I recently bought an Epson V700 and am using it to scan slides. I have been
scanning at moderate resolution (1200 dpi) to establish an index. I wanted a
higher resolution for one slide, and scanned it at 4800 dpi, and checked ICE.
The result had serious atifacts, which were not present when I rescanned with
dust removal checked (with out removing/replaceing the slide, I just left it
there).
Is this a known problem with ICE? Or could it be the particular scanner?
I don't know if this group allows attachments, but I'm going to try attaching
clips from the two scans.
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 15:08:55 GMT, P. Taine <user@domaine.invalid> wrote:
>I recently bought an Epson V700 and am using it to scan slides. I have been
>scanning at moderate resolution (1200 dpi) to establish an index. I wanted a
>higher resolution for one slide, and scanned it at 4800 dpi, and checked ICE.
>The result had serious atifacts, which were not present when I rescanned with
>dust removal checked (with out removing/replaceing the slide, I just left it
>there).
>
>Is this a known problem with ICE? Or could it be the particular scanner?
>
>I don't know if this group allows attachments, but I'm going to try attaching
>clips from the two scans.
There are issues with ICE and some Kodachrome slides. Kodachrome has
issues with IR light, which is how ICE works.
Also, 4800 dpi is a terribly high resolution, it is more than 30
megapixels. There just isn't that much information THERE on a 35mm
image, and you are going to get some possibly strange results.
P. Taine wrote:
> I recently bought an Epson V700 and am using it to scan slides. I have been
> scanning at moderate resolution (1200 dpi) to establish an index. I wanted a
> higher resolution for one slide, and scanned it at 4800 dpi, and checked ICE.
> The result had serious atifacts, which were not present when I rescanned with
> dust removal checked (with out removing/replaceing the slide, I just left it
> there).
>
> Is this a known problem with ICE? Or could it be the particular scanner?
>
> I don't know if this group allows attachments, but I'm going to try attaching
> clips from the two scans.
There are issues with ICE and some Kodachrome slides. Kodachrome has
issues with IR light, which is how ICE works.
Also, 4800 dpi is a terribly high resolution, it is more than 30
megapixels. There just isn't that much information THERE on a 35mm
image, and you are going to get some possibly strange results.
P. Taine wrote:
> I recently bought an Epson V700 and am using it to scan slides. I have been
> scanning at moderate resolution (1200 dpi) to establish an index. I wanted a
> higher resolution for one slide, and scanned it at 4800 dpi, and checked ICE.
> The result had serious atifacts, which were not present when I rescanned with
> dust removal checked (with out removing/replaceing the slide, I just left it
> there).
>
> Is this a known problem with ICE? Or could it be the particular scanner?
>
> I don't know if this group allows attachments, but I'm going to try attaching
> clips from the two scans.
Barry Watzman <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> P. Taine wrote:
> > I recently bought an Epson V700 and am using it to scan slides. I have been
> > scanning at moderate resolution (1200 dpi) to establish an index. I wanted a
> > higher resolution for one slide, and scanned it at 4800 dpi, and checked ICE.
> > The result had serious atifacts, which were not present when I rescanned with
> > dust removal checked (with out removing/replaceing the slide, I just left it
> > there).
> >
> > Is this a known problem with ICE? Or could it be the particular scanner?
> >
> > I don't know if this group allows attachments, but I'm going to try attaching
> > clips from the two scans.
> There are issues with ICE and some Kodachrome slides. Kodachrome has
> issues with IR light, which is how ICE works.
>
I don't think it's this causing the artefacts though.
> Also, 4800 dpi is a terribly high resolution, it is more than 30
> megapixels. There just isn't that much information THERE on a 35mm
> image, and you are going to get some possibly strange results.
>
This is more like it. I tried ICE on a variety of 35mm slides at 3200 dpi
and even at that resolution it occasionally produced odd effects,
especially on sharp contrasty edges. The dust removal can also
produce some odd effects. My conclusion was that for 'mass scanning'
one is much better off simply cleaning the slides as best one can and
turning off both dust removal and ICE. (I'm archiving a lot of old
slides before they fade away completely)
If/when you decide you want to get the best possible scan from a
particular slide then experiment with ICE, dust removal, etc. but be
prepared to spend some time finding the best compromise. I found
that, in general, the dust removal doesn't do a lot whereas ICE can do
a good job but takes time.
Barry Watzman <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> P. Taine wrote:
> > I recently bought an Epson V700 and am using it to scan slides. I have been
> > scanning at moderate resolution (1200 dpi) to establish an index. I wanted a
> > higher resolution for one slide, and scanned it at 4800 dpi, and checked ICE.
> > The result had serious atifacts, which were not present when I rescanned with
> > dust removal checked (with out removing/replaceing the slide, I just left it
> > there).
> >
> > Is this a known problem with ICE? Or could it be the particular scanner?
> >
> > I don't know if this group allows attachments, but I'm going to try attaching
> > clips from the two scans.
> There are issues with ICE and some Kodachrome slides. Kodachrome has
> issues with IR light, which is how ICE works.
>
I don't think it's this causing the artefacts though.
> Also, 4800 dpi is a terribly high resolution, it is more than 30
> megapixels. There just isn't that much information THERE on a 35mm
> image, and you are going to get some possibly strange results.
>
This is more like it. I tried ICE on a variety of 35mm slides at 3200 dpi
and even at that resolution it occasionally produced odd effects,
especially on sharp contrasty edges. The dust removal can also
produce some odd effects. My conclusion was that for 'mass scanning'
one is much better off simply cleaning the slides as best one can and
turning off both dust removal and ICE. (I'm archiving a lot of old
slides before they fade away completely)
If/when you decide you want to get the best possible scan from a
particular slide then experiment with ICE, dust removal, etc. but be
prepared to spend some time finding the best compromise. I found
that, in general, the dust removal doesn't do a lot whereas ICE can do
a good job but takes time.
I've had problems with ICE on my Epson 4870 when scanning E-6 films (not
kodachrome), I don't recall seeing it on negatives. I think that it might be
related to the way that the scanners light source works (being a hybrid of
cold cathode and LED for the IR).
I've had problems with ICE on my Epson 4870 when scanning E-6 films (not
kodachrome), I don't recall seeing it on negatives. I think that it might be
related to the way that the scanners light source works (being a hybrid of
cold cathode and LED for the IR).
Re: "My conclusion was that for 'mass scanning' one is much better off
simply cleaning the slides as best one can and turning off both dust
removal and ICE."
That isn't generally true. First, by the way, not sure what you mean by
ICE AND dust removal; ICE IS dust removal, among other things (dirt and
scratch removal also).
An interesting thing about resolution: If a given resolution setting
(or a given physical optical resolution) is too high, then you only have
two choices:
1. Cut the resolution by ONE-QUARTER (eg cut it in half both vertically
and horizontally, that is, use every other pixel)
OR
2. Use a resolution that is based on interpolated pixels.
That is one reason why I still like (and in some cases prefer) the older
Nikon scanners (LS-2000, LS-30) to newer models. The LS-2000 is 2,700
dpi which gives a 10 megapixel scan ..... which is "just right", most of
the time. Newer models are mostly 4,000 dpi, which is well over 20
megapixels (well over as in closer to 30MP). Problem is, that is TOO
HIGH for most material, the file sizes are huge, the processing times
are slow and you typically don't gain any real, actual quality because
there isn't 20 megapixels of information present in most 35mm images
(keep in mind what MOST means: Most films, most lenses, most cameras,
most processing, most photographers).
tinnews@isbd.co.uk wrote:
> Barry Watzman <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>> P. Taine wrote:
>>> I recently bought an Epson V700 and am using it to scan slides. I have been
>>> scanning at moderate resolution (1200 dpi) to establish an index. I wanted a
>>> higher resolution for one slide, and scanned it at 4800 dpi, and checked ICE.
>>> The result had serious atifacts, which were not present when I rescanned with
>>> dust removal checked (with out removing/replaceing the slide, I just left it
>>> there).
>>>
>>> Is this a known problem with ICE? Or could it be the particular scanner?
>>>
>>> I don't know if this group allows attachments, but I'm going to try attaching
>>> clips from the two scans.
>
>> There are issues with ICE and some Kodachrome slides. Kodachrome has
>> issues with IR light, which is how ICE works.
>>
> I don't think it's this causing the artefacts though.
>
>> Also, 4800 dpi is a terribly high resolution, it is more than 30
>> megapixels. There just isn't that much information THERE on a 35mm
>> image, and you are going to get some possibly strange results.
>>
> This is more like it. I tried ICE on a variety of 35mm slides at 3200 dpi
> and even at that resolution it occasionally produced odd effects,
> especially on sharp contrasty edges. The dust removal can also
> produce some odd effects. My conclusion was that for 'mass scanning'
> one is much better off simply cleaning the slides as best one can and
> turning off both dust removal and ICE. (I'm archiving a lot of old
> slides before they fade away completely)
>
> If/when you decide you want to get the best possible scan from a
> particular slide then experiment with ICE, dust removal, etc. but be
> prepared to spend some time finding the best compromise. I found
> that, in general, the dust removal doesn't do a lot whereas ICE can do
> a good job but takes time.
>
Re: "My conclusion was that for 'mass scanning' one is much better off
simply cleaning the slides as best one can and turning off both dust
removal and ICE."
That isn't generally true. First, by the way, not sure what you mean by
ICE AND dust removal; ICE IS dust removal, among other things (dirt and
scratch removal also).
An interesting thing about resolution: If a given resolution setting
(or a given physical optical resolution) is too high, then you only have
two choices:
1. Cut the resolution by ONE-QUARTER (eg cut it in half both vertically
and horizontally, that is, use every other pixel)
OR
2. Use a resolution that is based on interpolated pixels.
That is one reason why I still like (and in some cases prefer) the older
Nikon scanners (LS-2000, LS-30) to newer models. The LS-2000 is 2,700
dpi which gives a 10 megapixel scan ..... which is "just right", most of
the time. Newer models are mostly 4,000 dpi, which is well over 20
megapixels (well over as in closer to 30MP). Problem is, that is TOO
HIGH for most material, the file sizes are huge, the processing times
are slow and you typically don't gain any real, actual quality because
there isn't 20 megapixels of information present in most 35mm images
(keep in mind what MOST means: Most films, most lenses, most cameras,
most processing, most photographers).
tinnews@isbd.co.uk wrote:
> Barry Watzman <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>> P. Taine wrote:
>>> I recently bought an Epson V700 and am using it to scan slides. I have been
>>> scanning at moderate resolution (1200 dpi) to establish an index. I wanted a
>>> higher resolution for one slide, and scanned it at 4800 dpi, and checked ICE.
>>> The result had serious atifacts, which were not present when I rescanned with
>>> dust removal checked (with out removing/replaceing the slide, I just left it
>>> there).
>>>
>>> Is this a known problem with ICE? Or could it be the particular scanner?
>>>
>>> I don't know if this group allows attachments, but I'm going to try attaching
>>> clips from the two scans.
>
>> There are issues with ICE and some Kodachrome slides. Kodachrome has
>> issues with IR light, which is how ICE works.
>>
> I don't think it's this causing the artefacts though.
>
>> Also, 4800 dpi is a terribly high resolution, it is more than 30
>> megapixels. There just isn't that much information THERE on a 35mm
>> image, and you are going to get some possibly strange results.
>>
> This is more like it. I tried ICE on a variety of 35mm slides at 3200 dpi
> and even at that resolution it occasionally produced odd effects,
> especially on sharp contrasty edges. The dust removal can also
> produce some odd effects. My conclusion was that for 'mass scanning'
> one is much better off simply cleaning the slides as best one can and
> turning off both dust removal and ICE. (I'm archiving a lot of old
> slides before they fade away completely)
>
> If/when you decide you want to get the best possible scan from a
> particular slide then experiment with ICE, dust removal, etc. but be
> prepared to spend some time finding the best compromise. I found
> that, in general, the dust removal doesn't do a lot whereas ICE can do
> a good job but takes time.
>
Epson ICE introducing atifacts. (0/1) 
Linear Mode
