Re: Media Testing for maclife.de
Re: Media Testing for maclife.de
- Subject: Re: Media Testing for maclife.de
- From: "Mark Segal" <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 10:38:08 -0400
Martin,
As far as I know, it depends on both the scanner and the software. For my legacy files of colour negs I periodically find time to digitize, I'm using a Minolta ScanElite 5400 with Silverfast Studio Ai version 6.5. With this combination there are settings in Silverfast which allow the scanner to deliver linear high-bit "raw" data. I put "raw" in quotation marks, because I don't believe the term raw means the same thing for this process as it does for cameras. The film itself - the real "raw" reference object being scanned - already is a baked non-linear image because of the film chemistry. I stand to be corrected by those who know more about it than I do, but i.o.w.,my understanding is that these settings in Silverfast simply mean the resulting output is linear from the scanner based on a source that is already not linear itself.
Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: Martin Orpen
To: email@hidden
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 10:24 AM
Subject: Re: Media Testing for maclife.de
On 16 Sep 2008, at 14:38, Andrew Rodney wrote:
> On Sep 15, 2008, at 11:27 PM, Uli Zappe wrote:
>
>> Scanner drivers certainly differ as much as RAW converters.
>
> No, it doesn't.
>
> The Illuminant is fixed. The dynamic range of fixed. The item being
> scanned has a fixed gamut (cameras don't). The film or print being
> scanned CAN be also created as a target for the profile process. You
> can't do this with a target for a digital camera as is being
> discussed (at least ONE target that describes everything you'll
> place in front of the camera). Scanners can and should be put into a
> default and ideal condition for building the profile (a scanner that
> produces an auto correction behavior can't be profiled, you're
> chasing your tail).
>
> That you find a scanner and a digital capture device that produce
> essentially a single channel grayscale document that's scene
> referred anything approaching what a scanner captures (which is
> output referred), leads me to believe you have more reading to do.
For the benefit of readers for whom English is not their first
language, I'd like to point out that Andrew has become argumentative
to the point of incoherence -- even to an "English scientist" like
myself.
The more I read, the more I became concerned that I was developing
dyslexia. It was a blessed relief to see his signature at end of it
otherwise I'd have wasted the afternoon on the phone to NHS Direct.
The mention of scanners in that jumble of words leads me to ask if
there is no area of image creation in which he is not an expert?
I've heard tell (but NDAs &c forbid me to divulge the details) that he
is about to release a white paper on the complex subject of egg
sucking... my grandmother is very keen to review it.
Being more of a fan of the cursed PMT, my only CCD scanner is
Scanview's noisy F10. The F10 will give you RAW high-bit data if you
like your images linear. Do other CCD scanners do that -- or is the
F10 unusual in this respect?
--
Martin Orpen
Idea Digital Imaging Ltd
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden