Cezanne Colorgenius software

[Willem]

Kinda and no, respectively. I have version 1.4 or such.

I just acquired a Screen Cezanne, which came with CG 1. But it's 1.0.4, and I see nothing beyond that except for 2.x) on the website. Was 1.4 a typo?

Haven't got it up and running because it needs to be carried upstairs first—which includes the rather heavy Barco monitor!

But I did notice they omitted the disk for CG. It's on the computer, and I've got all the heavy manuals and the box for Colorgenius, just not the disk (and the license number). Nothing dodgy, it's a machine that was serviced and has been well maintained. Guess they lost that disk. Hope the license no. is visible on OS9.

The current version seems to be something else, though. At http://www.screenusa.com/products.cfm/colorgenius_dc I do not read about scanning at all.

[Peter De Smidt]

I just acquired a Screen Cezanne, which came with CG 1. But it's 1.0.4, and I see nothing beyond that except for 2.x) on the website. Was 1.4 a typo?

Yep, sorry. It should've been "1.0.4"

[Willem]

Yep, sorry. It should've been "1.0.4"

I wonder whether 1.0.4 would run under Sheepshaver, the emulation of OS9 under OSX. Are there any users who tried this?

I will be in touch with Screen Europe this week to enquire about an upgrade, but I'm not having my hopes too high.

One question: I did not receive any masks for 645 film. Did any exist for the Screen Cezanne?
Why use masks btw? What about putting the film strips up there without any mask? (Yes, I admit I'm a novice .)

[Peter De Smidt]

Using masks cuts off stray light from getting in the lens/sensor area. Stray light can cause a loss of contrast, just like in a camera. It can also cause blooming along the edges of the image. In my experience, it's important with a Cezanne to mask the negative well. Anything opaque will work.

Sorry, I don't know about the Mac OS questions.

[Willem]

Thanks, I'll make those masks! And I'll try the alternative software set-up, if only to guarantee life beyond the G4 and free up space from my overcrowded study (the Barco monitor is about as heavy as the Cezanne, and this 1998 monitor is bulky too!). I do need to find out whether the Apple Cinema Display (23") is accurate enough, but I expect it is.

There were some settings in the software for different films, though none matchng my films. I tried a few, and the results were hugely different. Are there any standard setings for certain films, like Portra 160VC, Velvia 100F Pro, XP2, Across 100, Pan 100? Even if in certain situations one would like to adapt the settings, that is easier when starting from a standard profile. Are such settings known, or can we exchange data?

[Peter De Smidt]

Well, with slides my preferred way is to make an icc file with a reference slide. You then use the same settings for all pictures you take on that film. Some difficulties with this is that making a good icc profile is non-trivial. It's very easy, for instance, to lose some shadow detail. I rarely scan slides, and I lost the profiles I had made to a computer crash about a year ago. Thus, I don't have an profiles available at the moment, and I don't plan on making any new ones until this fall. When I do, I'd be happy to make them available. Someone else might have some on hand, though.

With C41, there have been some threads on this forum as to various ways to do that. You might give them a read. (I'd probably go with photographing a MacBeth color checker chart, with a special hood around the black square, on the film in question. You could then make a pseudo icc profile, or you could make adjustments either in Color Genius or in PS.)

I have suggested settings for scanning bw film on my blog. If you want a higher contrast scan, you might experiment with something like a Stouffer step wedge.

[Bob McCarthy]

Using masks cuts off stray light from getting in the lens/sensor area. Stray light can cause a loss of contrast, just like in a camera. It can also cause blooming along the edges of the image. In my experience, it's important with a Cezanne to mask the negative well. Anything opaque will work.

Sorry, I don't know about the Mac OS questions.

Peter, I wonder if your lenses are dirty, I don't see much flare/blooming on my Cezanne.

File looks pretty much the same if I mask or not.

I have adjusted my film development so I rarely need to exceed D2.5 to 2.8 with my negatives (B&W).



I don't know if it makes a difference, but I do mask small formats ie. 35mm and 6x7.

Larger formats, primarily 8x10, I do not. I'm scanning small film at 4000 dpi or greater.

Larger formats, never above 2000 dpi.


bob

[Peter De Smidt]

Hi Bob,

That's possible. I haven't opened it up to take a look. Given the good instructions posted earlier on how to do so, I'll have to check it out before I get back to scanning.

[Willem]

I've had a go at more scanning now, and blimey, I scanned some 35mm film which I had previously scanned with the 4490. The difference is beyond words. The 4490 scans were just about acceptable at my screen (but really not), whereas the Cezanne's can be enlarged and enlarged and still give more detail. Much better in shades too.

All very predictable, obviously, but still a thing to marvel at.

As said, I do not have the full manual, so I need to find out many things by trial and error. Such as the relation between resolution and magnification.

I understand Screen also had their own version of ICE called Dusta La Vista. No mention here at the forum though. When I call them—received a new contact address—I'll ask about it.
Had no chance to test the OS9 alternative because I cannot locate my old installation disks (I should have everything between 7.6.1 and 10.6 but Sheepshaver requires 9.0 as the maximum, and of course I can only find 9.2).

[Peter De Smidt]

Ice really only works well when it's hardware supported. In other words, the scanner has to support an infrared channel. Slides are transparent to IR but dust is not. (The silver grains in a BW negative do block IR to some extent, and that's why hardware ICE doesn't work well with them.) I don't believe that the Cezanne supports an IR channel, and hence I don't have high hopes for Dusta La Vista, but I'd love to be wrong.

I recommend leaving magnification at 100%. When you do that the resolution you get will be the number you enter in the "Reso:" box.