35mm slides scanner clarification questions

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 14:41:54 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
<davidjl.TakeThisOut@gol.com> wrote:


>I've been paying a lot of attention to scanning over the past 5 years, and
>I'd never heard of the Braun before (and couldn't find much of anything on
>it with google). What that means is that anyone using it will have
>absolutely no user-to-user support, and have no sample scans to see if they
>are getting what they should be from the scanner.
>
>So even if it's a decent scanner, the Braun is a really bad idea.


To some extent, this is what I tried to hint at to
Jerry several days ago. In years and years on various
scanner listservs and forums, I've never heard one
single mention (let alone discussion) of the Braun.

This is not to say Nikons, Canons, Minoltas, Polaroids,
and Microteks are without their problems.

This is not to say Bob's not a perfectly nice guy,
but he is in the business of selling... the brands
he carries.

And by the way, I think Jerry's just worrying this
thing to death. Enough already. Pick a scanner,
buy it, and start scanning. Life is full of risks.
There are lemons even with the best brands, and
unexpected gems even with the worst.



rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm slides scanner clarification questions 

Today rafe b commented courteously on the subject at hand

> And by the way, I think Jerry's just worrying this
> thing to death. Enough already. Pick a scanner,
> buy it, and start scanning. Life is full of risks.
> There are lemons even with the best brands, and
> unexpected gems even with the worst.

rafe, "Jerry" stopped worrying about this a couple of days ago.
I've made the basic buying decision. Exactly which /Nikon/
(Braun fell off my short list days ago) depends solely on what I
learn after PMA, which may be zero, at which time, it'll be a
Coolscan 5000 with SF-210 and be done with it. What I've been
doing since then is reading and absorbing the many helpful
replies I've received.

And, thanking people. That leads me to string along this thread.
When I stop asking questions, people will stop replying and I'm
done. Still, I believe that learning is a life-long endeavor, so
I am very much in "learning" mode right now.

But, I also need to stay practical, so I'm not dwelling on the
underlying technocracy or theories, unless there's a "need to
know."

--
ATM, aka Jerry
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm slides scanner clarification questions 

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 07:48:50 +0000, Kennedy McEwen
<rkm.RemoveThis@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:


>If it works well, why would you need peer support? That is a relatively
>recent phenomena - 10 years ago few would have had any access to other
>users of any product. It is a useful ability to tap other users for
>help but, IMO, it is no reason to avoid a product.


Disagree, sorry.

I've seen many cases (some well outside photography
or electronics) where "technically superior" products
fall by the wayside because they simply aren't marketed
or supported well.

A strong user base can make all the difference
between a good experience and a bad experience
with a product.

Simple question to illustrate my point: does
VueScan run on the Braun?

Canon (for example) make some interesting wide-
format inkjet printers but I would never dare
buy one, because Canon owns such a small share
of that market. Conversely, owning an Epson
WF printer means that you can draw on the
expertise and experience of thousands of
users all over the world -- not to mention a
huge collection of third-party vendors offering
media and "peripheral" products such as RIPs.

I could give another example from the realm
of small catamaran sailboats, but I'll save
that for another day.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm slides scanner clarification questions 

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 21:17:55 -0600, All Things Mopar
<nunofyour DeleteThis @beez.wax> wrote:


>As to 8x10, let's see, 320,000,000 pixels x 3 for bytes of RGB
>in memory until you save to JPEG. That'd finish in time for the
>Memorial Day parades on most computers, if Windoze didn't die a
>cruel death trying to do it at all.


Just so you know, I routinely work with 100+ megapixel
scans -- from 4x5" film scanned at 2400-2500 dpi, on a
Win2K/Athlon computer. That's 300 Mbytes with 24-bit color,
or 600 Mbytes with 48-bit color. I get similar sized files
from scanning 6x7 cm (MF) film at 4000 dpi on my Nikon.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm slides scanner clarification questions 

Today rafe b commented courteously on the subject at hand

>>As to 8x10, let's see, 320,000,000 pixels x 3 for bytes of
>>RGB in memory until you save to JPEG. That'd finish in time
>>for the Memorial Day parades on most computers, if Windoze
>>didn't die a cruel death trying to do it at all.
>
> Just so you know, I routinely work with 100+ megapixel
> scans -- from 4x5" film scanned at 2400-2500 dpi, on a
> Win2K/Athlon computer. That's 300 Mbytes with 24-bit
> color, or 600 Mbytes with 48-bit color. I get similar
> sized files from scanning 6x7 cm (MF) film at 4000 dpi on
> my Nikon.

If that is what floats your professional or personal boat,
it's fine by me (good thing, huh? <grin>. I understand the
basic reasons one might want to do what you do, but so far, I
can't see it for myself.

One thing on my "to do" list, though, is to get my arms around
RAW. Enough people have pounded the fact that I can fix bad
stuff far better in RAW than by post-processing in PSP 9, so I
need to learn how to do it.

So, one of these days when I'm done buying and testing glass,
scanners, and a new printer, I'll load my Canon RAW converter
and have a go at it. PSP X supports it, but not 9, and that's
not enough with the X stuff I don't like to beta test with my
Visa.

As to 48-bit color, maybe you can shed some light on my major
sticking point: other than analytical tools like histograms or
image arithmetic, how do you /see/ what you're doing? My
Windoze XP system is only 24 bit (and another 8 for
"transparency") and I know of no currently viable 48-bit PC,
video card, monitor and other stuff. Or, if there are (you may
well have it), it certainly wouldn't be within my budget.

I've got plenty of HD and external space, but at the real-
world access times and data transfer rates I live with on the
bloated POS affectionately known as "SP2", I simply can't live
with what you do. But, that's me.

I'm only a step under "state-of-the-art" at reasonable prices
with an AMD 3700 and 4 gig. If you told me, I forgot. What's
the specs on your system?

--
ATM, aka Jerry
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm slides scanner clarification questions 

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 21:43:13 -0600, All Things Mopar
<nunofyour.TakeThisOut@beez.wax> wrote:

>Today rafe b commented courteously on the subject at hand
>
>>>As to 8x10, let's see, 320,000,000 pixels x 3 for bytes of
>>>RGB in memory until you save to JPEG. That'd finish in time
>>>for the Memorial Day parades on most computers, if Windoze
>>>didn't die a cruel death trying to do it at all.
>>
>> Just so you know, I routinely work with 100+ megapixel
>> scans -- from 4x5" film scanned at 2400-2500 dpi, on a
>> Win2K/Athlon computer. That's 300 Mbytes with 24-bit
>> color, or 600 Mbytes with 48-bit color. I get similar
>> sized files from scanning 6x7 cm (MF) film at 4000 dpi on
>> my Nikon.
>
>If that is what floats your professional or personal boat,
>it's fine by me (good thing, huh? <grin>. I understand the
>basic reasons one might want to do what you do, but so far, I
>can't see it for myself.

It's not for everybody, but working with LF
has its own rewards, particularly if you make
big prints. It's a whole different kind of
photography.


>One thing on my "to do" list, though, is to get my arms around
>RAW. Enough people have pounded the fact that I can fix bad
>stuff far better in RAW than by post-processing in PSP 9, so I
>need to learn how to do it.

It's simply a matter of retaining the greatest
flexibility with the images you've taken with
your DSLR. Folks refer to it as a "digital
negative" and that's fairly apt.

>So, one of these days when I'm done buying and testing glass,
>scanners, and a new printer, I'll load my Canon RAW converter
>and have a go at it. PSP X supports it, but not 9, and that's
>not enough with the X stuff I don't like to beta test with my
>Visa.
>
>As to 48-bit color, maybe you can shed some light on my major
>sticking point: other than analytical tools like histograms or
>image arithmetic, how do you /see/ what you're doing? My
>Windoze XP system is only 24 bit (and another 8 for
>"transparency") and I know of no currently viable 48-bit PC,
>video card, monitor and other stuff. Or, if there are (you may
>well have it), it certainly wouldn't be within my budget.

You can't really see it, except in areas
of near-monochrome, and after nasty tonal
manipulations. I've been scanning film
for years and using 24 bit (8bit/channel)
for almost all of that work.

>I've got plenty of HD and external space, but at the real-
>world access times and data transfer rates I live with on the
>bloated POS affectionately known as "SP2", I simply can't live
>with what you do. But, that's me.
>
>I'm only a step under "state-of-the-art" at reasonable prices
>with an AMD 3700 and 4 gig. If you told me, I forgot. What's
>the specs on your system?


Home brew. ABit KG-7 motherboard, Athlon XP 2800 CPU,
1.5 gigs of RAM. Nothing special. It's got two SATA
hard drives hooked up in a RAID-1 configuration, which
gives me a little peace of mind.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm slides scanner clarification questions 

Today rafe b commented courteously on the subject at hand

>>If that is what floats your professional or personal boat,
>>it's fine by me (good thing, huh? <grin>. I understand the
>>basic reasons one might want to do what you do, but so far,
>>I can't see it for myself.

> It's not for everybody, but working with LF
> has its own rewards, particularly if you make
> big prints. It's a whole different kind of
> photography.

I can "see" that, but I don't personally print larger than 4x6
so it doesn't matter.
>
>>One thing on my "to do" list, though, is to get my arms
>>around RAW. Enough people have pounded the fact that I can
>>fix bad stuff far better in RAW than by post-processing in
>>PSP 9, so I need to learn how to do it.
>
> It's simply a matter of retaining the greatest
> flexibility with the images you've taken with
> your DSLR. Folks refer to it as a "digital
> negative" and that's fairly apt.

I understand what it is and how it can be used to advantage,
but I don't (yet) have a clue as to how to actually do it. I
do know people who /think/ they can "RAW" and actually produce
worse results because it is apparent they are wrecking
something. But, being currently RAW-deprived, I don't know
what.

>>As to 48-bit color, maybe you can shed some light on my
>>major sticking point: other than analytical tools like
>>histograms or image arithmetic, how do you /see/ what
>>you're doing? My Windoze XP system is only 24 bit (and
>>another 8 for "transparency") and I know of no currently
>>viable 48-bit PC, video card, monitor and other stuff. Or,
>>if there are (you may well have it), it certainly wouldn't
>>be within my budget.
>
> You can't really see it, except in areas
> of near-monochrome, and after nasty tonal
> manipulations. I've been scanning film
> for years and using 24 bit (8bit/channel)
> for almost all of that work.

It's also true that 48-bit can help pull out more at each end
of the histogram, but I still can't fathom how you know you've
got it the way you want to if you can't see it on-screen. I'm
guessing that you do a lot of test prints, I can't
"visualize" another way to do your example - a pathological
example of near-mono, not the average scan that I've ever
done.

But, then, the source of the scan is at least several parsecs
apart for you and I, although I don't know exactly what the
diffs might be, nor do I need to know except for personal
interest and my general bent to be constantly in "learn" mode.

>>I'm only a step under "state-of-the-art" at reasonable
>>prices with an AMD 3700 and 4 gig. If you told me, I
>>forgot. What's the specs on your system?
>
> Home brew. ABit KG-7 motherboard, Athlon XP 2800 CPU,
> 1.5 gigs of RAM. Nothing special. It's got two SATA
> hard drives hooked up in a RAID-1 configuration, which
> gives me a little peace of mind.

Mine is also "home brew" by my nephew, who's reasonably good
at his craft.

Your system looks on paper to be half mine, so I can't imagine
how you're able to manipulate images the size you do. What
data transfer rates have you computed for your USB and HD
saves?

Forget the scanner speed debate, that'd be the same for both
of us at any given sampling rate for the same size original
(which is only 35mm for me, not medium or large format, as I
think you do). I've calculated my USB speed mainly by stop-
watching a transfer of a half-gig of images from my CF card to
my HD, it works out to 6-8MB/sec, which seeems good to me.

PSP 9 still goes out-to-lunch on things like DCNR, which is
highly CPU dependent. Even with 3 gig of memory available
after Bill the Gates steals the top gig, PSP 9 still takes
time to write undo files to HD because writing those to memory
is riskier.

--
ATM, aka Jerry
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm slides scanner clarification questions 

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 21:10:34 -0600, All Things Mopar
<nunofyour DeleteThis @beez.wax> wrote:


>rafe, "Jerry" stopped worrying about this a couple of days ago.
>I've made the basic buying decision. Exactly which /Nikon/
>(Braun fell off my short list days ago) depends solely on what I
>learn after PMA, which may be zero, at which time, it'll be a
>Coolscan 5000 with SF-210 and be done with it. What I've been
>doing since then is reading and absorbing the many helpful
>replies I've received.



Whatever Nikon does or doesn't announce at PMA,
be aware that it could be many months between
an announcement (esp. by Nikon) and the product
actually appearing on shelves.



rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm slides scanner clarification questions 

Today rafe b commented courteously on the subject at hand

>>rafe, "Jerry" stopped worrying about this a couple of days
>>ago. I've made the basic buying decision. Exactly which
>>/Nikon/ (Braun fell off my short list days ago) depends
>>solely on what I learn after PMA, which may be zero, at
>>which time, it'll be a Coolscan 5000 with SF-210 and be
>>done with it. What I've been doing since then is reading
>>and absorbing the many helpful replies I've received.
>
> Whatever Nikon does or doesn't announce at PMA,
> be aware that it could be many months between
> an announcement (esp. by Nikon) and the product
> actually appearing on shelves.

Being that I don't think I need bleeding edge technology,
unless it plays into my workflow, what I'm hoping for is
simply the announcement of a new, better mouse trap is that
the street price for the Nikon 5000 will drop, particularly if
Nikon offers rebates to clear store inventory.

I realize the launch delay after PMA. In my biz, cars, we
announce a car 6 months or more before it launches, and with
things like quarantining early production cars for accelerated
endurance testing, emissions certification, and crash
verifications, it may be two full months before a car ships.
To illustrate, my 2006 Charger launched about this time a year
ago, but I didn't see any until mid-April. My particular color
was one of several where there was a noticeable mismatch
between the front fascia and fender so I watched the newer
cars coming in until I could see that it'd been fixed. That
occured around June. My car was built in mid-June and I bought
it in August. Same basic thesis you're talking about, except
that the lag from PMA to dealer availability is often even
longer, given that there's only one per year and hardware
makers cram in everything they can, even if they already know
they won't launch for months.

I's speculating by analogy, I know zero.zero about the
realities of designing, developing, testing, and then building
today's cameras, lenses, printes, scanners and the like.

--
ATM, aka Jerry
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm slides scanner clarification questions 

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 22:36:15 -0600, All Things Mopar
<nunofyour.TakeThisOut@beez.wax> wrote:


>Have a good one, and thanks for the variety of good input
>you've provided, particularly for fingering Bob, else I'd be
>searching for a Braun 4000 someplace, perhaps.


I didn't "finger" Bob -- it turns out he's
a friend of a friend, though Bob doesn't
know me from Adam. Bob is active on other
USENET forums that I frequent. He seems to
be knowledgeable about the lines he carries.

Eg., if you're into high-end German photo
gear, he knows his stuff. Most of that
stuff is way beyond my budget, so Bob's
expertise is generally wasted on me.
Pearls before swine, and all that.

With regard to eBay purchases: I buy only
pre-owned gear on eBay, but knock wood,
there have been no significant issues in
the eight years or so I've been buying
that way. (Two Nikon bodies, two MF
bodies, several lenses, etc.)

With regard to general web purchases, I
buy from well-regarded shops like BH Photo,
or from places like Amazon or newegg.
Places like bizrate.com give a reasonable
indication of user-satisfaction with
various web-based businesses.

Most recent purchases were an Epson
printer and Epson scanner from Amazon.

The computer on which I'm typing this
message was built with parts I bought
from newegg.

Of course, BH is very much a "brick and
mortar" business as well. I've been to
their shop, but nowadays there's really
no need. If I order on Monday morning,
I'll usually have the item in hand on
Tuesday or Wednesday, at the latest.
I'm guessing I've spent about $5K at
BH over the last five years.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm slides scanner clarification questions 

Today rafe b commented courteously on the subject at hand

>>Have a good one, and thanks for the variety of good input
>>you've provided, particularly for fingering Bob, else I'd
>>be searching for a Braun 4000 someplace, perhaps.
>
> I didn't "finger" Bob -- it turns out he's
> a friend of a friend, though Bob doesn't
> know me from Adam. Bob is active on other
> USENET forums that I frequent. He seems to
> be knowledgeable about the lines he carries.

Maybe I should have said you "tipped me off to a probable
hidden agenda and product bias." I didn't connect his thin sig
to Braun on my own. I could quickly see that he knows his own
product but I never got a straight answer as to what his
scanning and photography expertise is, regardless of brands he
sells. And 8 employees for the whole country or not, I still
think he needs to have more than a passing view of his
competition if he expects to capitalize on his product's
advantages and point out his competition's shortcomings.

> Eg., if you're into high-end German photo
> gear, he knows his stuff. Most of that
> stuff is way beyond my budget, so Bob's
> expertise is generally wasted on me.
> Pearls before swine, and all that.

When he first told me about the Braun 4000, I was very exited
by it's specs and features. It wasn't until a day or two later
that I "discovered" that nobody in the U.S. has ever heard of
it, much less has real experience with it. That instantly
turned me stone cold.

> With regard to eBay purchases: I buy only
> pre-owned gear on eBay, but knock wood,
> there have been no significant issues in
> the eight years or so I've been buying
> that way. (Two Nikon bodies, two MF
> bodies, several lenses, etc.)

eBay provides no guarantees, that's between the seller and
buyer, and if anything goes wrong, you're in court to defend
yourself or prosecute someone for defrauding you. If you've
found a way to minimize the risk, as they used to say, "more
power to you." I don't have the time or inclination to do
that.

> With regard to general web purchases, I
> buy from well-regarded shops like BH Photo,
> or from places like Amazon or newegg.
> Places like bizrate.com give a reasonable
> indication of user-satisfaction with
> various web-based businesses.

I've bought from B&H before, but I believe their non-defective
return policy is /I/ pay the shipping back forfeiting whatever
free shipping got it to me in the first place, then get dinged
15% simply for them to "restock" it. No thanks.

> Most recent purchases were an Epson
> printer and Epson scanner from Amazon.

I bought my current old MicroTek flatbed directly from them,
as no local stores carried anything that big and that
expensive at the time. And, I can easily see that no large
size, really decent flatbeds are sold in stores these days.
So, for something like that, I'd have to do very careful
research, and be damn certain I was buying what would meet my
expectations.

> The computer on which I'm typing this
> message was built with parts I bought
> from newegg.

What do you do if a mobo, video card, HD, or something is DOA?

> Of course, BH is very much a "brick and
> mortar" business as well. I've been to
> their shop, but nowadays there's really
> no need. If I order on Monday morning,
> I'll usually have the item in hand on
> Tuesday or Wednesday, at the latest.
> I'm guessing I've spent about $5K at
> BH over the last five years.
>
>
It's a bit of a commute for me from Detroit to NYC, rafe!
<grin> But, then, I've got the Henry Ford Museum, Walter P.
Chrysler Museum, NAIAS, Autorama,and Meadowbrook Concours
d'Elegance, all within 45 minutes, so living in a car town has
advantages to someone who collects car pictures! <grin again>

Nighty, nite, rafe. Talk on ya tomorrow.

--
ATM, aka Jerry
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm slides scanner clarification questions 

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 07:48:50 +0000, Kennedy McEwen
<rkm.DeleteThis@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
>A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.

Socrates is not little - you are.
Furthermore you will never be missed.
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm slides scanner clarification questions 

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 23:14:18 -0600, All Things Mopar
<nunofyour DeleteThis @beez.wax> wrote:


>Forget the scanner speed debate, that'd be the same for both
>of us at any given sampling rate for the same size original
>(which is only 35mm for me, not medium or large format, as I
>think you do). I've calculated my USB speed mainly by stop-
>watching a transfer of a half-gig of images from my CF card to
>my HD, it works out to 6-8MB/sec, which seeems good to me.
>
>PSP 9 still goes out-to-lunch on things like DCNR, which is
>highly CPU dependent. Even with 3 gig of memory available
>after Bill the Gates steals the top gig, PSP 9 still takes
>time to write undo files to HD because writing those to memory
>is riskier.


A 300 Mbyte TIFF opens in about 9 seconds in Photoshop.

Scans of 6x7 cm @ 4000 dpi take around seven or eight
minutes with ICE on. Most of my scanners and printers
are hooked up with Firewire nowadays.


rafe b
www.terapinphoto.com
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm slides scanner clarification questions