Silverfast, Transparencies and Nikon

[ScanMan]

Hello,

I'm new to this forum and to Silverfast in general. I have a few questions pertaining to the latest variant (v5.5).

First, I assume by the picture on the Nikon page that the scanner supported is the Super Coolscan 4000 ED, not the LS 4000, which is the old medium format scanner Nikon no longer produces. As far as that goes, when will the Super Coolscan 8000 scanner be supported? I am making the move to MF soon and will be buying this scanner....

Second, with respect to the ROC and GEM thread, the President noted:

"FILM GRAIN REDUCTION will be implemented in SilverFast Ai as our own development. Expect something even better than GEM within the next couple of weeks."

That was July 30. Does this mean we should expect an update to v5.5 in the near future, or is this feature already present in v5.5? (I'm not sure when 5.5 was released, which is why I ask.)

Third, ICE was not mentioned in the above-noted thread ... does this mean v5.5 contains support for Nikon's ICE feature or something comparable? If so, do you have to have Nikonscan 3.1 installed to use it?

Last but not least, does Silverfast come with unique transparent film profiles for Fuji, Kodak and AGFA emulsions? I've yet to see scanner software that does this, and it's always a mystery to me given that these films render color in very different ways (and therefore should have their own ICC profiles built into the scanner software).

I happen to own Fuji IT-8 targets rather than Kodak versions, so I suppose this could help some ... otherwise though I still wonder if Silverfast has implemented unique transparent film profiles.

Thanks in advance for your comments!

-ScanMan

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ScanMan on 2001-08-11 17:45 ]</font>

[President_LSI]

1. Nikon LS 4000 ED: SilverFast Ai 5.5 will be working with all new Nikon scanners. Expect SilverFast Ai 5.5 for the LS 8000 to be ready shortly, too.

2. Film Grain Reduction will be a free update to SilverFast Ai 5.5 shortly.

3. ICE is supported in SilverFast Ai 5.5 and can be used with all new Nikon models.

4. Film Type support with NegaFix in SilverFast Ai 5.5 for Nikon scanners
SilverFast Ai 5.5 has got presets for more than 120 different film types with NegaFix. Also if a film type is not available, you can adjust and save your own film type.
A ?Film Type Import ? function will allow to import new film types available for download from our web site in the future.






<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: President_LSI on 2001-08-20 15:05 ]</font>

[ScanMan]

On 2001-08-11 21:57, President_LSI wrote:

Also if a film type is not available, you can adjust and save your own film type.
A ?Film Type Import ? function will allow to import new film types available for download from our web site in the future.

Thank you for your response!

Sounds like good news regarding the ICE and Grain Removal features for Nikon users. Looking forward to that while using my "LS" 8000 ED scanner....

As far as film types, I was inquiring about transparency, rather than negative film profiles.

I am most curious about three different film emulsions in particular: Fuji Provia 100F (also called RDP-III), Fuji Velvia (RVP) and Agfa RSX-II. There is no way for an individual to create ICC profiles for a transparency film without a great deal of expertise and expensive equipment. It's a job that is far beyond the means of most photographers (professional or otherwise).

I thought perhaps Silverfast, being able to profile so many negative films, would be able to profile popular transparency films as well. If this is not a current feature I would certainly be willing to put in a request. This alone would separate Silverfast from all other scanner drivers in the sense that it would be the only one not using generic transparency profiles.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ScanMan on 2001-08-12 03:30 ]</font>

[davidgordon]

"does Silverfast come with unique transparent film profiles for Fuji, Kodak and AGFA emulsions? I've yet to see scanner software that does this, and it's always a mystery to me given that these films render color in very different ways (and therefore should have their own ICC profiles built into the scanner software)."

All E6 film is based on the same dyes so once you callibrate your scanner (using an IT-8 target) you will produce perfect scans from Ektachrome, Fujichrome or Agfachrome. The exception is Kodachrome which is not E6!. The reason there are 'profiles' for negative film is to do with the oragne mask. Each film has adifferent mask, all the profile is doing is removing that mask. Look at different brand, types or even film processed at different labs and you will see variation. There's always a little more correction to do on negs. With transparencies the process control is much tighter.

Get an IT-8 calibration for your scanner (using SilverFast) - it really works, for all E6 films

[ScanMan]

On 2001-08-12 11:46, davidgordon wrote:

All E6 film is based on the same dyes so once you callibrate your scanner (using an IT-8 target) you will produce perfect scans from Ektachrome, Fujichrome or Agfachrome.

If they're all based on the same dyes, why do they all render the same scene so differently (not being sarcastic)?

As for IT-8's I do use them. I just thought it would be useful to have actual ICC profiles for transparent film types. I guess not? Thanks for the explanation on the orange mask process; I hadn't realized that was the only difference between negative films.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ScanMan on 2001-08-12 18:45 ]</font>

[ScanMan]

anyone?

[LSI_H.Bischof]

Film Types not supported yet <br>

If there is any special negative film type you would like to be supported, please let us know. We will see that we can generate an entry for that as soon as possible.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: LSI_H.Bischof on 2001-08-19 08:17 ]</font>

[Tomaz Klinc]

Still no word from LSI how to handle Kodachromes. Even though KM25 will be discontinued in December, the stock is huge. It seems that IT8 calibration of SF Ai with Kodak Ektachrome Q60 target doesn't work too well.

