Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Why does Kodakchrome receive special treatment – Summary  (Read 7253 times)
tgray
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 39


« Reply #20 on: January 18, 2011, 07:30:28 PM »
ReplyReply

I didn't see a blue cast under daylight for which the colours became a whole lot better examined under warmer light, but on some of them I did. So Hunt's hypothesis may have something to it, regardless of other information I've accessed.

Don't know if this is worth anything, but if you look in E-88 (the Kodachrome pdf), on the spectral dye density curves chart, it says, "Normalized dyes to form a visual density of 1.0 for a viewing illuminant of 3200 K."

If you look on any of the Ektachrome pdfs, like E4024 (E100G), the spectral dye density curve chart says, "Normalized Dyes to form a visual neutral density of 1.0 for a viewing illuminant of 5000 K."

Again, not sure if there is any significance there.  But it is there.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6945


WWW
« Reply #21 on: January 18, 2011, 07:36:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes I would think it is significant; looks consistent with the quote from Dr. Hunt.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Iliah
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 410


« Reply #22 on: January 18, 2011, 07:58:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Don't know if this is worth anything, but if you look in E-88 (the Kodachrome pdf), on the spectral dye density curves chart, it says, "Normalized dyes to form a visual density of 1.0 for a viewing illuminant of 3200 K."

If you look on any of the Ektachrome pdfs, like E4024 (E100G), the spectral dye density curve chart says, "Normalized Dyes to form a visual neutral density of 1.0 for a viewing illuminant of 5000 K."

Exactly. Also, for Kodachrome scanning fairly broad-spectrum light sources combined with better Kodachrome dyes matching filters usually result in better scans. LED scanners are not a good match IMHO.
Logged
guyburns
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 89


« Reply #23 on: January 18, 2011, 08:00:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Re Dmerger's:

Now, all of a sudden we have a guy who registers on this web site on January 11, 2011, and the very next day posts a question about scanning Kodachrome.  Coincidence?

As that statement is a personal reference to me, Guy Burns, 99 Leith Rd, Tasmania, 03 6428 2976 (I never use a pseudonym on any forum/website) I'll let readers decide if my first post was a coincidence. And I should rebut the inference linking me to SilverFast.

In early December 2010, I began the process of slide scanning, with the aim of converting my 3-screen audiovisuals to HD format. It has been a long term aim for about ten years. I have a mob of slides locked up in about a dozen slideshows, produced since 1983. As slides, the shows were presented at a local theatre, but now that I consider digital images to be comparable to slides, my aim is to convert them to HD and use the Barco DP-2000 projector (http://www.barco.com/en/digitalcinema/product/1805) at the theatre to show new digital versions of my audiovisuals.

I assumed the slide scanning would be the easy part. I thought the aesthetic aspect of converting images with a 4.5:1 aspect ratio to 16:9 would be the difficult part. And I was pretty sure that matching the colour and contrast of an image on my monitor to that of the Barco would be quite a challenge. Well, I'm stuck on step one. I still don't know how to scan slides acceptably. As well as using my Coolscan, I'm testing a friend's Plustek, a Canon flatbed, and a Nikon D700. And I'm comparing Vuescan, SilverFast and NikonScan.


One Month Before The Coincidence
Two mates reckoned photographing the images with a Nikon D700, macro lens, barrel and slide attachment was the way to go. Reasonable results now, but it started off poorly. Here's my thread from Dec 12:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=37163593


Three Weeks Before The Coincidence
With the Coolscan, I couldn't understand how it could give such outstanding results for certain slides, results that could not be replicated in Photoshop. Here's my post from Dec 16:
http://forums.adobe.com/thread/766773?tstart=0


Two Days After The Coincidence
I have no connection with SilverFast and I am not enamoured by its capabilities. Initial testing revealed serious flaws in it's handling of infrared dust removal, and it's non-infrared dust removal is woeful (as to be expected). Several articles on Wikipedia reference SilverKeeper, and I've challenged, and am just about to remove, some of them and provide references with more authority (see Stops/Density Range near the bottom of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kodachrome)

I want the best digital images from my slides, and at this stage I have no biases. I'm in a pure testing phase which may last several months. I can say, however, that at the moment SilverFast is not high on my list of software. But that might change.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5489


WWW
« Reply #24 on: January 18, 2011, 08:32:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Re Dmerger's:

Now, all of a sudden we have a guy who registers on this web site on January 11, 2011, and the very next day posts a question about scanning Kodachrome.  Coincidence?

As that statement is a personal reference to me, Guy Burns, 99 Leith Rd, Tasmania, 03 6428 2976 (I never use a pseudonym on any forum/website) I'll let readers decide if my first post was a coincidence. And I should rebut the inference linking me to SilverFast.

Guy...some people wear tin foil over their heads to keep the radio waves from distant planets from taking over their brains...other think black helicopters are coming to get them (truth is, it's the silent drones ya gotta really worry the most about).

So, conspiracy theories abound on the internet...thanks for clearing that bit of theory up...

As I indicated, scanning Kodachrome can be a challenge...the resulting discussion (both the OP and Summary) have been interesting and useful, so thanks for that.

Shills? Really?

Wow...as somebody whose integrity is sometimes called into question I really wonder where some people are coming from. Me thinks he doth protest too much (meaning the weight of the baggage must be immense)!

:~)

Now, back to your regularly scheduled programs...
(Mac vs PC, Nikon vs Canon, Epson vs Canon, DSLR vs MF or ACR vs DPP or Capture NX, etc)

P.S. an apology is in order me thinks...
« Last Edit: January 18, 2011, 09:45:57 PM by Schewe » Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6945


WWW
« Reply #25 on: January 18, 2011, 09:09:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Re Dmerger's:

Now, all of a sudden we have a guy who registers on this web site on January 11, 2011, and the very next day posts a question about scanning Kodachrome.  Coincidence?

As that statement is a personal reference to me, Guy Burns, 99 Leith Rd, Tasmania, 03 6428 2976 (I never use a pseudonym on any forum/website) I'll let readers decide if my first post was a coincidence. And I should rebut the inference linking me to SilverFast.

In early December 2010, I began the process of slide scanning, with the aim of converting my 3-screen audiovisuals to HD format. It has been a long term aim for about ten years. I have a mob of slides locked up in about a dozen slideshows, produced since 1983. As slides, the shows were presented at a local theatre, but now that I consider digital images to be comparable to slides, my aim is to convert them to HD and use the Barco DP-2000 projector (http://www.barco.com/en/digitalcinema/product/1805) at the theatre to show new digital versions of my audiovisuals.

....................

I want the best digital images from my slides, and at this stage I have no biases. I'm in a pure testing phase which may last several months. I can say, however, that at the moment SilverFast is not high on my list of software. But that might change.

Guy: Are you on Windows or Mac doing the scanning tests?
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
guyburns
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 89


« Reply #26 on: January 18, 2011, 09:12:34 PM »
ReplyReply

To paraphrase the African-American woman who complained about the Fat Elvis stamps ("I ain't licking no rear end of no Fat Elvis) -- This slide-scanning beginner don't need no apology, no way. The facts stand.
Logged
Iliah
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 410


« Reply #27 on: January 18, 2011, 09:26:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Dear Ernst,

Looking at the specifications of light sources I think HP Scanjet G4050 should be it. "6 Color" mode covers the spectrum of Kodachrome dyes nicely.
Logged
guyburns
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 89


« Reply #28 on: January 18, 2011, 09:28:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Re: Guy: Are you on Windows or Mac doing the scanning tests?

G5 iMac, OSX 10.4.11. But my scanning mates who are very keen to convince me that photographing is the best way, are all on PC, so I can access a PC.

Now for a story: I was sitting here testing a few weeks ago, with the scanner in mid-scan, and in walks my D700 mate:

"How long does it take that Nikon to scan a slide?"
"About three minutes, but if you include the preview, a bit of thinking, twiddling, and saving and naming, I'm aiming for 10 an hour once I decide on a process."
"In three minutes, I can do about 30"

Very proud he was, too. I didn't quite know how to respond, but I was very diplomatic as he has some good gear he lets me play with. He's invented a system where he mount slides in a Kodak carousel, sets it to automatic advance (I assume 6 seconds), somehow takes an image from the projector (I'm not sure how he does that yet), sets the camera to take photos every 6 seconds, and away it goes at 10 slides a minute. He's going to charge 50 cents a slide if mounted in a carousel, $1 a slide if he has to brush and mount them. I'm impressed with the engineering, but I'm more interested in quality than speed.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2011, 09:30:07 PM by guyburns » Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6945


WWW
« Reply #29 on: January 18, 2011, 09:44:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Re: Guy: Are you on Windows or Mac doing the scanning tests?

G5 iMac, OSX 10.4.11. But my scanning mates who are very keen to convince me that photographing is the best way, are all on PC, so I can access a PC.


You're fine on a Mac. The only reason I asked is because your comment on SilverFast iSRD didn't jive with my experience using it, and I know it doesn't work with the Nikon Super Coolscan 5000ED on Windows, but it does/is supposed to on Mac.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
dmerger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 686


« Reply #30 on: January 18, 2011, 10:35:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Guy, your explanation has convinced me that my suspicion that you may be a shill was unfounded.  I apologize. 
Logged

Dean Erger
dmerger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 686


« Reply #31 on: January 18, 2011, 11:32:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Guy...some people wear tin foil over their heads to keep the radio waves from distant planets from taking over their brains...other think black helicopters are coming to get them (truth is, it's the silent drones ya gotta really worry the most about).

So, conspiracy theories abound on the internet...thanks for clearing that bit of theory up...

As I indicated, scanning Kodachrome can be a challenge...the resulting discussion (both the OP and Summary) have been interesting and useful, so thanks for that.

Shills? Really?

Wow...as somebody whose integrity is sometimes called into question I really wonder where some people are coming from. Me thinks he doth protest too much (meaning the weight of the baggage must be immense)!

:~)

Now, back to your regularly scheduled programs...
(Mac vs PC, Nikon vs Canon, Epson vs Canon, DSLR vs MF or ACR vs DPP or Capture NX, etc)

P.S. an apology is in order me thinks...

Jeff, please note my apology to Guy. 

Your belittling, insulting comment, however, was unnecessary, especially since less than two weeks ago on this web site, when you suspected that someone was a shill, you wrote “Oh well, a putz is a putz...it's fun to kick them when you get them on the ground!”  http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=49768.msg413538#msg413538

You didn’t say you suspected them; you convicted and insulted them in a crude manner.  You did so based on evidence no more substantial than in the present case. Yes, I said I suspected that Guy was a shill, but I neither convicted him nor did I use crude insults. Under these circumstances, I think your insults toward me reflect a double standard.  I suspect that you likely made your insults to me in haste and without sufficient reflection.  Perhaps with a little reflection, you’ll reconsider the appropriateness of your comment.
Logged

Dean Erger
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5489


WWW
« Reply #32 on: January 19, 2011, 12:06:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Perhaps with a little reflection, you’ll reconsider the appropriateness of your comment.

No, not so much...

You'll notice, even in the context of my post you refer to, I actually ADDED some useful content to the discussion...you? Not so much. You launched into a full scale assault (and didn't limit your target to Guy but implied Mark and perhaps others on LuLa were guilty of being shills).

So, no...I stand by my tin foil and black helicopters post.

And...you'll notice George actually came and joined LuLa (which I think is a good thing).

Your apology is useful...don't ruin it by trying to blame others...
Logged
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2854


« Reply #33 on: January 19, 2011, 02:16:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Dear Ernst,

Looking at the specifications of light sources I think HP Scanjet G4050 should be it. "6 Color" mode covers the spectrum of Kodachrome dyes nicely.

But does it have the two fluorescent lamps ready for film scanning? Not to mention the usual limited Dynamic Range of flatbed scanners. I was interested in the method, the tests were done on reflective originals only. You have to verify what the specs are for film scanning.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

New: Spectral plots of +220 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm



Logged
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2854


« Reply #34 on: January 19, 2011, 03:04:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Don't know if this is worth anything, but if you look in E-88 (the Kodachrome pdf), on the spectral dye density curves chart, it says, "Normalized dyes to form a visual density of 1.0 for a viewing illuminant of 3200 K."

If you look on any of the Ektachrome pdfs, like E4024 (E100G), the spectral dye density curve chart says, "Normalized Dyes to form a visual neutral density of 1.0 for a viewing illuminant of 5000 K."

Again, not sure if there is any significance there.  But it is there.

It doesn't say neutral density in one line but I assume that neutral should be there too. If that statement is correct then the two films do not match in projection light (3200K) and one wonders in what light they would match. I doubt any. Seems odd to me though but Ektachrome was of course used in a much wider market than for slide projection only. On the other hand the recommendation has been not to project original Kodachrome slides if the projection time exceeds 1 hour, instead use Ektachrome copies of the original Kodachrome slides. The last must have had a special color correction too then with their different dyes compared to the original, neutrality to 5000K and to be used on 3200K. Scanning Kodachromes can only be a simple task compared to that task.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

New: Spectral plots of +220 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
Logged
Iliah
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 410


« Reply #35 on: January 19, 2011, 04:53:40 AM »
ReplyReply

But does it have the two fluorescent lamps ready for film scanning? Not to mention the usual limited Dynamic Range of flatbed scanners. I was interested in the method, the tests were done on reflective originals only. You have to verify what the specs are for film scanning.

Dear Ernst,

I remember you mentioned that scanner in one occasion and thought maybe you know. Hopefully next month I will have time to experiment with it.
Logged
dmerger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 686


« Reply #36 on: January 19, 2011, 12:19:05 PM »
ReplyReply

You'll notice, even in the context of my post you refer to, I actually ADDED some useful content to the discussion...you? Not so much. You launched into a full scale assault ...

Your statement is irrelevant to the topic at hand as well as false.  You no doubt are aware that this thread is a continuation of another thread that is nearby.  I have provided at least as useful content as you have to these threads.  I made four substantive posts before the post of which you complain.  For example:


Quote from: Schewe on January 12, 2011, 10:31:20 PM
And no, you absolutely need to optimize the tone & color as you scan and not try to fix it after the fact in PS.

