Is that scsi based ? (having problems finding any info on it)
Yes

I`ve already emailed a colleague who might be interested

--
Please add "[newsgroup]" in the subject of any personal replies via email
--- My new email address has "ngspamtrap" & @btinternet.com in it ;-) ---

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 17:31:23 +0100, Peter
wrote:

Hi All,

I've just found this NG

Err, which one?

... the subject is exactly what I am after.

[snipped saga of poor transparency scanners]

I suppose what I want is two things:

1. a scanner which is really excellent and which I can rent for a
month or so

2. a scanner which is a lot better than the 1999 Canon...

I would really appreciate any suggestions...

It seems early scanners weren't much good at colour matching. I got
bitten by that with both a Canon LS-20 (Colorscan II) and a Minolta
Dimage Scan Multi II. Neither produce acceptable scans from colour film
and I am still looking for a solution.

Computer Shopper Oct 04 (issue 200) has an interesting review of
scanners. The Mustek BearPaw 4800TA Pro II at £60 inc VAT was highly
rated for FILM scanning although it is basically an A4 flatbed. It will
take 2 strips of 6 by 35mm.

"It's an A4 2,400x4,800dpi flatbed scanner that produces high-quality
results from photos, negatives and slides and costs much less than we'd
expect for such results."

"2,400x4,800dpi optical resolution, 48-bit colour depth, USB Hi-Speed
interface, transparency adaptor. Part code 98-155-00010"

The review is at
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/shopper/revie...ta-pro-ii.html.
I'm not sure if you need to subscribe to view it (I have).

I am coming to the conclusion that to get good results from my scanners
I need to buy some colour calibration targets and colour matching
software - not a cheap option, and as you say, the damn things should do
it as sold anyway.

Phil
The uk.d-i-y FAQ is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk/
Remove NOSPAM from address to email me

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 17:31:23 +0100, Peter
wrote:

Hi All,

I've just found this NG... the subject is exactly what I am after.

I have about 3000 35mm slides, mostly kodachrome 25/64, ektachrome,
cibachrome and lately Fuji Provia. I would like to scan the lot, to a
standard which fully preserves the quality.

In 1999 I bought, for about £600, a Canon FS2710 slide scanner. This
is 2700dpi which in theory should give fantastic results compared to
any digital camera - but it doesn't. The uncompressed file format from
it (e.g. a BMP) is the right size for the res, about 25MB. But saving
it to a Jpeg yields an 800k file - much too small and comparable to a
2 megapixel camera. However if I scan direct into say Photoshop (and
then I get a 25MB file in there), save the file in PS at the highest
quality Jpeg setting it offers, and compare the resulting ~ 3MB file
(on screen, max zoom) with the 800k one which came straight from the
scanner's software, I can't see any difference. BOTH are pretty naff.

It is as if the scanner compressed to a jpeg on the transfer to the
PC! Even if going straight to an application.

The scanner went back to Canon very recently who charged me £150 for
replacing the scanner unit but nothing has changed.

The scanner had always been used for scanning low quality product pics
for a business website so its quality was never tested on outdoor
pics.

Most of my pics are landscapes and similar. Some of the pics are here

www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/crete/crete.html

where those with the 'click to see a larger pic' option are scanned
slides. The colours are way off! The rest were taken with a Casio Z4
(4 megapixel) which is a tiny camera but is basically better than the
2700dpi Canon scanner!

The other thing is colour management. The scanned image is very dark.
I have to do (in PS)

Assign Colour Profile (choose the Canon 2710 profile)
Convert to Colour Profile (as above)

and that makes the image a lot better. But I don't see why these steps
should be necessary - the scanner software should just return the
"right" colour... Any colour management should be available for the
display device.

The software was developed before Windows 2000 which is what I am
running under, but it does the same under NT4.

Whatever is actually wrong with it, it is clear that this scanner
won't do for scanning slides which one might then want to dispose of
afterwards.

I've read some reviews of scanners and Nikon do one for about £3000
which is way too much. I contacted a lot of scanning bureaus and they
want a min of 50p a slide and one wanted £10 a slide, for scanning
them in oil, apparently!

A friend has another 3000 slides and we could put them all together...

I suppose what I want is two things:

1. a scanner which is really excellent and which I can rent for a
month or so

2. a scanner which is a lot better than the 1999 Canon...

I would really appreciate any suggestions...


Peter.

JPEG is a compressed format. The compressors remove detail in order to
compress further, most software allows you yo alter the "quality" of
the JPEG. I would scan to a BMP, and then use some photo processing
software to save as JPEG.

Some scanners scan at say 600 dpi, and then use come clever maths to
essentiall guess what is is the missing dots for 1200dpi, and then
claim to be 1200 dpi. I suggest you look for this feature when you
choose your scanner. this is a feature you probably don't want.

Rick

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 19:53:40 +0100, Peter
wrote:


Rick Dipper wrote

JPEG is a compressed format. The compressors remove detail in order to
compress further, most software allows you yo alter the "quality" of
the JPEG. I would scan to a BMP, and then use some photo processing
software to save as JPEG.

Indeed - but

a) saving it as a BMP, or scanning direct into Photoshop, does not
produce any better results, and

b) the Canon software does not give any options on jpeg quality.


Peter.

Then I would suggest your scanner is somewhat less than 2500dpi, and
its got some clever maths in the software that guesses what colour the
dots inbetween should be.

Rick

"Phil Addison" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 17:31:23 +0100, Peter
wrote:

Hi All,

I've just found this NG

Err, which one?

... the subject is exactly what I am after.

[snipped saga of poor transparency scanners]

I suppose what I want is two things:

1. a scanner which is really excellent and which I can rent for a
month or so

2. a scanner which is a lot better than the 1999 Canon...

I would really appreciate any suggestions...

It seems early scanners weren't much good at colour matching. I got
bitten by that with both a Canon LS-20 (Colorscan II) and a Minolta
Dimage Scan Multi II. Neither produce acceptable scans from colour film
and I am still looking for a solution.


I have just scanned an image from a 15 year old Kodak Gold 100 negative, using
the Minolta Dimage Scan Dual 2, it is straight from the scanner, except for a
slight correction for a green cast, and was scanned using the Minolta software.
The original bmp file size was 26MB, but it has been saved as a jpg on 'High
quality' (8), giving an uploaded file size of 1.6MB
The image is on the following link, (can you recognise the face), but it needs
saving, and opening in an image programme to view properly.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gavin.g...ages/sammy.jpg
This would give a 12" x 8" print at 300 pixels/inch, which is not bad from a
full frame 35mm negative, or 18" x 12" at 200 pixels/inch.

Peter wrote:

Hi All,

I've just found this NG... the subject is exactly what I am after.

I have about 3000 35mm slides, mostly kodachrome 25/64, ektachrome,
cibachrome and lately Fuji Provia. I would like to scan the lot, to a
standard which fully preserves the quality.

In 1999 I bought, for about £600, a Canon FS2710 slide scanner. This
is 2700dpi which in theory should give fantastic results compared to
any digital camera - but it doesn't. The uncompressed file format from
it (e.g. a BMP) is the right size for the res, about 25MB. But saving
it to a Jpeg yields an 800k file - much too small and comparable to a
2 megapixel camera. However if I scan direct into say Photoshop (and
then I get a 25MB file in there), save the file in PS at the highest
quality Jpeg setting it offers, and compare the resulting ~ 3MB file
(on screen, max zoom) with the 800k one which came straight from the
scanner's software, I can't see any difference. BOTH are pretty naff.

I think you are confusing the file formats with quality. JPEG is very
compressed. PhotoShop native files (PSD) or TIFF files retain more
information. You also need to be aware that what you see on any computer
monitor is a poor representation of the actual file. You should only compare
results on final prints.



It is as if the scanner compressed to a jpeg on the transfer to the
PC! Even if going straight to an application.

Most computer monitors are 72 to 96 dpi, and very limited in the colour
range they can display. You only get a representative image on a computer
monitor, not a reality of a final print. If you only need the scans to go to
the internet, then that scanner is more than enough to meet your needs.



The scanner went back to Canon very recently who charged me £150 for
replacing the scanner unit but nothing has changed.

The scanner had always been used for scanning low quality product pics
for a business website so its quality was never tested on outdoor
pics.

If you are only doing scanning for images to use on the internet, then you
do not need to scan at 2700 ppi. You can get away with much smaller initial
scan sizes. To use images on the internet, you should just scan at 72 ppi at
the final large file size you want to use (1024 by 768, 800 by 600, etc.).
Scanning at higher resolutions would just take you longer.



Most of my pics are landscapes and similar. Some of the pics are here

www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/crete/crete.html

where those with the 'click to see a larger pic' option are scanned
slides. The colours are way off! The rest were taken with a Casio Z4
(4 megapixel) which is a tiny camera but is basically better than the
2700dpi Canon scanner!

Not better, but easier for you to use. You should understand that getting
colours correct is a skill that takes a great deal of experience. It can
help to have a calibrated monitor, but even then some colours will just be a
guess. Also, viewing an internet ready JPEG on a Windows, MacOS, or Linux
system would give you at least three different combinations of colour
results, with a good chance that none of them look much the same. The basic
idea for internet images is to play it safe, and hopefully hit somewhere in
the middle of the operating systems display characteristics.



The other thing is colour management. The scanned image is very dark.
I have to do (in PS)

Assign Colour Profile (choose the Canon 2710 profile)
Convert to Colour Profile (as above)

and that makes the image a lot better. But I don't see why these steps
should be necessary - the scanner software should just return the
"right" colour... Any colour management should be available for the
display device.

The default settings for that CanoScan FS2710 will not give you the best
results. Also, the Canon software does not give a very good preview image,
so that could be another problem. If you wanted to spend more money on
SilverFast AI scanning software, the results would improve by a huge margin,
or you could spend just a small amount more and get Vuescan, for a slight
(but noticeable) improvement.



The software was developed before Windows 2000 which is what I am
running under, but it does the same under NT4.

Don't take this as a slam, but accurate colour on Windows is tough to get
consistent. It helps if you have a good proofing printer, or some
calibration devices, and profiling devices (like MarkSpyder, Gretag EyeOne,
etc.). All those devices add expense, and should be judged against time
saved in your scanning. Same goes for SilverFast AI software, which is
basically a great time saving application (little to no need of PhotoShop
adjustments).



Whatever is actually wrong with it, it is clear that this scanner
won't do for scanning slides which one might then want to dispose of
afterwards.

The Canon software is likely the biggest let down, though your overall
working methods could also be improved. I don't mean that to insult, just a
comment since I do this for a living.



I've read some reviews of scanners and Nikon do one for about £3000
which is way too much. I contacted a lot of scanning bureaus and they
want a min of 50p a slide and one wanted £10 a slide, for scanning
them in oil, apparently!

You do not need oil mounted drum scans for images going onto the internet.



A friend has another 3000 slides and we could put them all together...

I suppose what I want is two things:

1. a scanner which is really excellent and which I can rent for a
month or so

Almost any newer scanner running SilverFast AI, or even higher spec software
(Creo, Heidelberg, et al). You can check at http://www.silverfast.com to
see if a scanner might be supported. Since you have 3000 scans to do, the
cost of SilverFast would save you a great deal of time. You can even
download a trial version, and try it on your FS2710 first, then get the full
version for whatever next scanner you buy.



2. a scanner which is a lot better than the 1999 Canon...

Several choices, but all at greater expense. I still have an FS2710 in
service, though it has been modified by an engineer friend (no, he does not
want to do any more). Though it takes some patience and care with the
settings, I have many prints in publication that were done with this
scanner.



I would really appreciate any suggestions...

Peter.

Not knowing your level of experience, it is tough to recommend things for
you. Many scanning devices are just not that user friendly, and often do not
give the best results at the default settings. You might look into Kodak
ProPhotoCD (not PictureCD), and see if anyone in your area still offers
that, and can make you a deal for so many scans. The time and aggravation
you save might be worth the cost in the short run.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

Peter wrote:

I've just found this NG... the subject is exactly what I am after.

reading you loud and clear on uk.d-i-y ;-)

I have about 3000 35mm slides, mostly kodachrome 25/64, ektachrome,
cibachrome and lately Fuji Provia. I would like to scan the lot, to a
standard which fully preserves the quality.

I have done similar job scanning 1000s of slides for my father in law on
a Nikon LS2000 with a SF200 slide feeder. The LS2000 itself makes a nice
job of the scans, even with relatively old and slightly colour shifted
slides (most were 35 years or more old). However all in not plain
sailing, even with a feeder, since they seem to have difficulty reliably
feeding the cardboard mounts on the old Ektachrome etc. With some slight
(temporary) modifications to the feed path I managed in the end to get
reasonably predictable performance and was able to set it off with a
batch of 40 - 50 slides at night and have them ready by morning.
(scanning with oversampling and digital ICE turned on can push the scan
time up to several minutes per scan)

In 1999 I bought, for about £600, a Canon FS2710 slide scanner. This
is 2700dpi which in theory should give fantastic results compared to

scanner's software, I can't see any difference. BOTH are pretty naff.

Not having any experience with that scanner, I can only hazard the guess
that the software that comes with it is likely to be your problem. Have
you checked the canon web site for any updates? If not consider a third
party driver like a Silverfast one if they do one for the scanner.

The other thing is colour management. The scanned image is very dark.
I have to do (in PS)

Assign Colour Profile (choose the Canon 2710 profile)
Convert to Colour Profile (as above)

and that makes the image a lot better. But I don't see why these steps
should be necessary - the scanner software should just return the
"right" colour... Any colour management should be available for the
display device.

If only it were that simple ;-)

I've read some reviews of scanners and Nikon do one for about £3000
which is way too much. I contacted a lot of scanning bureaus and they
want a min of 50p a slide and one wanted £10 a slide, for scanning
them in oil, apparently!

I would have thought you could get something like a LS2000 with feeder
for much less these days.

I suppose what I want is two things:

1. a scanner which is really excellent and which I can rent for a
month or so

With the volume of work you have, why not buy it and then sell on once
you are done?

I would really appreciate any suggestions...

Also don't rule out a flatbed scanning option. Some of the better
flatbed scanners with transparency hood can achieve very respectable
results as well as being able to batch scan 20 slides in one go.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 17:31:23 +0100, Peter
wrote:

Hi All,

I've just found this NG... the subject is exactly what I am after.

I have about 3000 35mm slides, mostly kodachrome 25/64, ektachrome,
cibachrome and lately Fuji Provia. I would like to scan the lot, to a
standard which fully preserves the quality.

In 1999 I bought, for about £600, a Canon FS2710 slide scanner. This
is 2700dpi which in theory should give fantastic results compared to
any digital camera - but it doesn't. The uncompressed file format from
it (e.g. a BMP) is the right size for the res, about 25MB. But saving
it to a Jpeg yields an 800k file - much too small and comparable to a
2 megapixel camera. However if I scan direct into say Photoshop (and
then I get a 25MB file in there), save the file in PS at the highest
quality Jpeg setting it offers, and compare the resulting ~ 3MB file
(on screen, max zoom) with the 800k one which came straight from the
scanner's software, I can't see any difference. BOTH are pretty naff.

Hi,

Naff in what way?

It is as if the scanner compressed to a jpeg on the transfer to the
PC! Even if going straight to an application.

The scanner went back to Canon very recently who charged me £150 for
replacing the scanner unit but nothing has changed.

The scanner had always been used for scanning low quality product pics
for a business website so its quality was never tested on outdoor
pics.

Most of my pics are landscapes and similar. Some of the pics are here

www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/crete/crete.html

where those with the 'click to see a larger pic' option are scanned
slides. The colours are way off! The rest were taken with a Casio Z4
(4 megapixel) which is a tiny camera but is basically better than the
2700dpi Canon scanner!

Again, better in what way, better colours? The scanned pics there
aren't at 2700dpi resolution though, more like half of that on each
axis.

The other thing is colour management. The scanned image is very dark.
I have to do (in PS)

Assign Colour Profile (choose the Canon 2710 profile)
Convert to Colour Profile (as above)

and that makes the image a lot better. But I don't see why these steps
should be necessary - the scanner software should just return the
"right" colour... Any colour management should be available for the
display device.

As well as colour balance, there's dynamic range, as long as you can
lighten the scan and return detail in the shadows it's not a problem.
In fact it's better that than to have scans with washed out highlights
and over saturated colours.

Getting a decent scan out of old scanners is a bit of an art, but not
impossible.

One way to get an idea of colour rendering would be to take a slide
photo of a colour chart in different lighting conditions, then scan it
and compare the colours on the monitor to the projected slide. Also
get an enlargement printed from the slide and compare this with a
printout of a scan from the same slide.

This isn't very scientific but would give an idea of how to boost the
gamma among other things to get a better match.

The main aspects are resolution and dynamic range, these can't be
improved upon later unlike colour matching.

The software was developed before Windows 2000 which is what I am
running under, but it does the same under NT4.

Whatever is actually wrong with it, it is clear that this scanner
won't do for scanning slides which one might then want to dispose of
afterwards.

I've read some reviews of scanners and Nikon do one for about £3000
which is way too much. I contacted a lot of scanning bureaus and they
want a min of 50p a slide and one wanted £10 a slide, for scanning
them in oil, apparently!

A friend has another 3000 slides and we could put them all together...

I suppose what I want is two things:

1. a scanner which is really excellent and which I can rent for a
month or so

2. a scanner which is a lot better than the 1999 Canon...

I would really appreciate any suggestions...

There's a 5400dpi Minolta for about £460 that gets good reviews and
should get pretty much all the detail out of the slides. Scanners have
come a long way in the last few years, so this should give better
color balance than your existing scanner in any case.

I posted a couple of 4800x2400dpi scans a little while back he

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=l4qnk01a507mu48dak4ic80ro7pn 1q9cnk%404ax.com

Have a look and let me know what you think.

cheers,
Pete.

In article ,
Peter wrote:
Naff in what way?

For example areas of the sky contain splodges of different shades of
blue - the sort of thing one sees in excessive jpeg compression. But
there is no compression - this is scanning direct into the app.

How many colours are you viewing this in?

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Qercus magazine & FD Games www.finnybank.com www.acornuser.com
Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines

Sorry to hijack this thread, but there seems to be expertise coming from
newsgroups I didn't even know existed!