[ScanMan]

Actually, I was responding to this comment:

"All E6 film is based on the same dyes so once you callibrate your scanner (using an IT-8 target) you will produce perfect scans from Ektachrome, Fujichrome or Agfachrome"

as a rationale for why there are no E-6 specific film profiles.

It doesn't make sense to me that all the various E-6 emulsions from Kodak (save Kodachrome) Fuji and AGFA use the same dyes or color technologies. The fact is, they render the same scene in completely different ways, therefore it is logical to assume the scanner sees them all somewhat differently. You can't tell me Velvia and RSX-II 50 use a similar color process, for example. Or even Velvia and Provia 100F. They're totally different emulsions and produce totally different results, all else being equal.

I still think there need to be E-6 profiles for the following emulsions:

Fuji RVP (Velvia)
Fuji RDP-III (Provia 100F)
Agfa RSX-II (Agfachrome 50, 100)
Kodak E100S
Kodak E100VS
Kodak E100SW

Can Silverfast accomplish this or not?


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ScanMan on 2001-08-19 22:56 ]</font>

[ilyons]

>I still think there need to be E-6 profiles >for the following emulsions:

>Fuji RVP (Velvia)
>Fuji RDP-III (Provia 100F)
>Agfa RSX-II (Agfachrome 50, 100)
>Kodak E100S
>Kodak E100VS
>Kodak E100SW

>Can Silverfast accomplish this or not?


No they can't, nor do they need to, nor should you be asking them to. These are films - they are made by the companies you name - If you need profiles for each film type then ask them to create the master chrome and data file for each. You get that and SilverFast will create the profile.

BTW; if you ask Kodak, Fuji or Agfa the question you've asked here and get a positive answer you'll be the first! Afterall we're profiling the scanner NOT the film. Because each film renders the same scene differently doesn't mean that we need a profile for each film type. With negatives it's the orange mask that creates the problem - NOT the scene. With postitive type film we don't have a mask.

When profiling the scanner we use an IT8 target that has an associated set of data. The target comprises a number of coloured patches and the data file contains the measured values for these patches. When we scan the target the software compares the result with the data file. The profile simply describes how the scanner rendered these patches. There are only 286 patches, so the profile can't define every possible combination of RGB. What we end up with is a profile that contains a set of RGB input values a Profile Connection Space (PCS) and Lab output values. The RGB values are what the scanner reads and the Lab values are how these values should be rendered. Put simply a method of describing how the RGB input values should be mapped to the output lab values. Assuming the film uses broadly similar dyes and base the actual characteristics of that film are of only limited importance. Kodachrome is based upon an entirely different techology and cannot be compared to other positive films. Can it be profiled? I don't know but Silverfast is toy (no disrepect to the programmers) compared to some of the packages I've used to profile scanners and NONE that is NONE have EVER produced profile that renders Kodachrome accurately. They may get close with correctly exxposed images, but over or under by a 1/3 of a stop and you are dead!



Ian (needs to learn how to spell, again)






<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ilyons on 2001-08-20 01:03 ]</font>

[ScanMan]

"The RGB values are what the scanner reads and the Lab values are how these values should be rendered. Put simply a method of describing how the RGB input values should be mapped to the output lab values. Assuming the film uses broadly similar dyes and base the actual characteristics of that film are of only limited importance."

I think I understand what you're saying. Is there any advantage to using a Fuji IT8 if for example you use Fuji and not Ektachrome film?

[ilyons]

Unless the Fuji is one of the "hand measured" versions at $500plus for the 35mm version then it will render all the various chromes no better or worse than a batch one from Kodak or Agfa. If it is one of the $500 plus versions then all the chromes will benifit enormously.

Ian

[Tomaz Klinc]

Ian, the above means that it makes damn little difference which E6
film one uses, Kodak or Kludge, if the pics are to end up scanned
into a computer: all the cherished natural film characteristics such
as color balance, saturation and contrast would be overwhelmed and
annihilated by mechanics of hardware and software. I suspect the
real photogs will stay faithful to chemistry.

Regards,
Tomaz

[ScanMan]

Ian,

I believe the only difference between the $150 and the $500 IT8s from Fuji, is that the latter comes with the targets LUT data on a disk. The slides themselves are identical as far as I know. And I'm told the quality control on the Fuji IT8s is much better than what you get with Kodak's stuff.

As for Agfa, they don't m make IT8's any longer, and never did make them from the newer RSX-II emulsion.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ScanMan on 2001-08-20 21:12 ]</font>

[ilyons]

Tomaz,

You keep looking at the film - it isn't the film it's how the profiled scanner interprets the film.

I use a Kodak IT8 the data file has already factored in the characteristics of the film and so those charateristics become mute. If we now take an image scanned on Bilbochrome that renders blues with yellow freckles then that's what the profiled scanner should deliver. We shouldn't loose any of the films charateristics because the scanner profile is there to ensure that they are rendered correctly, NOT eliminated. I scan Agfa (hate the stuff), Kodak and Fuji - each has it's own characteristics and the scans I get maintain those characteristics.

Again, the profile describes how the scanner see's the target patches NOT the film!!!!!!! If it were the film then we need an INFINITE number of profiles just for the one film - think about ALL the lighting conditions under which you can shoot and multiply that by all the exposure possibilities, including long exposure times in low light, etc. Using the interpretation you seem to putting forward we would end up with sunsets looking like mid day sun in the bahama's (an exageration, I know and I wish I was there <g>).

Ian