Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 35

Thread: Panoramic Skyline

  1. #1
    Senior Member wormz777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    2,577

    Default Panoramic Skyline

    Cropped from normal frame. Velvia. Pardon for the bad scan once again.


  2. #2

    Default

    sorry to say this, dude

    while i believe that the photo may look nice, but the details are all blown off by the bad scanning.

    using a flatbed?

  3. #3
    Senior Member wormz777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    2,577

    Default

    Originally posted by mervlam
    sorry to say this, dude

    while i believe that the photo may look nice, but the details are all blown off by the bad scanning.

    using a flatbed?
    Scanned using my Benq Scanwit 2740s. If this is not any better, I think I am sending my scanner for servicing today. Or is this the norm for film scanner?


  4. #4

    Default

    Contrast is rather high which occludes some details and the lights actually seem a little blown.

    Did you use autolevels on the image? If so, it may explain the high contrast.

  5. #5
    Senior Member wormz777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    2,577

    Default

    Yup... for the later version, I have only used auto-level + auto contrast + USM and nothing else.

    Please advise

  6. #6

    Default

    Originally posted by wormz777
    Yup... for the later version, I have only used auto-level + auto contrast + USM and nothing else.

    Please advise
    I presume you are using the Auto-level function as a one click colour cast solution?

    I find that using a manual levels(or curves) adjustment to tweak the exposure, followed by manually tweaking the colour balance via hues/sat might work better.

    Autolevels/Autocontrast tends to generate an overly contrasty effect.

    You might also want to try Autocolor alone.

  7. #7
    Senior Member wormz777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    2,577

    Default

    I have realised that after I have scanned in full resolution, all the details can be seen, esp the defined rings of white lights on top of the CDL buliding. However, once I resize it (wo any manipulations) to width 800 pixels and below, the white rings will automatically be rendered as a bunch of white patch, all merged together.

    Is this not the fault of the scanner but a case of limitation of information that can be included in a picture of that size?

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,305

    Default Re: Panoramic Skyline

    Originally posted by wormz777
    Pardon for the bad scan once again.

    wormz777, do yourself, your scanner and your slide a big favour. Quickly sort out your scanner or scanning skill... If I were you, I wouldn't have posted a picture for viewing/comment, knowing that the picture is not in its best.

    Asking for comment (if that's what you want people to do) and using poor scanning as an excuse get you nowhere ...


  9. #9

    Default

    Originally posted by wormz777
    I have realised that after I have scanned in full resolution, all the details can be seen, esp the defined rings of white lights on top of the CDL buliding. However, once I resize it (wo any manipulations) to width 800 pixels and below, the white rings will automatically be rendered as a bunch of white patch, all merged together.

    Is this not the fault of the scanner but a case of limitation of information that can be included in a picture of that size?
    In a sense this is true.

    However, it is also true that any form of resizing also involves some filtering/smoothening action especially if bicubic option is checked.

    You will usually need some USM to restore the sharpness, however, there is a limit to how much detail you can show given a fixed image size and the limits of monitor resolution.

  10. #10
    Senior Member wormz777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    2,577

    Default Re: Re: Panoramic Skyline

    Originally posted by jasphotography
    wormz777, do yourself, your scanner and your slide a big favour. Quickly sort out your scanner or scanning skill... If I were you, I wouldn't have posted a picture for viewing/comment, knowing that the picture is not in its best.

    Asking for comment (if that's what you want people to do) and using poor scanning as an excuse get you nowhere ...


    Ouch.... that hurts...

    But you got a point there Jas.

    Meanwhile let me sort out the scanner...

  11. #11
    Senior Member wormz777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    2,577

    Default

    Originally posted by Zerstorer
    In a sense this is true.

    However, it is also true that any form of resizing also involves some filtering/smoothening action especially if bicubic option is checked.

    You will usually need some USM to restore the sharpness, however, there is a limit to how much detail you can show given a fixed image size and the limits of monitor resolution.
    So I should uncheck the bicubic option when I resize? Let me try it out again.

    But if all things done and I can't still get the defined rings I want, does that warrant enough reason for me to ask for a repair on the AF of my scanner?

  12. #12

    Default

    Originally posted by wormz777
    So I should uncheck the bicubic option when I resize? Let me try it out again.
    Erm, not exactly, you will get less smoothening, but also some artifacting may result.


    But if all things done and I can't still get the defined rings I want, does that warrant enough reason for me to ask for a repair on the AF of my scanner?
    You could send it in for a checkup. Have you ever gotten satisfactory scans from it before? How sure are you that its the scanner and not the source?

    What were your settings for that shot? Aperture, lens used? Coz I see that there is a certain degree of overexposure on the lights.

  13. #13
    Senior Member wormz777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    2,577

    Default

    Originally posted by Zerstorer
    Erm, not exactly, you will get less smoothening, but also some artifacting may result.


    You could send it in for a checkup. Have you ever gotten satisfactory scans from it before? How sure are you that its the scanner and not the source?

    What were your settings for that shot? Aperture, lens used? Coz I see that there is a certain degree of overexposure on the lights.
    Don't you need to sleep?

    I have gotten gd results from slides before, but this is the first time I am scanning those taken at night. When I scanned, a little window pop up saying that the AF might not be accurate and I asked me to select a larger area to scan. I have already selected the whole frame.

    I went to buy a light box and a 8x loupe and have verifed that the slide is sharp and detailed. Imho, I think the slide is very well exposed with minimal overexposure of lights esp at the fullerton hotel area and the rings at the CDL building.

    I believe my settings are f16,20 secs for that shot. Lens used is the canon 20-35L f2.8

  14. #14

    Default

    I survive on little sleep.;P

    In that case, you could try a few scanning attempts and see if the AF manages a proper lock.

    Gd luck.

  15. #15
    Senior Member wormz777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    2,577

    Default

    Originally posted by Zerstorer
    I survive on little sleep.;P

    In that case, you could try a few scanning attempts and see if the AF manages a proper lock.

    Gd luck.
    Thank you very much for all help rendered

  16. #16

    Default

    wormie seems like u got all the help u need already
    but honestly, dont mess with the levels, it usually go alil haywire if u dont know what u're doing and only the manual controls are good for levels.. auto screws it up. auto contrast works for me coz of the day shots and my pic gets real dark so it works but manual is good too with preview u can slowly go through your changes but i usually change my contrast several times before im satisfied with it.

    im not familiar with film scanner so sorry

    yeah yesterday u ask me how i scan my photos? well i use a normal print flatbed scanner. in fact its one of those free scanner/printer/copier from HP. its really bad so im not really happy with it. im thinking of buying a film/negatives scanner for slides :P

    argh sorry. i rant :P

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,305

    Default Re: Re: Re: Panoramic Skyline

    Originally posted by wormz777
    Ouch.... that hurts...

    But you got a point there Jas.

    Meanwhile let me sort out the scanner...

    sayang sayang... haven't you heard of "bash is affection, scold is love" ?

  18. #18

    Default

    hmm should a person only post their best for criticism? then whats the point if not to learn from one's mistake? if its perfect and flawless then all u're wanting to hear is praise?

    mmmm just some thoughts

  19. #19
    Senior Member wormz777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    2,577

    Default

    haiz ... the scanner seems to work fine when the picture is displayed in full resolution. The resolution is very good imo, i.e the details are captured even for some of the tiny signboards. The scanned untouched picture is soft though I heard its common for film scanner.

    It seems that I have no excuse to ask for it to be repaired unless the softness is a problem not shared by other equivalent film scanners.

    This is less of a problem for day pictures and is more pronouced in the night shots.

    I am really hoping I can get to see someone's scanner at work and see if similar results are obtained. If same results, than "lan lan" lor... if not, I might consider getting a better scanner.


    BTW, does anyone know where to get specific film profile for Vuescan or Miraphoto? I have been using generic setting all the way since my Vuescan only have Kodak profiles. Thanks!

  20. #20
    Senior Member wormz777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    2,577

    Default

    Originally posted by eskie

    yeah yesterday u ask me how i scan my photos? well i use a normal print flatbed scanner. in fact its one of those free scanner/printer/copier from HP. its really bad so im not really happy with it. im thinking of buying a film/negatives scanner for slides :P
    You want to consider mine?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •