to rotate images, but that is about it.
|
In general, it's not a good idea to cram too much in memory. Photoshop
needs all the RAM it can get otherwise it starts to crawl. If all you
want is to rotate the image, a more efficient workflow would be to use
actions and do the rotation (unattended) after the scanning.
But why not rotate in Vuescan? That way you can eliminate the
Photoshop step completely. Or do you "scan raw"? As far I recall,
Vuescan can't rotate raw scans.
| Quote: | However, even editing in VueScan you can work with full screen images
as you can with NikonScan. OTOH I still prefer to do everything other
than scratch and dirt removal and faded slides in Photoshop although I
also use Jasc's Paint Shop Pro (easy) and Photoshop elements.
|
The same as above goes for Nikon Scan. Of course, each person's
requirements and preferences differ but I, for one, would separate
scanning from editing for a number of reasons.
| Quote: | My biggest problem right now is Charter's News server which is
insisting I have too many connections and I have one. I'm going to
have to find a good subscription service.
|
I get a similar thing occasionally (very rarely, though). The master
newsserver complains about too many connection from my particular
provider (presumably, they only pay for a fixed number). When that
does happen trying a couple of minutes later usually works.
Don. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:54 pm Post subject:
Re: Strategy for scanning complete 35mm negative collection |
|
|
On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 14:21:24 GMT, theo <hazel_iz@earthlink.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Are you suggesting *not* to read the archives? Interesting advice...
Such "straw man" dissembling and prevarication from the zealous promoter
of "objective facts". Why no commentary on Silverfast, which I noted in
the same sentence.
|
Because I leave it to the reader to check the archives and make up
their own mind. *Either* way!
And yet all you saw (through the red haze) was a reference to Vuescan.
It's that hair-trigger touchiness caused by that huge chip on your
collective shoulder which unmasks the rabid Vuescan apologists for
what they are, as you (again!) so ably demonstrate two times in a row.
Here's the full context for calm people who actually bother to read
instead of just lashing out:
--- start ---
| Quote: | this group whom I expect will "suggest" you read the archives for all the
discussions re: Vuescan rev.x.x.x and the similarly functioning Silverfast
xx by LaserSoft .
|
Over here in reality we called that "being informed".
Are you suggesting *not* to read the archives? Interesting advice...
--- end ---
Don. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter D
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:05 am Post subject:
CD?DVD Media Suitablility Discussion (was Re: Strategy for s |
|
|
It's true re the bacteria that has developed the ability to live of some of
the CD substrate (Makes sense. Most are organic dyes after all.). However,
the conditions required make it unlikely to be an issue for most. Ditto re
the oxidizing problem. An even bigger problem was cheap CDs that faded over
time (bought some, and cursed the day I did!).
What needs to be noted in these discussions is that ALL archive/storage
media have certian weaknesses, but digital is definitely superior in MOST
cases than non-digital. Not absolutely flawless, but mostly so. Continuous
cycling and updating provides for a continuous creation of new backups. And
(IMHO) that's the best way to go.
For example, I have an extensive music colleciton that I committed to mp3
for convenience about five years ago. It's grown over time and now numbers
10,000+ tracks with variations created for dancing (speed, length, info,
etc) nubering some 2,000+. The orignals were stored infolders onVerbatinCDs.
Then I moved them to Fuji DVDs. About every three months I update the
collection to reflect the new additions and information and
changes/variants, or to collect certain themes together. So the colleciton
is constantly changing and being updated. I store the 'old' copies so that
if the 'new' copies are lost or damaged, or for some unforeseen reason a
track or folder is damaged, I can recreate them.
It seems to me that much the same will occur with my photos when I get to
scanning them.
The important thing about creating digital copies is that -- for the MOST
part, in MOST cases, more often than not -- the digital copy will outlive
the original and the digital copy 'freezes' the original in the state it was
on the day it was made. By all means, archive the originals and protect
them, but not making a digital copy whenit is so cheap to make nad store
them is (imho) foolish. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Oct 09, 2005 5:43 pm Post subject:
Re: CD?DVD Media Suitablility Discussion (was Re: Strategy f |
|
|
On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 21:05:32 GMT, "Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote:
| Quote: | An even bigger problem was cheap CDs that faded over
time (bought some, and cursed the day I did!).
|
I had some of those, however, I only use cheap CDs for my "working
copy", not for permanent backup. I don't know whether it's due to
constant usage or them not being stored properly (like the masters)
but some of those cheap CDs didn't even last a year!
I consider that working copy a disposable one so that's one place
where cheap CDs could be used (I also use them for temporary
storage/backups).
| Quote: | What needs to be noted in these discussions is that ALL archive/storage
media have certian weaknesses, but digital is definitely superior in MOST
cases than non-digital. Not absolutely flawless, but mostly so. Continuous
cycling and updating provides for a continuous creation of new backups. And
(IMHO) that's the best way to go.
|
Exactly. Although, I do find digital (concept) perfect because it does
not cumulatively deteriorate with every new copy like analog does
(whatever the source: sound, pictures, etc). The only potential
problem is the front end, i.e. the digitizing but that has nothing to
do with digital as such and applies to analog as well.
What I mean by this is that, qualitatively speaking, digital is only
as good as the way it was created! And any problems downstream can
usually always be traced back to that very first step!
That's why I (for one) keep harping on about the importance of
scanning raw to capture everything on the original analog media. If
that data is not captured in the first place there's no way of
recreating it later! I find this to be essential!
Consequently, this is why software used to perform this step is so
crucial and there should be absolutely zero tolerance (!) for any
faults or unreliability because, again, if the software corrupts that
original pure data up front, there's no way of getting it back later!
| Quote: | For example, I have an extensive music colleciton that I committed to mp3
for convenience about five years ago.
|
I'm still to do my LP collection but it keeps getting postponed
because my Nikon got me bogged down with Kodachromes. I did, however,
digitize my own tapes because, like film, they deteriorate with time.
LPs, by comparison, can live "forever" if they aren't used and are
stored properly.
| Quote: | The important thing about creating digital copies is that -- for the MOST
part, in MOST cases, more often than not -- the digital copy will outlive
the original and the digital copy 'freezes' the original in the state it was
on the day it was made. By all means, archive the originals and protect
them, but not making a digital copy whenit is so cheap to make nad store
them is (imho) foolish.
|
Indeed! I would even go further and say that digital has the potential
to outlive all originals simply by its ability to be copied losslessy
ad infinitum. Of course, that takes work with regular cycling etc but,
then again, the same goes for conventional archiving media which does
deteriorate with each new generation.
The beauty of digital is that one loses nothing with each subsequent
copy and with each new advance in storage technology the physical size
gets smaller! So I'm eagerly looking forward to the day when my whole
"digital life" will fit on what, in the future, will be the equivalent
of a USB memory stick! Hopefully with room to spare! ;o)
Don. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 12, 2005 3:13 am Post subject:
Re: Strategy for scanning complete 35mm negative collection |
|
|
redtag wrote:
[quote]Guys,
I have a Nikon Coolscan IV and have played succesfully with scanning my
35mm negatives. Works a treat. However I have several years worth of
negatives to get through!
Can someone share practical advise on how to go about this? I was
thinking of using the scanner as a catalogue device and just save a
thumbnail of all negatives, and correlate them to the negatives. I
would scan a negative, save the thumbnail and file the negative.
Then I can go through the thumbnails and select the pictures I want to
scan. More importthatal pictures as well.
Any thoughts on that? Can I save just the thumbnails on the Nikon?
Should I just scan all the negatives first time round - will take a
looonnngggg time :-)
Cheers
[/quote]
I'll throw my own thoughts onto the thorough advice you've already
received. As Preston Earle wrote, the main factor in scanning
thumbnails vs. originals is the expected ratio of keepers to discards.
If you'll only keep two or three per film roll, you'll probably save
some time by building your thumbnails before reloading for the final
scan. Otherwise, your scanner is supposed to be quick enough that
you'll probably lose more time just by reloading the film a second
time. :)
I don't know NikonScan. If it re-scans even when thumbnailing, you
might save a bit more time by hitting PrintScreen on your keyboard with
all of the NikonScan thumbnails visible, then Edit|Pasting the
screenshot into your image editor, where you can crop and save in short
order. :) That's out of the question if NikonScan can produce speedy
auto-thumbnails or doesn't show all images at once in its preview.
It also depends a bit on how much disk space you have. You might start
to run out if you scan every single image at full size. Whether that
means pruning via thumbnails, scanning fewer/smaller files, or buying
more storage space is up to you.
The rest of this post might be things you're already well familiar
with. I apologize in advance if so. :)
Preston also recommends scanning below max resolution. Pay extra
attention to the *detail* present at the higher resolution and see if
it's any better than that of the lower res. Try resizing a lower-res
scan to the pixel dimensions of the max res scan and comparing them.
I've seen plenty of P&S scans where the original image is blurry enough
that anything above 2700ppi (or much less!) is just grain. On the
other hand, if you have the disk space and enough processing power for
the largest scans, you aren't losing anything by scanning large. One
possible benefit of big images is that noise removal programs such as
Neat Image might give you better and easier results (once they finish
processing the huge file...) when all the grain is smaller than the
smallest image details.
As for scanning into sRGB...doing so will compress the original colors
of the image into a range suitable for unadjusted display on your
monitor. If you're happy with the result, as well as your printed
output, it's a safe choice. However, scanning into AdobeRGB or a wider
color space (I don't know how wide for negative film, though I've seen
EktaSpace and ProPhotoRGB floated around) will preserve more of your
film's overall color range, which is good if you want to take advantage
of the added color range of a high-quality printer or hypothetical
future display technologies.
If you scan into anything other than sRGB, you need an image editor
capable of color managment (such as Photoshop, Photoshop Elements 3&4,
Picture Window Pro, or Paint Shop Pro X). The editor needs to be
configured to use the same color space (AdobeRGB, sRGB, etc.) as the
image, or to convert the image into the current space. If at all
possible, set NikonScan to embed your chosen color space/color profile
into the image when you scan. If you want your image to look correct
on a web page, in a non-color-managed word processor, in a Windows
viewer, or in any other non-color-managed environment, you'll need to
convert a copy back to sRGB. Otherwise the image will look flat and
desaturated. Bear in mind that color management support is improving,
so that future web browsers and Windows programs might display an
AdobeRGB image properly without adjustment.
Your choice of color space is important because you can't go back and
change it later (well, you can, but it won't restore any lost color
range). Color management is a complicated topic, so if you're
perfectly happy with what you're doing now, don't worry about it. :)
Although...if you're going to be tweaking your negatives to get the
colors just right, consider investing $200-300 in a hardware
calibrator/profiler for your monitor (GretagMacbeth EyeOne Display 2,
Monaco Optix XR, ColorVision Spyder2) or at least running the free
software calibrator Adobe Gamma (or possibly Paint Shop Pro X's
built-in Monitor Calibration Wizard, but I can't vouch for its
accuracy). If you calibrate and profile your monitor properly, then
set up your photo editor to use the proper monitor profile, you can be
more confident that your screen is showing you your image and your
edits the way they're actually stored in the file, so that you won't
have to re-correct all your files at some point down the line. :)
Whatever you end up doing, back up your initial scan files (TIFF is a
fine choice for max compatibility and lossless storage) and make any
edits or corrections to copies. Then you can always go back to the
original if necessary.
Have fun reliving your photos. :)
false_dmitrii |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kurt Stege
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 12, 2005 4:27 am Post subject:
Re: Strategy for scanning complete 35mm negative collection |
|
|
Roger <Delete-Invallid.stuff.groups@tm.net> wrote:
[quote]On 5 Oct 2005 22:24:46 -0700, "cubilcle281"
cubicle281@mailinator.com> wrote:
Given that the majority of the time is loading & unloading the film, I
would suggest doing raw scans (including an IR channel if you can) of
I don't think you will find scans to be RAW in the sense of RAW from a
camera. Second, it's a very good idea to do any dust and scratch
removal at scan time using ICE which shouldn't degrade the image
quality. I had some problems with early versions, but every thing in
the last year and a half has worked very well. ICE works far better
than any post processing I've seen.
[/quote]
ICE _is_ a post processing step that happens not in the scanner but
in the PC. The scanner just delivers four channels of data, red,
green, blue and infra-red. And cubicle suggest to save exactly this
data, including the IR channel, before applying ICE-algorithms.
I suppose he things on Vuescan, when suggesting this.
At least thats what I am doing for my favorite photos: Saving the
raw files generated by vuescan. This allows me in a few years to
take the future algorithms to interpret the IR data even when the
original slide should be damaged in the meantime.
[quote]everything at max-rez. Disk space and/or offline storage is cheap.
Tis true it's *relatively* cheap, but at max res those files are
*big*.
[/quote]
Yes. I am sorry, that's right. Therefore, I keep the raw scans only
for my favorite slides. For all other, I only keep "thumbnails"
with half the resolution and downsized to 8 bit per channel...
Best regards,
Kurt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in