Jeff, why?

With consumer desktop scanners, all adjustments in scanning software (other than focus, exposure, ICE, multi-sample and multi-pass) merely edit the pixel data derived from the scanner’s CCD. 

For purposes of this discussion, a scanner has two essential parts, a light source and a light sensor; e.g. a cold cathode fluorescent lamp (CCFL) light source and a CCD light sensor.  For any scanning software to implement a tone or color adjustment at the scan stage, as I think your comment implies, the scanning software would have to be able to control and adjust (1) the spectral output of the CCFL and/or (2) the way the CCD responds when exposed to light.  Scanning software can do neither.

Therefore, since tone and color adjustments just edit the pixel data using typical image editing tools, why do such adjustments absolutely need to be optimized using the scanning software rather than after the fact in PS?  In both cases, the adjustments are made after the actual scan. 

Some people may prefer to make such “software” adjustments with scanning software.  I prefer to make such adjustments using Camera Raw and Photoshop because:

1.   With most scanning software, the adjustments are baked into the scan output file, and tweaking these adjustments later requires another scan.  In other words, the adjustments are destructive.  On the other hand, such adjustments in Camera Raw or PS can be done non-destructively and can easily be tweaked later if necessary.
2.   I much prefer the tools and capabilities of Camera Raw and PS to those in VueScan, Silverfast or other scanning software I’ve tried. 


Also worth noting are your rather feeble replies to that post. I wonder if my temerity to point out your error has sparked your ire and fueled your need to be so insulting. 

And...you'll notice George actually came and joined LuLa (which I think is a good thing).

I don’t understand how this statement is relevant nor do I know the George to whom you refer.

Your apology is useful...don't ruin it by trying to blame others...

Characterizing my reply to you as “trying to blame others” is a complete mischaracterization of what I wrote.  Obviously, I was not defending my behavior.  I was merely questioning the appropriateness of your use of demeaning, crude insults.  Surely, you could have registered your disagreement with what I wrote in a more civil manner.  Moreover, deliberating mischaracterizing what I wrote is in itself insulting.

In my immediately preceding post, I tried to be civil and give you a graceful way to reconsider the appropriateness of using demeaning, crude insults. In addition, although your hypocrisy was apparent, I also hoped to give you a graceful way to rectify that error. Sadly, you instead chose to compound your boorish behavior. You recent reply is a collection of irrelevancy, false information and intentional mischaracterization.

Jeff, I was hoping for more from you, but alas hypocrites usually find some way to rationalize their behavior, as you have so amply demonstrated. Moreover, some people have a very difficult time admitting when they are wrong, no matter how obvious.  Of note in this regard:  when I pointed out the absurdity of your implication that scanning software can implement tone and color adjustments at the scan stage,  rather than admit your error, all you would say is: “To be honest, I have very little experience with consumer grade scanners.”  So, knowing the tendencies of hypocrites generally, and your aversion to admitting your mistakes, I guess your latest reply is all that I could reasonably expect from you.



Logged

Dean Erger
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5489


WWW
« Reply #37 on: January 19, 2011, 12:36:39 PM »
ReplyReply

I wonder if my temerity to point out your error has sparked your ire and fueled your need to be so insulting. 

Not at all...I had forgotten that exchange with you so it wasn't a motive on my part. No, what pissed me off was you cross posting multiple times and in the About this Site subforum your specious allegation that a new member was a shill. That's what pissed me off bud...it STILL pisses me off bud.

Quote
but alas hypocrites usually find some way to rationalize their behavior, as you have so amply demonstrated.

So, are you the pot or the kettle?
Logged
dmerger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 686


« Reply #38 on: January 19, 2011, 04:10:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, Jeff, I can see that our discussion is sinking ever deeper into nonsensical, childish outbursts.  I mean, do we really have to debate whether it is appropriate cavalierly to use demeaning, crude insults?  In what mature, civil society are such insults ever considered appropriate?  It’s surreal that we are even having this debate.
Logged

Dean Erger
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5489


WWW
« Reply #39 on: January 19, 2011, 04:49:52 PM »
ReplyReply

I mean, do we really have to debate whether it is appropriate cavalierly to use demeaning, crude insults?

I just thought it was colorful language...and in reality, I had addressed my colorful comments to Guy not you. In fact, I just reread the post you find "demeaning, crude insults" and unless your skin is super thin or non-existant, I still fail to consider them "demeaning, crude insults".

And, again I ask, are you the pot or the kettle?

I ask cause I'm not sure "nonsensical, childish outbursts" is really all that one sided bud. Ask yourself, how do you honestly feel about your recent behavior on the forums? Proud of yourself?
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad