Paint Shop Pro support - 48-bit editing in Paint Shop Pro?

Author

48-bit editing in Paint Shop Pro?

Mark

2004-12-16, 7:19 pm

I'm about to upgrade to an Epson 4870 scanner, and I intend to
do some 48-bit negative scans. I would prefer to stick with
Paint Shop Pro for retouching, but I have been told that it does
not currently support 48-bit images. Any idea whether 48-bit
support is planned for future versions and, if so, when?

I _could_ bite the bullet and move to Photoshop, but my wallet
and I would prefer not to.

Thanks
-Mark

Trev

2004-12-16, 7:19 pm

"Mark" <nospam@thanksanyway.org> wrote in message
news:QPidnTyVWoaHJlzcRVn-jA@speakeasy.net...
> I'm about to upgrade to an Epson 4870 scanner, and I intend to
> do some 48-bit negative scans. I would prefer to stick with
> Paint Shop Pro for retouching, but I have been told that it does
> not currently support 48-bit images. Any idea whether 48-bit
> support is planned for future versions and, if so, when?
>
> I _could_ bite the bullet and move to Photoshop, but my wallet
> and I would prefer not to.
>
> Thanks
> -Mark

Corel like Jasc Never divulge there plans in advance. Maybe when windows can
Handel 64 bit we might move up but there is no rush

Mark

2004-12-16, 7:19 pm

"Trev" <trevbowdenATdsl.pipexDOTnet> wrote:
>
> Corel like Jasc Never divulge there plans in advance. Maybe when windows
> can Handel 64 bit we might move up but there is no rush

Oh well. Is it true that PSP 7 can _open_ 48 bit files, converting them
to 28-bit in the process? If so, then that may be sufficient for my needs
in the short term.

If so, what are the file size limitations?

Thanks
-Mark

All Things Mopar

2004-12-16, 7:19 pm

Mark commented courteously ...

> I'm about to upgrade to an Epson 4870 scanner, and I
intend
> to do some 48-bit negative scans.

No photo or negative has enough color information to require
48-bit color to scan, no matter what Epson says, so what
difference does it make if PSP can do it or not? Even PS CS
does not really support 48 bits of color in the way that
most people think is important.

This subject continues to swirl but no one to my knowledge
has ever been able to demonstrate the ability to visualize
48 bit color within Windoze nor to even be able to
demonstrate realistic differences with analytical tools,
such as histograms.

--
ATM, aka Jerry Rivers

"Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm!" -
Ralph Waldo Emerson

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately
explained by stupidity!" - Hanlon's Razor

Delete the reverse SPAM to reply by E-mail

Fred Hiltz

2004-12-16, 7:19 pm

Mark wrote:
> "Trev" <trevbowdenATdsl.pipexDOTnet> wrote:
>
> Oh well. Is it true that PSP 7 can _open_ 48 bit files,
> converting them to 28-bit in the process? If so, then that may be
> sufficient for my needs in the short term.
>
> If so, what are the file size limitations?

PSP does not open 48-bit files AFAIK, but that should not be a
limitation when scanning. Most folks scan directly into PSP through
either the TWAIN or the WIA interface to the scanning software. The
scanning software uses the full bit depth--typically about 10 bits
per channel--to let you set the dynamic range and perhaps the color
balance of the image before reducing it to 8 bits per channel for
PSP.

The extra bits are indeed useful for this front-end processing.
After that, as Jerry says, no one has yet shown us a visible
improvement over 8-bit processing of real-world images, meaning that
computer-generated 1,024-step gradients need not apply.

Displays and printers used in the Windows environment use only 8
bits per channel, and often not all of those, remember. Of course
high-end graphics workstations are another matter. There, the extra
bits may well make a visible difference.

Nevertheless, we expect 16 bits per channel sooner or later in PSP,
due to marketing pressure in the feature wars. I for one would
rather see the development effort spent on truly useful features,
but I for one also want PSP to stay in business.
--
Fred Hiltz, fhiltz at yahoo dot com

Mark

2004-12-16, 7:19 pm

"All Things Mopar" <usenetMAPS123@comcast.net> wrote:

> No photo or negative has enough color information to require
> 48-bit color to scan, no matter what Epson says

Sorry, I neglected to mention that these are medium-format
black-and-white negatives. The size of the negatives is the
main reason why I am interested in the 4870; most flatbed
scanners with transparency adapters don't scan larger than
35mm, or 120 at most. My negatives are 70mm wide
(film size 130 or 135, I think.)

As for the benefit of 48-bit scanning: I have the unfortunate
limitation of temporary access to these negatives. After that,
I have promised to return them to my grandmother, and she
will almost certainly leave them to an aunt who I am not on
good terms with. So this will be my only opportunity to scan
them. With that in mind, I really want to get 48-bit scans of
the better photos in the collection. . .just in case.

-Mark

Fred Hiltz

2004-12-16, 7:19 pm

Mark wrote:
> "All Things Mopar" <usenetMAPS123@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> Sorry, I neglected to mention that these are medium-format
> black-and-white negatives. The size of the negatives is the
> main reason why I am interested in the 4870; most flatbed
> scanners with transparency adapters don't scan larger than
> 35mm, or 120 at most. My negatives are 70mm wide
> (film size 130 or 135, I think.)
>
> As for the benefit of 48-bit scanning: I have the unfortunate
> limitation of temporary access to these negatives. After that,
> I have promised to return them to my grandmother, and she
> will almost certainly leave them to an aunt who I am not on
> good terms with. So this will be my only opportunity to scan
> them. With that in mind, I really want to get 48-bit scans of
> the better photos in the collection. . .just in case.

That certainly makes sense. A well-exposed fine grained B & W neg
can surely store more than 8 bits, and the medium format at least
suggests that a capable photographer made these. I think you have
two choices: buy the expensive product and spend a long time
learning it, or save to TIFF files with 16 bits per channel and
convert to 8 bits in IrfanView or your favorite equivalent for
processing today in PSP. Who knows, Corel might offer 16 bits before
you could learn PS! (grin)

Do make sure the Epson software can save that file. And while we are
at it, I'd suggest spending for Digital Ice technology when going
for top quality negative scanning. From what I have read, it makes a
serious difference. Perhaps someone who has it will chime in.
--
Fred Hiltz, fhiltz at yahoo dot com

All Things Mopar

2004-12-16, 7:19 pm

Fred Hiltz commented courteously ...

> Do make sure the Epson software can save that file. And
> while we are at it, I'd suggest spending for Digital Ice
> technology when going for top quality negative scanning.
> From what I have read, it makes a serious difference.
> Perhaps someone who has it will chime in.

Ron Lacey once told me that Digital Ice is the only way to
go if there is any dust on the negs. I didn't listen to him
and bought a dedicated scanner that not only does a crappy
job at scanning but does nothing for my dusty slides and
negs.

--
ATM, aka Jerry Rivers

"Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm!" -
Ralph Waldo Emerson

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately
explained by stupidity!" - Hanlon's Razor

Delete the reverse SPAM to reply by E-mail

Mark

2004-12-16, 7:19 pm

"All Things Mopar" <usenetMAPS123@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Ron Lacey once told me that Digital Ice is the only way to
> go if there is any dust on the negs. I didn't listen to him
> and bought a dedicated scanner that not only does a crappy
> job at scanning but does nothing for my dusty slides and
> negs.

I was under the impression that Digital Ice does not work
for b&w transparencies, except for a very specific type of
b&w film?

I will probably use VueScan for the scanning; I believe
VS is able to save to 48-bit TIFF file?

Thanks
-Mark

Uni

2004-12-17, 4:17 am

Mark

2004-12-17, 4:17 am

"Uni" <no.email@no.email.invalid> wrote:
>
> When Hell freezes over.

So how long have you been trolling this newsgroup?
Five years or so?

Uni

2004-12-18, 4:17 am

Mark wrote:
> "Uni" <no.email@no.email.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
> So how long have you been trolling this newsgroup?
> Five years or so?

I'll tell you, but only if you promise to be one of my groupies.

:-)

Uni

Tim

2004-12-18, 12:17 pm

Uni wrote:
> Mark wrote:
>
> I'll tell you, but only if you promise to be one of my groupies.
>
> :-)
>
> Uni

Not that anyone but the completely brain-dead would... but if you did
you would increase his count of groupies from 1 (himself) to 2... an
increase of 100%.

--
Tim

McGrandpa

2004-12-18, 12:17 pm

"All Things Mopar" <usenetMAPS123@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95C17FEDB36CDReplyToken@216.196.97.131
> Mark commented courteously ...
>
>
> No photo or negative has enough color information to require
> 48-bit color to scan, no matter what Epson says, so what
> difference does it make if PSP can do it or not? Even PS CS
> does not really support 48 bits of color in the way that
> most people think is important.
>
> This subject continues to swirl but no one to my knowledge
> has ever been able to demonstrate the ability to visualize
> 48 bit color within Windoze nor to even be able to
> demonstrate realistic differences with analytical tools,
> such as histograms.

Though I can't explain the "WHY" of it, I can say for sure that scanning
my negs in 48 bit mode does produce a MUCH better looking image in terms
of color and saturation than scanning in 24 bit mode. I know that PSP
and the PhotoSmart 7660 aren't doing anything with the extra bits. But
as long as the Epson Perfection 1660 Photo I have puts a better looking
image into PSP9.01 in 48 bit than in 24 bit, then I'm going to scan all
my negs in 48 bit mode.
McG.

All Things Mopar

2004-12-18, 7:17 pm

McGrandpa commented courteously ...

> Though I can't explain the "WHY" of it, I can say for sure
> that scanning my negs in 48 bit mode does produce a MUCH
> better looking image in terms of color and saturation than
> scanning in 24 bit mode. I know that PSP and the
> PhotoSmart 7660 aren't doing anything with the extra bits.
> But as long as the Epson Perfection 1660 Photo I have puts
> a better looking image into PSP9.01 in 48 bit than in 24
> bit, then I'm going to scan all my negs in 48 bit mode.
> McG.
So, please tell me, what do you do to display your "better"
48-bit negs? My Windoze is 32-bit and the other 8 bits is
for transparency.

--
ATM, aka Jerry Rivers

"Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm!" -
Ralph Waldo Emerson

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately
explained by stupidity!" - Hanlon's Razor

Delete the reverse SPAM to reply by E-mail

Uni

2004-12-18, 7:17 pm

McGrandpa wrote:
> "All Things Mopar" <usenetMAPS123@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns95C17FEDB36CDReplyToken@216.196.97.131
>
>
>
> Though I can't explain the "WHY" of it, I can say for sure that scanning
> my negs in 48 bit mode does produce a MUCH better looking image in terms
> of color and saturation than scanning in 24 bit mode.

So true!!!! That's why everyone under the sun swears to 48 bit scanning
and editing in the "scanner" newsgroups!

:-)

Uni - who owns his copy of Vuescan software.

Mark

2004-12-18, 7:17 pm

"Uni" <no.email@no.email.invalid> wrote:
> Mark wrote:
>
> I'll tell you, but only if you promise to be one of my groupies.

There's no "plaster casting" involved, is there?

Miss Perspicacia Tick

2004-12-18, 11:16 pm

Fred Hiltz wrote:
> Mark wrote:
>
> That certainly makes sense. A well-exposed fine grained B & W neg
> can surely store more than 8 bits, and the medium format at least
> suggests that a capable photographer made these. I think you have
> two choices: buy the expensive product and spend a long time
> learning it, or save to TIFF files with 16 bits per channel and
> convert to 8 bits in IrfanView or your favorite equivalent for
> processing today in PSP. Who knows, Corel might offer 16 bits before
> you could learn PS! (grin)
>
> Do make sure the Epson software can save that file. And while we are
> at it, I'd suggest spending for Digital Ice technology when going
> for top quality negative scanning. From what I have read, it makes a
> serious difference. Perhaps someone who has it will chime in.

Fred,

The 4870 is Epson's top-of-the-range flatbed - it has Digital ICE and just
about everything else. And, yes, Ron is right - it makes one helluva
difference!

