The previous solution yields raw scans with too much pure black (the area around the disk) and too much pure white (the plastic thingy in the middle) to rely on the usual auto exposure mechanisms of VueScan. So I can either scan at a lower resolution (not acceptable for such a small negative) or proceed with smaller crops (waste of time) or run it in a virtual machine under Windows (slow). One big problem is that the image is supposed to end up being 16000x16000 pixels (that's 248 megapixels, or 2Gb in RGBI), and VueScan under Linux has some memory limitation. TIFF file (or JPG for easier manipulation).Right click on the gray area between the frames to set the white balance, then.X/Y size: manual, 64mm (and move the box over the preview of the disk with shift-click).So let's just place the disc on the middle of the scanning area, adjust the following settings and do a preview: The white balance has been adjusted for the top disc each one needs to be scanned separately Right: The same scan as previous, but with the core physically removed. Also, since the images are so tiny, you need a high resolution but the resulting image is huge enough to crash most OS or scanning softwares if you use the best resolution your scanner can give (6400dpi in my case). The main problem stems from the fact that a big part of the scan is completely white (the axle) while the other is completely black (around the disk). The idea would be to scan the entire disk at once and then process the individual frames in separate software with a workflow such as: Scanner -> 64RGBI scan -> Vuescan -> DNG file -> Raw processing program -> Multiple frames. Then I took the next easiest path, a flatbed scanner with a transparency back large enough to accommodate the disks at once such as the Epson Perfection V500 Photo, which works under Linux with a bit of tweaking. Also note the plastic axle of the disc resulting in a lot of white area while the surroundings of the disc result in a lot of black area, thus making a precise white/black point determination difficult. Note the difference in color balance between each. Left: A preview showing 3 Kodak discs on the scanner. You have to cut the disk in pieces to separate each frame, place them carefully with tweezers into the film holder, they are impossible to keep level and focus on properly unless you add a glass in the holder, etc.įirst of all, why is it called a 'Kodak Dis c', when I have a 'Hard dis k' in my computer ? Hell knows but Google gives a lot more results with a 'k' than with a 'c'. I first tried to scan it with a standard 35mm slide scanner: big waste of time. I recently decided to scan some old family negatives on Kodak discs, a format infamous for its poor quality, ridiculously small surface (and hence huge grain and poor details), difficult handling and a slew of other defects. This being said, let's try to salvage the situation. Touchĭamn Kodak to the 5th circle of hell for having ruined generations of family images with their stupid disk format.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |