Regarding Contax N digital and Leica digital back

[loom]

Dear Khoon,

Thanks very much! I appreciate the information you provided about Sony's chip, and I also learned a lot from the question you asked Finney. Though I am very happy with my G2 and NX, am watching digital very carefully as well.

And, thanks for your words for this thread. I have been silent on this forum mostly, given my limited experience, and had never ever imagined a situation like this. I love photography 'cause I am so moved from the lights and images catched by my naked eye from time to time and I simply wanted store the moment and to share with others. All of the others started from here and now it seems to be a little foggy.

Best, Shu-Hsien

 

[loom]

Dear Clive,

Very thanks for your kind words. Your writing is so beautiful that I really hope in one day I can write in a similar way like you.

In the time just before China was united for the first time, the so called "The Time of Fighting Countries" (Sorry, in Chinese the term is much more lyric), there are about 10 of emminent disciplines. The great thinkers/philosophers oftern traveled around to pursuade kings to adapt their theory to rule their country. The most prominent one being Confucianism and the Mo discipline. Lao-Tze's discipline, which suggested that the best government is the one which people would not recognize at all, was not that favored since every nation was trying hard to keep itself competitive in that chaotic era. The Mo discipline is a very unique one. It stated that people should love each one and other "equally" and advocated peace. It also promoted living thriftly. Followers live in a unique society that they'll come to help wherever there's people need them. They are the most poweful group of people except the soldiers of the governments. At first kings (not emporer, which is occured after the union) of some nation kept good relationships with the Mo disciplin but at last the Mos became extinct since their discipline was not favored by the one in control. The country Zing, which later took over the entire China, adopted the "Law" discipline which suggested governments should keep very very strict laws in order to build a strong nation, and it is the only way to take control of the entire continent (well, at that time China was only about 1/4 of the territory now it is ruling)

When the Zing Dynasty (the first dynasty in Chinese history) fell and the Han Dynasty rise, the first two emperors adopted Lao-Tze's discipline and do whatever they can not to disturb the people and to let them rest, after the tiring wars and battles during the transition. Then it came the Emperor Wu ( Wu is not his last name). He wanted more control and more power and was ambitious to rule more territory. He adopted Confucianism and build his highness upon. He destroyed most of all the literatures of other disciplines and killed people who did not agree with him. He did conquer many territories and was great in some aspects, but what he has done to the Chinese culture might be more cons than pros. One of the history professors in my college once told me that the diversity and prosperity of philosophy had never recovered since then.

At this point you ought to keep in mind that this is my point of view, from someone came from Taiwan, where people were facing the threat of China, which have never given up "uniting" the island through blood and kills. In my understanding they highly appraise Zing Dynasty and Emporor Wu, since they gave China the unity and the "greatness".

I am not sure what is the exact wording, but in Chinese the term Taoism has more to do with the folk religions. One of the biggest difference between China and the west is that religion itself had never played a significant roll in Chinese history. Chinese people adore ancestors and use various figures in the history to be the gods. This is vaguely defined as Taoism. Buddism wasn't prominent until Tang Dynasty. However, it has nothing to do with the power of the government, and there were no wars or battles due to religious reasons.

The theory of Lao-Zi was much spoken of before the rise of Tang Dynasty, when it was chaotic again. People used his theory to keep themselves peaceful and not to care about the hassles happening around them. There was so called "clear chat", where people were doing nothing but talking and talking all day long. They were like that since they were so pessimistic.

In modern times Lao-Zi's theory draw more attention. I personally belief is that we basically are facing more stresses and more competitions and the world is so chaotic that it requires much wisdom to stay balance with oneself's inner peace while trying to achieve a successful carreer. There was a saying "to return to the essence", and I feel that is somewhat similar to the movement that pursuesliving more simply and naturally. Another saying, which I wrote in the other post, "the softer you are, the stronger you will be" has much implications. Try to think about the grass and trees. In a strong wind even a tree can be pulled out, while the grass stays fine since it is soft and is able to bow. This story is my favorite.

Yes, Chuang-Tze is the best story-teller in Chinese history. The stories can always inspire people and make people live more happily.

This post is actually off topic, but I myself find these stories interesting and serve quite well to bring this thread to the end.

Best, Shu-Hsien

 

[mike_nunan]

Hi Clive,

I'm slightly surprised you find the grain prominent in your Perfection 3200 scans, but I suppose it depends upon what film you are shooting and what you are comparing the results to. The grain is certainly there, but it's softer-edged than the LS-30 is able to render.

The exposure (and the broad range of apparent exposure controls in the Epson software) is another matter. You've missed something crucial, which is that all those controls alter the image *after* the data has been converted to digital in the scanner. The idea behind correct exposure adjustment is to ensure that the full number range is utilised in the raw data, without going over the top and clipping data in the highlights (or shadows, for negs).

This is the same principle as setting the record level for a digital audio recording. If you set it too low, then you've "wasted some bits" in the converter, and there's nothing you can do afterwards that will restore the lost information. Sure, you can turn it up so it sounds as loud again, but you will also &lify the noise that is present in the lower bits of the signal. This is exactly what the "exposure" settings in Epson Scan do.

Looking at the raw files from VueScan showed me that the 3200 was wasting 2 to 3 bits of converter range on average, which is significant. The ill-effects of this were clearly apparent in many of the scans.

As I said before, I don't want to rubbish the 3200 because it's a very capable unit that seemed to be the equal of my LS-30, a dedicated film scanner that cost twice the money when I bought it only a few years ago. Plus, you get the benefits of being able to scan prints and medium/large format film.

-= mike =-

 

[mike_nunan]

Hi Austin,

I'm not saying I can't get prints that are better in most ways than wet prints, what I'm saying is I can't get prints that don't *betray* themselves as digital prints. I am working exclusively from film scans, and the printer is not the problem because the artifacts I'm complaining about are clearly visible on the CRT. The issue is definitely scan quality.

To be more specific about the artifacts, I'm seeing coarse separation between levels, either at the individual pixel level, where it has the appearance of noise or strangely altered film grain, or across whole areas, where I see artificial boundaries in the middle of areas that ought to be smoothly blended from one tone to another. Or, sometimes where there is an edge or boundary in the original image, the scanned file makes it into a sharp tide-line. Later today or tomorrow, once I've posted some s&le scans from the 5400 and LS-30, I can illustrate the symptoms directly.

These problems don't affect every single scan, but they do affect enough of the images that I care about printing to cause me frustration. As I mentioned before, even the prints made for Sebastiao Salgado's recent major exhibition in London showed these artifacts to some degree, albeit minor, but enough for me to immediately say "digital print". I'm assuming these prints would be made using at least an upper-mid-range Imacon, although maybe I should contact the Barbican and try and find out for sure.

I think what I'm seeing is exaggerated quantisation error caused by the post-processing of the raw scan data (hence my unhappiness at the Epson 3200's tendency to make matters worse in this regard) but I'm very willing to hear out any other possible explanations.

-= mike =-

 

[narrbl]

Hi Mike,

Thanks, and I understand well all you are saying, also apologise for my own assumption in going into detail on all those control features. Bear with me and will make an answer before go to bed.

Am just a little curious at first how you may feel sure that the 3200 is mistaken if VueScan driver seems to say so. Here's a quote from VueScan user manuals that may be germane, or not: There is no scaling or color correction of the raw CCD data in the scanning step. Some scanners either always or sometimes convert 10-bit or 12-bit CCD data to 8 bits before transferring it to VueScan, and then VueScan converts it back to 10-bit or 12-bit CCD data. This is done using the same gamma correction table specified by the sRGB standard. I'm not feeling impressed by the mathematics of this reverse conversion - you can never get the real bits back unless this really is a serial encoding scheme. Maybe it doesn't happen on the 3200 but wonder if you have a way to know that. Also that VueScan understand how to properly force interior functions like appropriate auto-calibrate for ex&le, unless Epson is cooperative in their business. Lots of opportunity for error even if they do it sort of right - drift for ex&le if not engaged at right times or steps.

In any case, it seems odd to bother with the needs of a 16 bit A/D design, and provide auto-calibration as specs of Epson say, and then throw away so much of their dynamic range by dragging the signal to the edges of range as you describe in earlier note. And wouldn't that have strong effects on the D factor of 3.4 I think they spec? It's very late, or I would look up the logs involved in that and see.

Would feel to guess as this proved out for you, that the scanner in question was faulty, if it's not the kind of third-party software issues considered above, but you know all the branches of reasoning about this kind of thing am sure, and have deliberation for your view.

More crucially, you may anyway have very good reasons to insist on a scanner that agrees with VueScan if that software's essential to workflow on these edge-of-capability capture and print interests. And it sounds that you may really like to go upscale on capability for film anyway - and then you need what you need - why we are all here .

On the grain, well, it's pretty prominent to say the least on the Tri-X 35 mm scans - am pretty sure that's what it is because it's what my father shot then. Maybe the lab screwed up, or it's some kind of clumping after 40 years, but I seem to remember from enlarger days it wasn't uncommon to see like appearance on Ilford also - those grain-inclusive seabird crops of memory. I can also see grain on what are either Kodachrome or Ektachrome slides, likely Ektachrome. This is much smaller size but seems reasonably well resolved at all-pixels view, though am sure I don't have your eye to calibrate what in fact is 'reasonable'. So that's what can say about grain.

Again, I am certain the Epson won't match USD 3000 film scanners or the like, and there's been lots of discussion on how good it really is. I don't know, except you're right - it does quite a good job for what I seem to wish anyway.

Enjoy - and will be good to hear what you finally settle on that works on these higher class arenas.

Regards, Clive

 

[afranklin]

Hi Mike,

> The issue is > definitely scan quality.

Could the issue be film/exposure/development possibly? It would be good, I believe, to check that first before looking at the scanner. For B&W scans, I use a Leafscan 45, which has a monochrome scan mode for B&W and does an exceptional job.

It's interesting you mention this issue with some images at, a supposedly, professionally done exhibit. People on the B&W scan lists I am on don't complain of this at all...so I have to believe there is something wrong with the scan operation, scanner or something...as I don't see this issue either. Can you post an image somewhere so that I can take a look at it? Does the histogram for these images have gaps in it? That would certainly cause what you are seeing (called "fingers of death" by some), and that is typically the result of doing tonal adjustment with 8 bit data...

BTW, how do you do your tonal adjustments? Do you do them with high bit data, or do you do them with 8 bit data? Give me an idea of your workflow, and I may be able to help you solve this issue.

Regards,

Austin

 

[erichard44]

> I have been reading this thread with some amusement. There seem to be several issues here, first, Austin, whoever he is, does not seem to be able to tolerate anyone with an opinion which he cannot substantiate and prove...But how do you prove an opinion? Second, Austin wants to be the resident expert, and gets upset, and goes on the attack, when anyone says anything that might challenge that position. His posts, in my opinion, were far more offensive than Finneys. They were rude, humorless, mean, and dismissive.

Is Finney right or wrong? Well, what exactly was he saying? So far as I could see, he was saying that issues of price and size in compact cameras were trumping issues that related to quality in the images.

Meanwhile, we are deprived of hearing another opinion from someone who seems to have a different point of view from Austin. From that perspective, we are all losers in this, with perhaps the only winner being Austin, who seems to be able to preserve his fatuous position of authority.

I do not care who has the better job in the IT industry, or who has designed the most chips. Neither of those "facts" means anything in terms of who is correct or whose opinion will be shown, over time, to be closer to the truth. The question of who knows more is simply irrelevant to who is right or wrong. Right and wrong on a particular issue is a totally independent factual matter. Many times people who "know more" are wrong. Were that not true, the world would be atotally different sort of place.

This "forum" is not much of a forum if offensive people like Austin are allowed to remain, daring everyone to match his expertise or shut up. Perhaps Finney's error was in mocking Austin, who needs to take a deep breath, and consider how others see him.

Oh, by the way, I am not a professional photographer, in the sense that I take pictures for pleasure, nor am I an IT person. I am a professional lawyer, meaning that I am capable of discerning worthless arguments when I see or hear or read them.

This is not a thread that needs to be suppressed, by the way, because now we are left with Austin, and not with Finney. This isn't baseball, where the umpires are always right.

Richard Stone >

 

[loom]

Dear Richard,

I cannot agree with you more.

The most interesting thing happened here is that Austin got upset when he found my still believing in Finney. That was hilarious!

By far I am very dissappointed what happened in this forum. Even in baseball games, the umpire would expel both sides of players if two team were up to something.

Shu-Hsien

 

[afranklin]

Shu-Hsien,

I do not understand you. Dirk has asked that this stop, and your continued bringing this subject up and continue to comment on me, and I do not appreciate it. If you comment on me, and what you comment on is simply wrong, or is personal to me, I will respond. Please stop.

> The most interesting thing happened here is that Austin got upset when > he found my still believing in Finney.

That is completely wrong, Shu-Hsien. I was not upset at all. I was sad that, someone whom I though had a genuine interest for understanding things, and SEEMED like a decent enough person, was allowing themselves to be led on by someone who I believe is a charlatan.

> That was hilarious!

That someone showed concern for you, is hilaroius? How rude can you be? You came across as a decent person, and of decent character, and you seemed to genuinely show concern for the situation. Obviously, my compassion was misplaced, and my judgement incorrect.

> By far I am very dissappointed what happened in this forum. Even in > baseball games, the umpire would expel both sides of players if two > team were up to something.

You do not understand. Finney continued with the personal attacks. I did responded to his personal attacks, but I not continue to personally attack him. That is the difference.

Austin

 

[afranklin]

Richard,

> Austin, whoever he is, does not seem to > be able to tolerate anyone with an opinion which he cannot > substantiate and prove...But how do you prove an opinion?

It was NOT opinion I was challenging, it was statements being touted as fact, that simply were not fact.

> Second, > Austin wants to be the resident expert, and gets upset, and goes on > the attack, when anyone says anything that might challenge that > position.

I don't care to be the resident expert, and I could care less if anyone challenges my position. I never mind substantiating my position, and I consciously try to CLEARLY state what is opinion and what is fact.

> His posts, in my opinion, were far more offensive than > Finneys.

To you, that makes sense, simply because YOU weren't who Finney was personally attacking.

> They were rude, humorless, mean, and dismissive.

My initial posts on this were not rude or dismissive. My later ones certainly were...but only because what was posted, to me, was as well. I don't see any need for humor when being personally attacked. Mean, no, I only called like I see it. The intent was not to be mean, in fact, I was a lot kinder than I could have been. Believe me.

> Meanwhile, we are deprived of hearing another opinion from someone who > seems to have a different point of view from Austin.

But, you weren't hearing opinion from Finney. If what was said was stated as opinion, my response would have been entirely different. When challenged, it was Finney who dismissed me, not the other way around. What was at issue was not opinion, but statements of fact, that I believed were not correct.

> This "forum" is not much of a forum if offensive people like Austin > are allowed to remain,

It's YOU who is offensive here, Richard, with your unprovoked personal attack. So YOU think you should simply be allowed to be intentionally offensive, unprovoked? I had nothing to do with Finney being booted, he (and everyone) was warned, and why you think I somehow have to be punished for that is simply childish. My ONLY comment prior to his entering into the conversation was simply pointing out that, as cordially as I could, as YOU equally point out, being an IT person has not a wit to do with being an expert on digital imaging. That's it.

> daring everyone to match his expertise or shut > up

That is completely silly, as I have never said, or even eluded to that. Fact is, I was NOT the one who brought up background. It was stated in the first post by Shu-Hsien that this information was from "a friend in the IT industry". That was, somehow, supposed to lend credibibility to the post. I only pointed out that this IT background of his un-named friend may not actually lend credibility. And I did so very nicely, making no demeaning statements what so ever. Then Shu-Hsien expounded on the information, and I responded that the explanation still didn't carry, to me, any credence. If you read the thread, you will see it was Finney who started expounding on his own expertise, and in his very first post said:

"> Chips > are not really your territory and you do not have to pretend that you > know a lot."

Finney first "dared" ME, not the other way around as you have so erroneously presented. His "challenge" is why I expounded on my expertise, simply as counter to his incorrect claim. He also then continued to question my background, which I filled in for him AT FINNEY'S REQUEST. I in NO WAY "dared everyone to match [my] expertise", nor did I EVER tell anyone to "shut up", that is a complete fabrication on your part. For a lawyer, I'm surprised you did not check your facts beforehand.

Please stop this nonsense.

Austin