--
Facon - the artificial bacon bits you get in Pizza Hut for sprinkling
on salads.

false_dmitrii@yahoo.com

2004-12-19, 4:16 am

Mark wrote:
> I'm about to upgrade to an Epson 4870 scanner, and I intend to
> do some 48-bit negative scans. I would prefer to stick with
> Paint Shop Pro for retouching, but I have been told that it does
> not currently support 48-bit images. Any idea whether 48-bit
> support is planned for future versions and, if so, when?
>
> I _could_ bite the bullet and move to Photoshop, but my wallet
> and I would prefer not to.

If time's not critical, you might want to wait a bit--I read rumors of
a 4990 model just a couple of weeks ago. If my one-time past buying
experience is any guide, it'll probably be a month or two *after* the
model is announced in your home country before it becomes available for
purchase. There's certainly room for improvement in the 4870. There's
also a new Canon flatbed that might be a tad better than the 4870 but
was showing some new-product trouble areas when I read about it. The
biggest drawback of the Epson (and other flatbeds) is that its true
scanning resolution doesn't come anywhere near 4800dpi. This is due to
physical factors such as large but inadjustable focus depth, height of
film over the glass, film curvature, and any distortion introduced by
the flatbed glass. In addition, the real dynamic range of the scanner
is probably quite a bit less than that of comparably priced Minolta and
Nikon film scanners.

48-bit (16 bits-per-channel) scan output is most useful when creating
"raw" images (linear gamma, no color adjustments to the original,
etc.). They're the closest you can come to capturing everything the
scanner sees for maximum editing flexibility. PSP *will* open and
silently convert 48-bit files to 24-bit, but without 16bpc software,
you can't properly correct your "raw" scan images to match your
monitor's output and PSP's 8bpc working environment. However, scanner
applications typically (though not always) make their corrections using
16bpc and only then convert the image to 24-bit/8bpc. If you're happy
making adjustments in the scanner software in the prescan phase, you
can create a well-adjusted 24-bit file that should serve you just fine
in PSP.

If you stay with the 4870, consider the "pro" version if you can find a
decent price (<$150 more than the "photo" version). It includes
Silverfast Ai, which is far superior to Epson's driver for all
scanning, for less than or equal to the cost of buying the Ai upgrade
separately. In particular, Silverfast has a "negafix" feature that
will automatically remove the color cast from popular negative film
types. The Epson driver's "autoexposure" option alters your *software*
settings to produce good output but clips negatives far too heavily,
and the manual options are functional but very cumbersome. Silverfast
is far better for manual prescan adjustments, especially when combined
with batch scanning. For "raw" scans, in which almost every option is
turned *off*, it's less important.

With the "pro", you also receive a limited Monaco color profiling
system that's far from the best available but perhaps better than
nothing. Even a calibrated target can cost a fair amount when bought
separately.

The 4870's ICE works for negatives, though I'm not convinced that it
catches everything it ought to. I haven't used any B&W film. ICE
doesn't seem to improve print scans much at all--it detects some larger
creases and tears, but the "fix" is sometimes no better than the
original flaw, at least upon closer inspection.

One affordable 16bpc option is Vuescan (pro version). It can create an
unadjusted "raw" scan, then "scan" the file from disk and perform
further color and contrast adjustments. This will allow you to archive
the "raw" file and return to it if you're unhappy with later edits.
Vuescan has a very clunky interface and a history of fixed, re-broken,
fixed again, or just plain unfixed bugs, but there are many, many
people online who swear by it. There were recent complaints that it
doesn't align the 4870's IR lamp properly. The latest release may have
corrected that. There's a Silverfast HDR that does the same thing--for
$100s more. At some point it makes more sense to buy Photoshop.

As a blind-guessing outsider, I would not be shocked to see a PSP-based
Photoshop competitor with good 16bpc support and other advanced
features within the next 1-3 years. But I wouldn't recommend waiting
for it, both because of the unknown timeframe and because it still
might never appear. Look into it *after* it's announced. :) I *would*
be surprised to see it in *less* than a year...but that's not totally
impossible either. Expect it to cost considerably more than PSP and
less than PS. It's all guesswork, and I have no idea what to expect at
the current PSP price level.

Hmm, I wrote more than I intended to. Hope it's not too confusing all
piled together like this. :)

false_dmitrii

Dave Symes

2004-12-19, 7:14 am

In article <585xd.55124$BN.25438@fe48.usenetserver.com>,
Miss Perspicacia Tick <misstick@lancre.dw> wrote:

[Snip]

I have an aside question.
Aside from the obvious... domain name. Where exactly does the ".dw"
suffix represent?

Cheers
Dave S

--

McGrandpa

2004-12-19, 7:17 pm

"All Things Mopar" <usenetMAPS123@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95C37A7748A97ReplyToken@216.196.97.131
> McGrandpa commented courteously ...
>
> So, please tell me, what do you do to display your "better"
> 48-bit negs? My Windoze is 32-bit and the other 8 bits is
> for transparency.

Jerry, what I'm saying is that with the 24 bit color scanner I'd used
for years I got images from it that already looked washed out. With the
Epson 48 bit color scans the images look excellent color wise. I
realize that '48 bits' aren't copied thru the pipe to PSP. The end
result is that the image scanned at 48 bits looks a lot better on screen
than the ones scanned in 24 bits. All this 24 bits vs 48 bits goes on
with the scanner. Of course the image that PSP actually displays is in
24 bit color.
McG.

Uni

2004-12-19, 7:17 pm

McGrandpa wrote:
> "All Things Mopar" <usenetMAPS123@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns95C37A7748A97ReplyToken@216.196.97.131
>
>
>
> Jerry, what I'm saying is that with the 24 bit color scanner I'd used
> for years I got images from it that already looked washed out. With the
> Epson 48 bit color scans the images look excellent color wise. I
> realize that '48 bits' aren't copied thru the pipe to PSP. The end
> result is that the image scanned at 48 bits looks a lot better on screen
> than the ones scanned in 24 bits. All this 24 bits vs 48 bits goes on
> with the scanner. Of course the image that PSP actually displays is in
> 24 bit color.

McG,

Not sure why you're listening to Jerry. If you saw his, ahem,
photography, you'd believe he owned a Barbie camera - seriously!

:-)

Uni
p.s. Most everyone prefers Vuescan over Silverfast.

> McG.
>
>

Paul Busby

2004-12-26, 7:15 pm

Thus spake All Things Mopar:
> McGrandpa commented courteously ...
>
> So, please tell me, what do you do to display your "better"
> 48-bit negs? My Windoze is 32-bit and the other 8 bits is
> for transparency.

The bits a normal display can show is far less important than the extra
dynamic range, surely Jerry? I picture the whole issue as a fixed bit depth
window (24bit display) that can be moved up or down to gain greater shadow
or highlight detail. I suspect 24bits is now inadequate for even correctly
exposed pictures - let alone incorrectly exposed ones, despite some of the
extra bits being noise.

I would put my money on PSP natively supporting greater bit depths within 18
months.

All Things Mopar

2004-12-27, 12:15 pm

Paul Busby commented courteously ...

> The bits a normal display can show is far less important
> than the extra dynamic range, surely Jerry? I picture
the
> whole issue as a fixed bit depth window (24bit display)
> that can be moved up or down to gain greater shadow or
> highlight detail. I suspect 24bits is now inadequate for
> even correctly exposed pictures - let alone incorrectly
> exposed ones, despite some of the extra bits being
noise.
>
> I would put my money on PSP natively supporting greater
bit
> depths within 18 months.

I don't have any problems with PSP supporting >>> 24 bits,
but I still wonder 1) how do you display them? 2) how do
you print them? so, 3) how do you know they are better?
And, maybe, 4) can anybody actually show any of this?

Corel (Jasc) doesn't comment on what they're working on
but I am certain they are working hard on 48-bit support,
if for no other reason than competitive. Maybe it'll start
to show up in some functions in PSP 10...

--
ATM, aka Jerry Rivers

"Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm!" -
Ralph Waldo Emerson

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately
explained by stupidity!" - Hanlon's Razor

Delete the reverse SPAM to reply by E-mail

Uni

2004-12-27, 12:15 pm

All Things Mopar wrote:
> Paul Busby commented courteously ...
>
>
>
> the
>
>
> noise.
>
>
> bit
>
>
>
> I don't have any problems with PSP supporting >>> 24 bits,
> but I still wonder 1) how do you display them?

With a 48 bit Epson Printer, silly!

:-)

Uni