> I have the same scanner. But I think I'm just using 3x8 bit when
> scanning - every time I tried 3x12bit all I got was a "solarized" image.
> So how should I proceed to 3x12bit scanning?
Get the latest Canon backend. The "solarization effect" occurs when
the FS2710 is not recognized and has a 8-
Ulrich Deiters wrote:
> Some recent film scanners appear not to have exposure controls.
> As far as I know, the Canon FS2710S is such a case. But it scans
> 3x12 bits, and so it is OK to do the gamma correction in the backend
> and then truncate to 3x8 bit.
I have the same scanner. But I think I'm
The Canon FS27XX scanners are cases where you need a large gamma
to obtain good results (2.0-2.5). Right now the backend collects
12-bit data and converts them to 8 bit with a 4096 byte gamma
table (or exports them as 16-bit data). This usually works well;
but I admit that there are situations wher
> The Canon FS27XX scanners are cases where you need a large gamma
> to obtain good results (2.0-2.5). Right now the backend collects
> 12-bit data and converts them to 8 bit with a 4096 byte gamma
> table (or exports them as 16-bit data). This usually works well;
> but I admit that there are situa
Hi.
The Minolta Scan Dual II and Elite II have exposure control.
The Dual II is supported by SANE/Avision - the other would need
testing ...
On: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 09:34:06 +0100 (MET),
Ulrich Deiters wrote:
> Some recent film scanners appear not to have exposure controls.
> As far as I know,
Jonathan Buzzard wrote:
> u...@xenon.pc.uni-koeln.de said:
<...>
>
>>First of all, truncation is an option, not a must. Second, you usually
>>want to end up with JPEGs, and that implies 3x8 bit encoding.
>>
>
> Speak for yourself then. Even if your final output is a JPEG you
> almost certainly
u...@xenon.pc.uni-koeln.de said:
> Why?
Because you are chucking useful information away, that you have just
spent hundreds of pounds on a specialist film scanner to acquire,
would be the first answer.
> First of all, truncation is an option, not a must. Second, you usually
> want to end up with
> Also backends truncating to 8bit for output are *very* nasty when it
> comes to film scanners
Why?
First of all, truncation is an option, not a must. Second, you usually
want to end up with JPEGs, and that implies 3x8 bit encoding.
Regards,
Ulrich Deiters
u...@xenon.pc.uni-koeln.de said:
> Some recent film scanners appear not to have exposure controls. As far
> as I know, the Canon FS2710S is such a case. But it scans 3x12 bits,
> and so it is OK to do the gamma correction in the backend and then
> truncate to 3x8 bit.
The Canon FS2710S is *not* a
Some recent film scanners appear not to have exposure controls.
As far as I know, the Canon FS2710S is such a case. But it scans
3x12 bits, and so it is OK to do the gamma correction in the backend
and then truncate to 3x8 bit.
I think this is just the modern trend in computer pheripherals: Build
and...@users.sourceforge.net said:
> I think you have a strong bias towards VueScan. That's fine, but it
> doesn't mean we have to give up coding to make things better. And it
> certainly doesn't mean SANE is by definition inferior to VueScan.
I have a strong bias towards fully functioning softwa
Jonathan,
I think you have a strong bias towards VueScan. That's fine, but it
doesn't mean we have to give up coding to make things better. And it
certainly doesn't mean SANE is by definition inferior to VueScan.
> > Orange mask: at least with Coolscan2, this one is trivial: adjust the
> > exposu
and...@users.sourceforge.net said:
> Orange mask: at least with Coolscan2, this one is trivial: adjust the
> exposure times of the R, G, B channels so that the space between two
> frames comes out exactly white. If you then scan with these settings
> and invert, all colours will be correct, and you
> At the end of the day the problem with SANE and film scanning is that
> there is no SANE front end with decent orange mask removal, dust removal,
> multi pass scanning, faded negative correction etc. etc. The end result
> is that it is somewhat sucks when compared to VueScan.
Orange mask: at lea
petter.sund...@findus.dhs.org said:
> I am thinking of buying a film scanner. I really really want one.
Fair enough
> However, there seems to be few in the affordable range (around and
> below) ~<400$ that are supported by SANE. Without knowing about
> support, I had considered the Minolta Dual
Hi!
On: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 19:36:02 +,
Major A wrote:
> =
> > However, there seems to be few in the affordable range (around and =
> > below) ~<400$ that are supported by SANE. Without knowing about sup=
port, =
> > I had considered the Minolta Dual Scan III. It seems to not be work=
ing
The Canon FS2710S (an SCSI film scanner) is also working nicely
with SANE, in spite of Canon's non-support attitude (2720 dpi,
3 x 12 bit). As Canon is now marketing the FS4000S (4000 dpi),
you may have a good chance to get the FS2710 cheap.
If you buy a FS4000S, please let us know, so that we can
Steven Lembark wrote:
>
>> Does anyone have any recommendations/experiences to share? I am most
>> interested in a solution that currently _works_.
>
>
> I hve a Nikon Coolscan 4000. It works beautifully. They
> also make a lower-res CS-IV that might do what you need
> it to.
>
> The Nikon equi
Major A wrote:
>>However, there seems to be few in the affordable range (around and
>>below) ~<400$ that are supported by SANE. Without knowing about support,
>>I had considered the Minolta Dual Scan III. It seems to not be working
>>very well, if at all.
>>Epson doesn't seem to work very well e
Hello.
I am thinking of buying a film scanner. I really really want one.
However, there seems to be few in the affordable range (around and
below) ~<400$ that are supported by SANE. Without knowing about support,
I had considered the Minolta Dual Scan III. It seems to not be working
very well,
> However, there seems to be few in the affordable range (around and
> below) ~<400$ that are supported by SANE. Without knowing about support,
> I had considered the Minolta Dual Scan III. It seems to not be working
> very well, if at all.
> Epson doesn't seem to work very well either. Anyhow,
--ew6BAiZeqk4r7MaW
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 12:35:44AM +0100, Deiters wrote:
[ ... ]
> If you buy a FS4000S, please let us know, so that we can extend
> the backend.
No need to wayt:
> Does anyone have any recommendations/experiences to share? I am most
> interested in a solution that currently _works_.
I hve a Nikon Coolscan 4000. It works beautifully. They
also make a lower-res CS-IV that might do what you need
it to.
The Nikon equipment works in part because the manufactur
23 matches
Mail list logo
