Bob,Originally Posted by Bob McCarthy
I'm glad it's solved. Hopefully it was just an inadvertent setting error. I've made a few of those.
Bob,
I'm glad it's solved. Hopefully it was just an inadvertent setting error. I've made a few of those.
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
Hi Bob and Peter
Thank you for your recommendations! Will it really make sense though to buy one of these calibration tools for such an old monitor? Will they be able to properly calibrate the monitor? Its a Mitsubishi Diamond Pro2045u which supposedly is a good monitor but maybe the colors and luminance have faded so much over the years that calibration of it would be useless? I have only used it for a couple of weeks so I cannot tell really but judging by my limited experience the monitor is in ok shape. What do you think?
Chris
I did some testing with the dpi discussion we had a while ago in mind. Scanning pro400H 120-film at 4300 dpi seems to give nothing but more noise in shadow areas compared to 4000 dpi. At 4000 dpi it still looks rather too noisy in some scans, depending on the scene and exposure, while other scans look fine.
Yes, it is worth it. Until very recently, I used a 21" Samsung Syncmaster CRT. Calibrating it helped, although it eventually got to the point where it got too dim. All displays slowly lose brightness. Anyway, if you can't calibrate your monitor, then you shouldn't be using it for photo editing unless you're very good at reading/interpreting/using the color numbers in photoshop. In any case, profiling made a big difference with that monitor. It also greatly improved an old Sony CRT monitor, which is the one I use on the scanner.
I've been a little sloppy with terminology here. Calibrating a monitor amounts to adjusting the settings on the monitor to get as close to the ideal figures as possible. After the monitor is calibrated, which any of the measuring pucks should help with, you then profile the monitor. Using the pucks is the easiest and most accurate way to both calibrate and profile your monitor, but you can use test images to do a calibration. The Norman Koran link I posted earlier goes into how to do that.
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
Yep, exactly. The interaction between grain, dye clouds, and the scanner hardware is complicated. For the highest quality, each film should be evaluated for the scanning resolution that gives the best results. With BW film, the same film might give different results when developed to a different contrast index, or with a different developer.
Remember, though, that a scan at a higher dpi with be more magnified when viewed at 100% on the screen than a scan done at a lower dpi. The best way to compare is to make prints, if that's the final product. But you can try matching image size by lowering the resolution of the higher scan. For example, suppose you are comparing two scans. The first is one done at 4000 spi, and the second one is done at 5000 spi. In photoshop, using the image size dialog to lower the 5000 spi scan to 4000 spi, just for the comparison. That'll show you the images at the same magnification. The down-rezzed file will benefit from the averaging that takes place with down-sampling, but it also might lose a little sharpness. Comparing these types of thing is more of an art than a science.
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
BC,
Peter had a good suggestion a couple of weeks ago. I use the scanner in a RAW mode of sorts. I believe it's on his blog.
I use the expert mode and set the exposure at LD/HD at 0 and 4.0 for all channels. Also the (forgot what's its called, I'll call it..) DR at 0 and 255.
Made a preset so it scans all film that way, both color and B&W.
When you open the file in CS3, the entire histogram is squashed into the center. Levels and curves, recast the data into a more normal distribution.
I am not seeing any noise, and if there is detail on the negative, it shows up on the scan. No detail on film, nothing the scanner can do about it.
bob
A trick I discovered. I do not use the Cezanne for reflective scanning.
The Cezanne is happy with just the upper lamps installed.
Now I have a spare set. Those puppies aren't cheap.
bob
Good tip, Bob. Thanks!
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
yes, yes it will make a difference. If the crt, looks even reasonably lifelike, the phosphors are doing the job. The only potential issue is you may be required to calibrate more often as the crt drifts a bit as it ages. LCD screens are pretty stable, I only check mine every couple of months and even then the change is almost nothing. The software I use tracks this, A crt is inherently less stable so it might require a monthly checkup.
bob
Bob and Peter,
I have finally taken the plunge and ordered the monitor calibration kit. Thankyou both for your very useful recommendations.
Bob, that's a great tip, but how does the scanner do its white calibration without the lower lamps? The white strip is illuminated by those lamps to get calibrated isn't it? Or do you merely install the lower lamps once in awhile to calibrate white point once and then the scanner remembers the last calibration?
Chris
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks