What has replaced Kodak PhotoCD Pro?

NAVIGATION

CATEGORIES

Unix

REFERRENCE

If you have some good idea, Cilck and mail to us please...

LINKS

Home » Unix

What has replaced Kodak PhotoCD Pro?
6 answers - 820 bytes -
Your typical photo places have their format (for the 1hr crowd, Eckerd
for example uses Konica and Ritz uses Fujifilm) or Kodak *picture CD*
(not photocd). They are all about 1500x1024 (1536x1024 for Kodak, to
be precise).
Well, there also used to be the Photo CD which offered 2048x3072 and
Photo CD Pro which clocked in at 4096x6144. Apparently I've been under
a rock and the Photo CD/Pro service is no longer available from Kodak,
and nobody around here (piedmont triad, NC) still has the 4045 PCD
film scanner with 1 hr service.
Anybody is offering 1 hr with CD at high resolution these days?
is there an inexpensive negative and/or slides scanner out there
that rivals the quality that the Kodak PhotoCD Pro did (4400dpi)?
Francois
GEEKS:
No.1 | | 1676 bytes | |
Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 05:14:05PM -0400, Francois Dion wrote:
Your typical photo places have their format (for the 1hr crowd, Eckerd
for example uses Konica and Ritz uses Fujifilm) or Kodak *picture CD*
(not photocd). They are all about 1500x1024 (1536x1024 for Kodak, to
be precise).

Well, there also used to be the Photo CD which offered 2048x3072 and
Photo CD Pro which clocked in at 4096x6144. Apparently I've been under
a rock and the Photo CD/Pro service is no longer available from Kodak,
and nobody around here (piedmont triad, NC) still has the 4045 PCD
film scanner with 1 hr service.

Anybody is offering 1 hr with CD at high resolution these days?

is there an inexpensive negative and/or slides scanner out there
that rivals the quality that the Kodak PhotoCD Pro did (4400dpi)?

Dunno about inexpensive, but I've used the Nikon Coolscan film scanners
and scanned in a bunch of my old film at ~2400 dpi, but the scanner is
capable of up to 4000dpi. Even at 2400, it was scanning at a higher
resolution than the film itself (at least my iso 400 stuff).

The one I used was SCSI, but these days, they seem to come in USB2 and
IEEE1394 (firewire) models too. Plus having the built-in hardware
DigitalICE/RC/GEM, you can get some extemely nice scans, even out of
older negatives.

They can be pricey though, especially if you opt for the roll-film
adapter, and/or slide feeder. Makes bulk scanning MUCH easier, but they
do add to the cost quite a bit.

Wish I could afford one, unfortunately the one I used before was a
borrowed unit and had to give it back. =)
No.2 | | 1521 bytes | |
Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 04:39:47PM -0500, Mike Parson wrote:
The one I used was SCSI, but these days, they seem to come in USB2 and
IEEE1394 (firewire) models too. Plus having the built-in hardware
DigitalICE/RC/GEM, you can get some extemely nice scans, even out of
older negatives.

A note to those who may be reading this and want to buy one and scan their
entire negative collection. The automatic cleanup systems such as Digital ICE,
RC, GEM, only work on color negatives and slides. If you have silver based,
(regular) black and white negatives, they don't work.

The modern black and white films that are processed as if they were
color will work. Many people are dissapointed with the results from
them in general.

Since this is the "geeks" list, I'll explain why. A color negative or slide
has layers of dye to make up the colors. Red, green and blue, which some
Japanese slide film having an extra color layer. It is transparent to
near infrared light. Dust and dirt are not as well as black and white film.

The digital enhancment modes do a fourth scan in infrared and use that
information to remove the dust, dirt and scratches.

I purchased a cheap HP flat bed scanner with a slide/negative adaptor
built in. It did a nice job ax 1200x1200 dpi however the software did not
have any settings for black and white negatives. I had to scan them as
slides and invert them in gimp. Too much effort and I gave up.

Geoff.
No.3 | | 762 bytes | |
Fri, 08 Jul 2005 @ 07:42 +0300, Geoffrey S. Mendelson said:

Since this is the "geeks" list, I'll explain why. A color negative or slide
has layers of dye to make up the colors. Red, green and blue, which some
Japanese slide film having an extra color layer. It is transparent to
near infrared light. Dust and dirt are not as well as black and white film.

Last sentence unparsable.

I purchased a cheap HP flat bed scanner with a slide/negative adaptor
built in. It did a nice job ax 1200x1200 dpi however the software did not
have any settings for black and white negatives. I had to scan them as
slides and invert them in gimp. Too much effort and I gave up.

Did you try using Image Magick to invert in batches?
No.4 | | 2210 bytes | |
7/7/05, Mike Parson <mparson (AT) bl (DOT) orgwrote:
Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 05:14:05PM -0400, Francois Dion wrote:
[]
Well, there also used to be the Photo CD which offered 2048x3072 and
Photo CD Pro which clocked in at 4096x6144. Apparently I've been under
a rock and the Photo CD/Pro service is no longer available from Kodak,
[]
is there an inexpensive negative and/or slides scanner out there
that rivals the quality that the Kodak PhotoCD Pro did (4400dpi)?

Dunno about inexpensive, but I've used the Nikon Coolscan film scanners
and scanned in a bunch of my old film at ~2400 dpi, but the scanner is
capable of up to 4000dpi. Even at 2400, it was scanning at a higher
resolution than the film itself (at least my iso 400 stuff).

I have a lot of outdoor iso 100 high quality film, shot thru 28 and 45
mm Zeiss lenses. I dont want to have to scan them more than once, so
I'll use the higher rez. My wife shoots almost entirely digital (she
does photo and graphic design) but I cant afford another high end
digital rig So I'll stay with SLR and rangefinders for right now,
as long as I have a way to go from 35mm to digital quickly. That's
what I liked about 1hr photocd Beside, short of medium format with
digital back, you cant match the quality. Not with a Canon Digital
Rebel or Fuji Finepix Pro S2 anyways.

The one I used was SCSI, but these days, they seem to come in USB2 and
IEEE1394 (firewire) models too. Plus having the built-in hardware
DigitalICE/RC/GEM, you can get some extemely nice scans, even out of
older negatives.

The Nikon dont use CCD, they use 4 pass at R,G,B and IR, right? I have
an older 2400dpi (optical) scanner, but it doesn't look anything like
a photocd pro capture.

They can be pricey though, especially if you opt for the roll-film
adapter, and/or slide feeder. Makes bulk scanning MUCH easier, but they
do add to the cost quite a bit.

Wish I could afford one, unfortunately the one I used before was a
borrowed unit and had to give it back. =)

Do you still shoot film?

Francois

GEEKS:
No.5 | | 2742 bytes | |
Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 12:13:23PM -0400, Francois Dion wrote:
7/7/05, Mike Parson <mparson (AT) bl (DOT) org>wrote:
>Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 05:14:05PM -0400, Francois Dion wrote:
[]
Well, there also used to be the Photo CD which offered 2048x3072 and
Photo CD Pro which clocked in at 4096x6144. Apparently I've been
under a rock and the Photo CD/Pro service is no longer available
from Kodak,

[]

is there an inexpensive negative and/or slides scanner out there
that rivals the quality that the Kodak PhotoCD Pro did (4400dpi)?
>>
>Dunno about inexpensive, but I've used the Nikon Coolscan film
>scanners and scanned in a bunch of my old film at ~2400 dpi, but the
>scanner is capable of up to 4000dpi. Even at 2400, it was scanning
>at a higher resolution than the film itself (at least my iso 400
>stuff).
>
I have a lot of outdoor iso 100 high quality film, shot thru 28 and
45 mm Zeiss lenses. I dont want to have to scan them more than once,
so I'll use the higher rez. My wife shoots almost entirely digital
(she does photo and graphic design) but I cant afford another high end
digital rig So I'll stay with SLR and rangefinders for right now,
as long as I have a way to go from 35mm to digital quickly. That's
what I liked about 1hr photocd Beside, short of medium format with
digital back, you cant match the quality. Not with a Canon Digital
Rebel or Fuji Finepix Pro S2 anyways.
>
>The one I used was SCSI, but these days, they seem to come in USB2
>and IEEE1394 (firewire) models too. Plus having the built-in
>hardware DigitalICE/RC/GEM, you can get some extemely nice scans,
>even out of older negatives.
>
The Nikon dont use CCD, they use 4 pass at R,G,B and IR, right? I have
an older 2400dpi (optical) scanner, but it doesn't look anything like
a photocd pro capture.

IIRC, it was a 4 pass, like I said, been a while.

>They can be pricey though, especially if you opt for the roll-film
>adapter, and/or slide feeder. Makes bulk scanning MUCH easier, but
>they do add to the cost quite a bit.
>>
>Wish I could afford one, unfortunately the one I used before was a
>borrowed unit and had to give it back. =)
>
Do you still shoot film?

Don't shoot much at all any more, but when I do, it's digital. I still
have stuff I never got scanned, plus lots of stuff my parents did when I
was younger.
No.6 | | 334 bytes | |
Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 10:46:50AM -0400, Charles Shannon Hendrix wrote:

Last sentence unparsable.

Dust and dirt are not, (transparant to infrared) as well as black and
white film.

Did you try using Image Magick to invert in batches?

No, never heard of it before, I'll look into it. Thanks,
Geoff.

Re: What has replaced Kodak PhotoCD Pro?

EMSDN.COM

Question 'What has replaced Kodak PhotoCD Pro?' on 'Unix'

Unix

What has replaced Kodak PhotoCD Pro?