On Wed, Dec 28, 2005 at 04:55:25PM -0800, Moose wrote:
> On the other hand, somebody beat you to this one. Ed Hamrick's VueScan
> started out years ago not far beyound what you are doing. By now, it is
> a sort of Swiss Army knife of scanner software.
Yeah, like I wrote at the way bottom of my post, I know that Ed's VueScan
is great. There's only a small problem with it: it doesn't run on my SGI
O2 with IRIX 6.5. (Oh no! here goes another OT thread. At least I can
laugh about the Mac/PC clashes here :P) And believe it or not, I don't
have (nor do I need) an i386 or Mac to put Win/OSX/Linux on.
It is also very nice to have full control over the scanning process.
> [...]
> I've posted about this several times recently in various ways. If you
> take the linear output from a scan of the full range of available data
> from CN film and just display or print it that way, it looks very dull.
> We are used to seeing output that has had the ends of the histogram
> compressed and/or clipped and the midtone contrast increased. That's
> what slide film does as a process, what automated prints of cn film do
> and what the software that comes with most scanners does in its default
> setting. When you start rolling your own, you have to make your own
> desicions about how and where in your workflow to make those
> adjustments. The important thing is to realize that all the data is
> there, it's just not optimally arranged yet. :-)
Well sure, I can adjust the slope (or even a curve if I'm feeling fancy),
but pulling data apart is not helpful. How can I be sure that 'all the
data is there'? If I stretch an interval for the RGB channels, I'm losing
bitspace for possible data. There seems to be a way to set contrast in
the scanner (hard to tell without documentation), I'll have to explore
this. It could only be a software enhancement in the scanner, or maybe
it's an adjustment for the exposure. Who knows? :)
> [...]
> >Does anybody have an idea for any other useful function? I.e., something
> >that shouldn't be done in postediting?
> >
> Not that I can think of right now, other than ICC profiling, which is
> beyond what you are undertaking now, I think.
Well, ICC is also on my list, but since I never used it at all, and I
don't have any targets, it is probably still far away in the future.
Yet more expenses I don't need :)
> >Or am I the only strange guy in
> >town that wants be be sure that the raw data from the scanner is on disk
> >to be messed around with by programs that were written for that exact
> >purpose (Photoshop, PWP, aso..)?
> >
> Not at all. I don't like to do postprocessing in the scanner app. Again,
> though, one consequence of this philosophy on your part is the dull
> looking raw output you mentioned. Applying contrast correction, curves,
> etc. in your model work flow is the work of the editor app.
I don't really mind the dull output. As I wrote, the files have to be
edited afterward anyhow (well, as long as there's no ICC I guess). I
am just wondering if there's a way to circumvent the dull output in
order to get more data.
> My standard practice is to scan a roll to RAW scanner output files, then
> autoscan those files to reversed TIFFs, then "mess around with them" in
> PS. I do consider applying the ICC profile to be a proper part of the
> scanning process, though, rather than later, although it can come later
> in the workflow..
Thanks for your suggestions,
Nils
--
The Moon is Waning Crescent (4% of Full)
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|