I have about 400 negs on 120, but shot '16 to a roll' . I want to get
them digitised at top resolution.

The small number probably doesn't justify a specialised scanner. But a
specialsed rental or agency that does things like this would be highly
welcome?

McLeod wrote:

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 11:25:01 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


Sorry to hijack this thread, but there seems to be expertise coming from
newsgroups I didn't even know existed!

I have about 400 negs on 120, but shot '16 to a roll' . I want to get
them digitised at top resolution.

The small number probably doesn't justify a specialised scanner. But a
specialsed rental or agency that does things like this would be highly
welcome?


I have had very good results with the Epson 3170 photo scanner. It
cost about $300 Canadian and with some tweaking does an excellent job
on 120 negatives.
Ta muchly.

I'll see if one is obtainable 'over here'

Gordon Moat wrote:
I think you are confusing the file formats with quality. JPEG is very
compressed. PhotoShop native files (PSD) or TIFF files retain more
information. You also need to be aware that what you see on any computer
monitor is a poor representation of the actual file. You should only compare
results on final prints.

TIFF and PSD employ lossless compression, don't it?

Most computer monitors are 72 to 96 dpi, and very limited in the colour
range they can display. You only get a representative image on a computer
monitor, not a reality of a final print. If you only need the scans to go to
the internet, then that scanner is more than enough to meet your needs.

Really? RGB gamut is far and away better than that of CYMK. How does it
compare to hexachrome?

--
Now Playing: Pink - Don't Let Me Get Me [192kbps mp3]

McLeod wrote:

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 11:25:01 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


Sorry to hijack this thread, but there seems to be expertise coming from
newsgroups I didn't even know existed!

I have about 400 negs on 120, but shot '16 to a roll' . I want to get
them digitised at top resolution.

The small number probably doesn't justify a specialised scanner. But a
specialsed rental or agency that does things like this would be highly
welcome?


I have had very good results with the Epson 3170 photo scanner. It
cost about $300 Canadian and with some tweaking does an excellent job
on 120 negatives.

Yes. £149 from Jessops.

That is cost effective versus 50p a negative alright.

Thank you again.

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 11:25:01 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Sorry to hijack this thread, but there seems to be expertise coming from
newsgroups I didn't even know existed!

I have about 400 negs on 120, but shot '16 to a roll' . I want to get
them digitised at top resolution.

The small number probably doesn't justify a specialised scanner. But a
specialsed rental or agency that does things like this would be highly
welcome?

I have had very good results with the Epson 3170 photo scanner. It
cost about $300 Canadian and with some tweaking does an excellent job
on 120 negatives.

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 10:56:52 +0100, Peter
wrote:


Pete C wrote

Naff in what way?

For example areas of the sky contain splodges of different shades of
blue - the sort of thing one sees in excessive jpeg compression. But
there is no compression - this is scanning direct into the app.

The banding is due to the limitations of the monitor, the speckling is
probably due to film grain. Excessive JPEG compression shows up as
blockiness, but there is none of that there.

Again, better in what way, better colours? The scanned pics there
aren't at 2700dpi resolution though, more like half of that on each
axis.

Yes, they are low res but the colours are often way off and that much
is visible even in those. The scanned slides are those where one has
the option to click on the image to see a bigger one; the others are
from a Casio Z4. The Sitia harbour pic which is particularly nice is
from the Z4.

By way off, do you mean less saturated or with a colour cast? Digital
cameras can boost the colours as part of the image post processing, at
the consumer end of the market this is more evident with Kodak cameras
than Canon.

Also digital cameras can vary the white balance so can cope with
different lighting conditions better.

There's a 5400dpi Minolta for about £460 that gets good reviews and
should get pretty much all the detail out of the slides. Scanners have
come a long way in the last few years, so this should give better
color balance than your existing scanner in any case.

I ought to try this one then. £460 is OK to buy for this amount of
stuff. Does anyone know off hand whether this comes with software
which can automatically generate incrementing filenames?

Might be worth finding someone or a scanning lab that has one and send
them a few slides with a variety of colours, lighting and exposure
levels and have them done as raw scans.

I posted a couple of 4800x2400dpi scans a little while back he

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=l4qnk01a507mu48dak4ic80ro7pn 1q9cnk%404ax.com

Have a look and let me know what you think.

That's an impressive pic in terms of resolution, but I cannot judge
the colour accuracy (the night lighting is sure to be coloured) or the
dynamic range.

OK there's a couple more here in daylight, one scanned from a negaitve
and one from a print.

http://www.smileypete.dsl.pipex.com/Field_from_negative.jpg
http://www.smileypete.dsl.pipex.com/Field_from_print.jpg

The one from the negative shows that scanner has less dynamic range,
being less detailed in the darkest and brightest parts of the picture.

However this is from a cheap flatbed scanner, and a mid range film
scanner would be worlds apart.

cheers,
Pete.

In uk.d-i-y Gordon Moat wrote:
Peter wrote:

Hi All,

I've just found this NG... the subject is exactly what I am after.

I have about 3000 35mm slides, mostly kodachrome 25/64, ektachrome,
cibachrome and lately Fuji Provia. I would like to scan the lot, to a

Cibachrome isn't a slide material, it was for making prints from
slides - excellent too.

--
Chris Green

Peter wrote:
Hi All,

I've just found this NG... the subject is exactly what I am after.

I have about 3000 35mm slides, mostly kodachrome 25/64, ektachrome,
cibachrome and lately Fuji Provia. I would like to scan the lot, to a
standard which fully preserves the quality.

news:comp.periphs.scanners would be the most appropriate NG.


In 1999 I bought, for about £600, a Canon FS2710 slide scanner. This
is 2700dpi which in theory should give fantastic results compared to
any digital camera - but it doesn't. The uncompressed file format from



--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Peter wrote:

Gordon Moat wrote

Thank you Gordon for all the suggestions!

I think you are confusing the file formats with quality. JPEG is very
compressed. PhotoShop native files (PSD) or TIFF files retain more
information. You also need to be aware that what you see on any computer
monitor is a poor representation of the actual file. You should only compare
results on final prints.

I think my #1 problem here is my poor explanation of the problem. I
know the file formats, which is lossy and which isn't (been doing
DTP/graphics since the earliest days of "PCs").

My bulk slide scanning requirement is for a quality high enough to
enable me to **dispose of** the original slides.

Is there some reason you do not want to store them, or hide them away in a box
somewhere? It is not like slides are that big, even several thousand (I should
know, I have more than that in my office).

Resolution itself is
easy to get (just read a review of the Plustek 7200 for £170) - the
problem is dynamic range. Tranny film is contrasty enough already! The
2710 doesn't have enough dynamic range even on the 36-bit setting. I
would guess the res needs to be at least 5000dpi, and the general
quality needs to be a lot better than what I can get with the 2710.

Almost all of the toaster shaped scanners are closer to 12 to 14 bits, and not
much better with dynamic range. This is true, despite wild claims in
manufacturer brochures for CCD film scanners. This is also an area that is
somewhat hindered by software, and like I stated previously, the Canon software
lets down that scanner.

You would need to spend a great deal more to get any noticeable difference in
hardware. Spending a little more on some software, would be a more economical
big step to improve image quality.



The problem I see is that while the 2710 returns the correct *size*
BMP for the max resolution (25MB), its actual quality is a lot poorer.
In fact resolution alone probably isn't the problem, though I have no
obvious way of checking that either. It is just poor quality of the
images. A blue sky has blotches on it - the sort of thing I would see
on excessive jpeg compression - but this exists when I can either to a
bmp or direct into e.g. photoshop so no compression should be taking
place.

Could be the settings, or again the software.



I suspected the software so reinstalled it a few times, even
downloaded the latest version (which is pretty old) from the Canon
website.

There update was not a great improvement, and the preview image often does not
match the final scan. This is unfortunately true of the latest Canon Scanners,
and those from several other companies.




The scanner's previous use, web images, is nothing to do with my
present requirement, but it could explain why this problem has never
been detected before. The previous subjects were pretty and brightly
coloured injection moulded electronics products that I design for a
living. I was never able to get true colours with a CCD camera so I
used 35mm film, standard halogen lights, and scanned the slides, and
got very good results. Today I could probably get better results with
the Nikon 5700... although for the web one probably does want slightly
over the top colours!

Okay, that is what I was confusing about your previous explanation.



Most computer monitors are 72 to 96 dpi, and very limited in the colour
range they can display. You only get a representative image on a computer
monitor, not a reality of a final print.

Indeed. However one can zoom in. At 100%, pixel for pixel, the
artefacts are pretty visible. This isn't the monitor.

Zooming in is still judging by the limitations of the monitor. It is just not a
real representation of reality until you get that image printed. Never judge
image quality on a monitor, unless you never intend to print that image. Of
course, with many years in graphics, I am surprised people did not tell you
that, though the long time of doing web based work could have got you into that
habit (sorry for the criticism).



Not better, but easier for you to use. You should understand that getting
colours correct is a skill that takes a great deal of experience. It can
help to have a calibrated monitor, but even then some colours will just be a
guess. Also, viewing an internet ready JPEG on a Windows, MacOS, or Linux
system would give you at least three different combinations of colour
results, with a good chance that none of them look much the same.

This is what I do not understand. I am not a Windows software
developer and don't understand the windows colour management model /
process. I would expect that a scanner, together with its software,
should deliver 24-bit (or 36 or 48-bit) RGB (let's forget CMYK for the
moment, the gamut is a real issue there) data which is quite simply
"correct".

All monitors are slightly different, and then each operating system is set for a
given range of parameters on how to display colours. Recall that you can go into
a store with many television sets, and the image can be slightly different on
all of them. Without going into science, or software and hardware interaction,
the reality is that Windows based monitors are often closer to television, while
MacOS (and SGI IRIX) are closer to paper. You might be familiar with display
gamut, likely a value of 2.0, 2.2, or 2.4 that you might have noticed when you
calibrated your monitor; and that gives an indication of what you see.
Hopefully, if you are more interested in that, someone else will chime in and
add some more details.



Then there should be the separate issue of getting the monitor (or
whatever output device one uses) calibrated.

But what people appear to be doing is calibrating the whole chain in
one go, i.e. twiddling the scanner settings to make it look good on
the screen, or to make it look good on the printer, or whatever. This
is bizzare. The scanner should deliver accurate data according to some
ISO colour model, end of story.

Not even all printers are even close, even the presses that do various offset
printing. While there are ISO standards, the reality is that to get the absolute
best, the pre-press specialist needs to set each image file to get the best
results on each device. I have well over 400 different device profiles
information ready to use, just for that reason of achieving the optimum quality.
It is possible to use a set of parameters that will get you close on many
devices, though the results will still be better outputs on some, and worse
outputs (prints) on others.



The above may sound nonsense to you...

Not at all . . . I have heard of many individuals frustrated by the lack of some
stricter standardization. However, what prints well off a press, might look
truly awful on newsprint, so there is need for variation.



The default settings for that CanoScan FS2710 will not give you the best
results.

Could you suggest something I could try? There are very few options. I
know I am not scanning to a jpeg but there are NO jpeg quality
settings at all (bizzare). There is a "single scan" option, "auto
focus" option (surely this *has* to be used) and not a lot else.

The autofocus does not work well on some films. It seems to land either at the
very front, or very back of some emulsions, which can make apparent grain worse.
It is better to manually focus, and sometimes a step or two in front of, or
behind, the spot the autofocus wants.

Manual exposure control is another area. The autoexposure is okay, but to really
pull out the details, it is often better to overexpose. Then what you do is
adjust the gamma setting lower, near 1.4 if possible, and rarely above 1.8. The
gamma setting in the scanner software is different than your monitor settings.

You can also adjust the exposure curves, helping to retain some highlight
detail, without losing shadows. One problem here is that it is tough to tell
subtle changes with the Canon software.



Also, the Canon software does not give a very good preview image,
so that could be another problem. If you wanted to spend more money on
SilverFast AI scanning software, the results would improve by a huge margin,
or you could spend just a small amount more and get Vuescan, for a slight
(but noticeable) improvement.

Are these programs which support the 2710 directly, via the SCSI
interface, and give more accurate results?

SilverFast AI is the absolute best for this. I suggest you download the trial
version, and try doing some trial runs on some difficult slides. I have many
night images that are tough to scan with CanoScan, though very easy with
SilverFast. This software is so good, that you rarely need to do any further
adjustments in PhotoShop. It is also possible to print directly from SilverFast,
which means easier proofing on your PostScript proofer.



Don't take this as a slam, but accurate colour on Windows is tough to get
consistent. It helps if you have a good proofing printer, or some
calibration devices, and profiling devices (like MarkSpyder, Gretag EyeOne,
etc.). All those devices add expense, and should be judged against time
saved in your scanning. Same goes for SilverFast AI software, which is
basically a great time saving application (little to no need of PhotoShop
adjustments).

For scanning the 3000 or 6000 slides, what I would want is something
which prompts the person to stick the next slide in, and automatically
generates incrementing filenames. Even if I wanted to use the 2710,
the software that Canon do doesn't do this.

There are several batch type scanners on the market, Braun, Nikon, and even
Kodak. The reality is that no matter how much you spend on these, batch scanning
will often not give the best results. It is possible to get better scanners to
do many scans at a time, and at high quality, though these are very expensive.

Check out Creo iQSmart and EverSmart scanners to see the high end. These go for
around $US 18000 to over $US 45000 (yes, three zeros). These even have an oil
mount station to improve colour capture, though they are usually used dry.



Almost any newer scanner running SilverFast AI, or even higher spec software
(Creo, Heidelberg, et al). You can check at http://www.silverfast.com to
see if a scanner might be supported. Since you have 3000 scans to do, the
cost of SilverFast would save you a great deal of time. You can even
download a trial version, and try it on your FS2710 first, then get the full
version for whatever next scanner you buy.

Several choices, but all at greater expense. I still have an FS2710 in
service, though it has been modified by an engineer friend (no, he does not
want to do any more). Though it takes some patience and care with the
settings, I have many prints in publication that were done with this
scanner.

Out of interest, what was the mod?

Stepper motor, lamp, and something with the converter. Not a huge change, but it
made it faster, and easier to use. I don't know the details, but I trusted him
when he said he could improve on it.



Not knowing your level of experience, it is tough to recommend things for
you. Many scanning devices are just not that user friendly, and often do not
give the best results at the default settings. You might look into Kodak
ProPhotoCD (not PictureCD), and see if anyone in your area still offers
that, and can make you a deal for so many scans. The time and aggravation
you save might be worth the cost in the short run.

I did use the PhotoCD service a few years ago. The quality was pretty
good but it's very expensive for a few thousand slides. I did
extensively contact firms about this a few months ago and the cheapest
quote was 50p a slide. I want to get something in house, possibly
rented, and give my kids a chance to earn some pocket money

I guess that cost per slide is what you should compare for your time, and the
cost of any scanning gear. Unless you want to provide scanning services, don't
get into a Creo system http://www.creo.com.

SilverFast is not too bad on cost, though there is still the time issue of just
loading and scanning that many chromes. You could also look into ViewScan, and
see if that lower cost software give you enough boost in quality. Best of luck.



Peter.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

nsj wrote:

Gordon Moat wrote:
I think you are confusing the file formats with quality. JPEG is very
compressed. PhotoShop native files (PSD) or TIFF files retain more
information. You also need to be aware that what you see on any computer
monitor is a poor representation of the actual file. You should only compare
results on final prints.

TIFF and PSD employ lossless compression, don't it?

Yes. You can also use LZW compression with TIFF files, and that is lossless too.



Most computer monitors are 72 to 96 dpi, and very limited in the colour
range they can display. You only get a representative image on a computer
monitor, not a reality of a final print. If you only need the scans to go to
the internet, then that scanner is more than enough to meet your needs.

Really? RGB gamut is far and away better than that of CYMK.

Not in some green, anything near pure Cyan, and anything near pure Yellows. There
are also some Reds that will not display properly on any monitor.

How does it
compare to hexachrome?


CMYK to HexaChrome, or also to HiFi colour, is often a choice based upon cost.
While CMYK is lower cost, some images work better with Hexachrome, which does an
even better job with greens, and near reds (HiFi colour is similar). However, a
newer method is replacing one of the CMYK inks with a Pantone, often at the same
cost from some printers. There is also an in between cost advantage to going with
a five colour print, and adding one Pantone to a CMYK run. I think cost is the
greatest issue of why most things are still done CMYK, though I have noticed more
eight and ten colour presses lately.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 18:49:54 -0700, Gordon Moat
wrote:

snip stuff

BTW, do you know of any scanner software that can scan at 2 exposure
levels and combine the two images for best results? Do VueScan and
Silverfast do this?

cheers,
Pete.

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 11:14:46 +0100, Peter
wrote:

In the meantime, I posted a fresh scan of a pic here

www.peter2000.co.uk/images/sign-auto-exp.jpg

whose 35mm original I know will be as sharp as I can do with Provia
100 in the OM4 camera, and with no camera shake.

This was scanned on the FS2710, with and without auto colour
correction (can't see any difference), direct into Photoshop in 36-bit
mode, had the 2710 colour profile applied to it (not sure why this
absolutely necessary step isn't automatic...) and saved as a high
quality (#9 quality) 24-bit jpeg.

Do you think this is of reasonable quality?

Looks fine, though the white roof of the building looks a little
bleached out, does the projected slide look any better?

I realise that I have no independent way of checking the colours
because I cannot get away from the colour profiles of my screen (19"
CTX LCD) or my printer (Canon i850).

I wouldn't worry too much about colour, as long as the all the
information in the image is scanned the colour can be altered later.

For some reason, perhaps from getting a load of slides scanned a few
years ago onto a photo-cd (back in the days when Kodak thought the
photo-cd was going to change the world) I think the resolution alone
ought to be lot better than this.

Even looking at resolution alone, my scanned slides seem to be no
sharper than 4MP digital camera images. Scanning a 35mm slide at
2700dpi should yield a lot more pixels...

All the dust and hairs look well focused Seriously though, if there
is something in the image that is 1 pixel wide, it will only be
scanned perfectly if it lines up exactly with the pixels in the
scanner.

So ideally you want the scanning resolution to be somewhat higher than
the maximum resolution of the slide. A good way to check the focussing
of the scanner would be to scan a slide of a line pair chart, look at
where the lines match the pixels of the scanner and see how tight the
focussing is in these places compared to a projected image.

cheers,
Pete.

Not really a function implemented in scanning software. The
most important capability would be to scan in 16 bits per
color per pixel (*sometimes* called HDR scanning).

Method One:
Try making two scans, and combining them in PhotoShop,
Picture Window Pro, Corel PhotoPaint ... and possibly
several other image editing programs. There are several
tutorials 'on the Web' that you can easily find with your
friendly local search engine.

Method Two:
Do an Internet search on 'Contrast Masking' ...

Peter wrote:

In the meantime, I posted a fresh scan of a pic here

www.peter2000.co.uk/images/sign-auto-exp.jpg

whose 35mm original I know will be as sharp as I can do with Provia
100 in the OM4 camera, and with no camera shake.

The scan does not look too bad to me, having said that I have not seen
the original and hence have no frame of reference.

This was scanned on the FS2710, with and without auto colour
correction (can't see any difference), direct into Photoshop in 36-bit
mode, had the 2710 colour profile applied to it (not sure why this
absolutely necessary step isn't automatic...) and saved as a high
quality (#9 quality) 24-bit jpeg.

Do you think this is of reasonable quality?

Reasonable certainly, some noise on the darker areas, and the contrast
may be a tad over done (could just be lack of dynamic range) but no
glaring problems obvious. With some of the other scans you posted (like
the one of the field with side by side scan of a print), the slide scan
seemed quite low on red and green, but about the same on blue in
comparison to the print.

I realise that I have no independent way of checking the colours
because I cannot get away from the colour profiles of my screen (19"
CTX LCD) or my printer (Canon i850).

Aha! Note that the LCD monitor may be accounting for a portion of your
problems. They typically have colour gamut that is narrower than a CRT
and can produce images that look a little posterised as they often loose
the ability to resolve the difference between subtle shades of the same
colour. Your scan above showed a nice smooth graduation of blues over
the sky on my 22" CRT aperture grill monitor. How does it look on yours?

For some reason, perhaps from getting a load of slides scanned a few
years ago onto a photo-cd (back in the days when Kodak thought the
photo-cd was going to change the world) I think the resolution alone
ought to be lot better than this.

Even looking at resolution alone, my scanned slides seem to be no
sharper than 4MP digital camera images. Scanning a 35mm slide at
2700dpi should yield a lot more pixels...

I would expect you would start to see the film grain in the scan at that
resolution, from the file its not that obvious but then again the jpg
artefacts make it harder to see anyway.

If you wanted to post me the slide, I could scan it for you on the Nikon
and also on an Epson 1680 pro flatbed to give you something to compare
against. Drop me a private email if you are interested.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Pete C wrote:

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 18:49:54 -0700, Gordon Moat
wrote:

snip stuff

BTW, do you know of any scanner software that can scan at 2 exposure
levels and combine the two images for best results? Do VueScan and
Silverfast do this?

Normally, that is something you would do with a few difficult images,
and then use your editing software to combine the results. I still use
LivePicture for this, since it allows this manipulation in 16 bit mode.

Vuescan and SilverFast both have multi pass scanning, though the passes
are not varied in exposure. Basically, the multi pass feature allows for
the scanner converter to average out possible errors and could result in
a smoother scan with less noise. In practice, I rarely use that feature,
due to the extra scan time.

I have found that SilverFast is so good, that I rarely would need to
double scan at different exposures. I could not accomplish that same
level with CanoScan, or Vuescan software.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

Peter wrote:

Even looking at resolution alone, my scanned slides seem to be no
sharper than 4MP digital camera images. Scanning a 35mm slide at
2700dpi should yield a lot more pixels...

I would expect you would start to see the film grain in the scan at that
resolution, from the file its not that obvious but then again the jpg
artefacts make it harder to see anyway.


Do you think 2700dpi would reveal 35mm film grain?? Also can you see

I just did some experiments. The answer (with my kit) seems to be
"sometimes". On a very fine film like Velvia, no chance, with Provia 100
I can see very slight grain, and on some of the "consumer" grade tranny
films it is quite obvious. It is also more obvious on negatives than on
colour reversal film.

jpg compression artefacts in that image? I could not see any, even
around the text of the roadsign (which is an area where jpg falls over
first, I think).

Only if I zoom right in with photoshop - you can start to see the cell
boundaries. As you say, jpg works best on contiuous tone images rather
than things with slabs of solid colour and high contrast.

If you wanted to post me the slide, I could scan it for you on the Nikon
and also on an Epson 1680 pro flatbed to give you something to compare
against. Drop me a private email if you are interested.


Thank you very much for the offer. I will do this exercise with a
local camera show that sells slide scanners

Sounds like a good plan. You should be able to try out some more recent
kit that wasy as well.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Peter wrote:


Where can I get a line pair chart from?

http://www.sinepatterns.com/i_Stdrds.htm

http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/resolution.html

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF5.html#using




--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 00:04:50 -0700, Gordon Moat
wrote:

Pete C wrote:

BTW, do you know of any scanner software that can scan at 2 exposure
levels and combine the two images for best results? Do VueScan and
Silverfast do this?

Normally, that is something you would do with a few difficult images,
and then use your editing software to combine the results. I still use
LivePicture for this, since it allows this manipulation in 16 bit mode.

How best can they be combined, are there any tutorials on the web at
all? I've tried blending them 50/50 or 30/70, but wonder if there's a
better way.

Vuescan and SilverFast both have multi pass scanning, though the passes
are not varied in exposure. Basically, the multi pass feature allows for
the scanner converter to average out possible errors and could result in
a smoother scan with less noise. In practice, I rarely use that feature,
due to the extra scan time.

Noise isn't such a problem as I'm scanning negatives.

I have found that SilverFast is so good, that I rarely would need to
double scan at different exposures. I could not accomplish that same
level with CanoScan, or Vuescan software.

SilverFast doesn't support my scanner

cheers,
Pete.

"Pete C" posted:
"...
How best can they be combined, are there any tutorials on
the web at
all? I've tried blending them 50/50 or 30/70, but wonder if
there's a
better way.
...."

One such tutorial is
"Extending the Dynamic Range of Film"
Written by Jonathan Sachs
Copyright © 1999-2003 Digital Light & Color
http://www.dl-c.com/Temp/
[Click on 'Articles']

Another would be
Making fine prints in your digital darkroom
Tonal quality and dynamic range in digital cameras
by Norman Koren
http://www.normankoren.com/digital_tonality.html

Another that you should probably read would be
Image editing with Picture Window Pro:
Contrast masking
by Norman Koren
http://www.normankoren.com/PWP_contrast_masking.html

There are probably other well done tutorials "on the web"
.... you can always use your friendly local search engine and
you'll probably find them.

Pete C wrote:

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 00:04:50 -0700, Gordon Moat
wrote:

Pete C wrote:

BTW, do you know of any scanner software that can scan at 2 exposure
levels and combine the two images for best results? Do VueScan and
Silverfast do this?

Normally, that is something you would do with a few difficult images,
and then use your editing software to combine the results. I still use
LivePicture for this, since it allows this manipulation in 16 bit mode.

How best can they be combined, are there any tutorials on the web at
all? I've tried blending them 50/50 or 30/70, but wonder if there's a
better way.

Check the next message for some links to tutorials. The reality is that you
should rarely ever need to do this. Also, there is no such thing as a method
that uses the same approach each and every time, so it would not be a good
idea to automate, and better to treat these few special images individually.



Vuescan and SilverFast both have multi pass scanning, though the passes
are not varied in exposure. Basically, the multi pass feature allows for
the scanner converter to average out possible errors and could result in
a smoother scan with less noise. In practice, I rarely use that feature,
due to the extra scan time.

Noise isn't such a problem as I'm scanning negatives.

It tends to vary by type and brand of film, with some films being worse than
others. Like I stated previously, I rarely have need to worry about noise in
scans.



I have found that SilverFast is so good, that I rarely would need to
double scan at different exposures. I could not accomplish that same
level with CanoScan, or Vuescan software.

SilverFast doesn't support my scanner

Canon CanoScan FS2710? SCSI connection?

http://www.silverfast.com/product/Canon/330/en.html This is the page about
SilverFast AI support for the Canon FS2710. It lists Windows XP, 2000, and
98SE/ME, as well as several versions of MacOS X, and Mac OS 9.

Are you running Linux, or the older Windows 98, or Windows NT? If that is
the situation, then look into Vuescan. You can download a demo at:

http://www.hamrick.com/vuescan/vuescan.htm#canon it is also lower cost
than SilverFast.



cheers,
Pete.

Sorry I forgot the Vuescan software link in my earlier message. Hopefully
that will help.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 22:03:27 GMT, "RSD99"
wrote:

"Pete C" posted:
"...
How best can they be combined, are there any tutorials on
the web at
all? I've tried blending them 50/50 or 30/70, but wonder if
there's a
better way.
..."

One such tutorial is
"Extending the Dynamic Range of Film"
Written by Jonathan Sachs
Copyright © 1999-2003 Digital Light & Color
http://www.dl-c.com/Temp/
[Click on 'Articles']

Another would be
Making fine prints in your digital darkroom
Tonal quality and dynamic range in digital cameras
by Norman Koren
http://www.normankoren.com/digital_tonality.html

Another that you should probably read would be
Image editing with Picture Window Pro:
Contrast masking
by Norman Koren
http://www.normankoren.com/PWP_contrast_masking.html

There are probably other well done tutorials "on the web"
... you can always use your friendly local search engine and
you'll probably find them.

Thanks for those, will have a trawl on Google too.

cheers,
Pete.

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 18:23:38 -0700, Gordon Moat
wrote:

Check the next message for some links to tutorials. The reality is that you
should rarely ever need to do this. Also, there is no such thing as a method
that uses the same approach each and every time, so it would not be a good
idea to automate, and better to treat these few special images individually.

True, the scanner has most trouble scanning flash photos, if I could
improve the dynamic range and get rid of the blue colour cast the
scans would be much better. Photos with shadow detail don't come out
too well too.

SilverFast doesn't support my scanner

Canon CanoScan FS2710? SCSI connection?

http://www.silverfast.com/product/Canon/330/en.html This is the page about
SilverFast AI support for the Canon FS2710. It lists Windows XP, 2000, and
98SE/ME, as well as several versions of MacOS X, and Mac OS 9.

Are you running Linux, or the older Windows 98, or Windows NT? If that is
the situation, then look into Vuescan. You can download a demo at:

No it's a 5000F on XP, Silverfast support the 9000F though.

http://www.hamrick.com/vuescan/vuescan.htm#canon it is also lower cost
than SilverFast.

Thanks I'll check it out. Maybe someone will develop some good
software for combining scans in the future, in the meantime I'll scan
at different exposure levels where required and combine as necessary.

cheers,
Pete.

Pete C wrote:

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 18:23:38 -0700, Gordon Moat
wrote:

Check the next message for some links to tutorials. The reality is that you
should rarely ever need to do this. Also, there is no such thing as a method
that uses the same approach each and every time, so it would not be a good
idea to automate, and better to treat these few special images individually.

True, the scanner has most trouble scanning flash photos, if I could
improve the dynamic range and get rid of the blue colour cast the
scans would be much better. Photos with shadow detail don't come out
too well too.

SilverFast doesn't support my scanner

Canon CanoScan FS2710? SCSI connection?

http://www.silverfast.com/product/Canon/330/en.html This is the page about
SilverFast AI support for the Canon FS2710. It lists Windows XP, 2000, and
98SE/ME, as well as several versions of MacOS X, and Mac OS 9.

Are you running Linux, or the older Windows 98, or Windows NT? If that is
the situation, then look into Vuescan. You can download a demo at:

No it's a 5000F on XP, Silverfast support the 9000F though.

Okay, I think I had you confused with the other poster named Pete, the one who
started this thread.



http://www.hamrick.com/vuescan/vuescan.htm#canon it is also lower cost
than SilverFast.

Thanks I'll check it out. Maybe someone will develop some good
software for combining scans in the future, in the meantime I'll scan
at different exposure levels where required and combine as necessary.

cheers,
Pete.

I have found that to work well with many troublesome images. The bad part is
doing it in 8-bit mode, unless you have an old copy of LivePicture, or the
newest PhotoShop CS.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com