Find the answer to your Linux question:
Results 1 to 9 of 9
I am trying to ditch Windows entirely but it seems that I need to keep it around. Too Bad! XSane .991 Preface: Using an Epson 4180 scanner under Win2K I ...
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
  1. #1
    Just Joined! measekite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    52

    Question XSane Scanning Negatives


    I am trying to ditch Windows entirely but it seems that I need to keep it around. Too Bad!

    XSane .991

    Preface:

    Using an Epson 4180 scanner under Win2K I had no difficulty scanning negatives. You put a strip of negatives into the holder and after scanning you got a bunch of individual photos that were like any other. The software named and numbered them.

    Now using XSane under Linux I want to do the same thing. I have been using XSane for a couple of years and find the software better than what came with the scanner under windows until now.

    There are two problems:


    1. When I try to scan using Transparency Unit and Kodak Negative I get a scan of a negative with no option to turn it into a photo. I want the software to produce a photo (positive).

    2. When scanning a strip you get one file with all of the negatives scanned as a strip instead of individual images.

    Like I said, these things were produced automatically under windows.

  2. #2
    Linux Newbie
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    161
    Quote Originally Posted by measekite View Post

    1. When I try to scan using Transparency Unit and Kodak Negative I get a scan of a negative with no option to turn it into a photo. I want the software to produce a photo (positive).

    2. When scanning a strip you get one file with all of the negatives scanned as a strip instead of individual images.
    Only thing I can suggest is use gimp (scan using File>Aquire>XSane: Device dialog.. ).

    For (1) using the (From menu) Colours>Invert

    For (2) select each image, copy then paste into new.

    By the way xsane dialog lists negative under the color drop down list (the third one from top), not sure if that will work.

    And one of the icons (the second one at the bottom just above the scan button) says "Negative: invert colours for scanning negatives" not sure that help's (would be more specific but don't have a scanner capable of doing negatives).
    In a world without walls and fences, who needs Windows and Gates?

  3. #3
    Just Joined! measekite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    52

    Lightbulb Resolved but not really Solved

    Quote Originally Posted by blinky View Post
    Only thing I can suggest is use gimp (scan using File>Aquire>XSane: Device dialog.. ).

    For (1) using the (From menu) Colours>Invert

    For (2) select each image, copy then paste into new.

    By the way xsane dialog lists negative under the color drop down list (the third one from top), not sure if that will work.

    And one of the icons (the second one at the bottom just above the scan button) says "Negative: invert colours for scanning negatives" not sure that help's (would be more specific but don't have a scanner capable of doing negatives).
    THIS IS AN UPDATE

    XSANE NEEDS A LOT MORE MORE ON THIS:

    Based on responses to my original post I retested my approach and found the following to be true and accurate:

    1. I reexamined my negative and found it was Fuji and not Kodak so I changed the transparency type to Fuji negative.

    2. I scanned for preview and opened up the batch Window and selected only the negative I wanted.

    3. I found and clicked the negative button and then did the scan. It was as bluish mask and not orange.

    4. I opened it up in Gimp and did Colors>Invert and I got a very poor looking very grainy result with extra poor white balance but it was a positive.

    5. I then did a Colors>Auto Equialize and there was some improvement but it still looked lousey.

    6. I then did a Filter Despecle and there was about a 60 to 70% reduction in grain but it was still a poor result.

    7. I then did a auto white balance and the result was greenish yellow and looked even worse so I did an undo.

    8. I then played with curves and staturation and got it as good as I know how.

    Bottom line it was still very poor and not worth the time.

    Unfortunately I had to boot up Windows

    I booted up Windows and scanned the negative using Epson scanning sotware and it came out like a nice looking positive. I did some editing in Photoshop as far as clearing out artifacts because PS has a healing brush and adjustment layers and some better tools but a horrible GUI.

    I saved in PSD, rebooted Linux and opened it up in Gimp. I did the finish work in Gimp and some more color correcting and printed in Gimp on Illford Classic Perl and the result was just strikingly great.

    Thanks for all of your help and the links you helped me find. It is too bad I still need Windows lurking on my computer.

  4. #4
    Linux Guru
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,756
    XSANE NEEDS A LOT MORE MORE ON THIS
    I booted up Windows and scanned the negative using Epson scanning sotware...
    How about writing Epson a nice letter asking why they don't release their software for other OS'es? What you have from the open source community is an amazing feat of cross-compatibility and reverse-engineering for a *huge* amount of hardware and software that otherwise would *only* work on what company XXX dictates to you.

  5. #5
    Just Joined! measekite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by HROAdmin26 View Post
    How about writing Epson a nice letter asking why they don't release their software for other OS'es? What you have from the open source community is an amazing feat of cross-compatibility and reverse-engineering for a *huge* amount of hardware and software that otherwise would *only* work on what company XXX dictates to you.
    I called Epson and spoke with someone in Tech support who obviously does not make these type of decisions but he did mention that he gets a lot of calls and talks to a lot of people but very few ask for Linux software.

    Because there is not standard packaging system for all of the distros and because the installs place different things in different locations the mfg of hardware do not want to get involved. Perhaps with a little standardization but not a drastic limitation of choices and some increased market presence things will improve.

    All it takes is a handful of hardware companies that are well known to make the Linux plunge successfully and then it will happen big time.

  6. #6
    Just Joined!
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    London/UK
    Posts
    32
    If they just released the source then anybody would be able to compile with a 'cmake -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=/usr && make && make install' or './configure --prefix=/usr && make && make install' and they would have nothing to worry about

  7. #7
    Just Joined! measekite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    52

    Arrow

    Quote Originally Posted by beojan View Post
    If they just released the source then anybody would be able to compile with a 'cmake -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=/usr && make && make install' or './configure --prefix=/usr && make && make install' and they would have nothing to worry about
    For sure that is not the answer. Most of the people who want to do tis are amateur photographers (pros will stick with Photoshop and use Windows and professional dedicated scanners) and do no give a hoot about compiling programs and OS stuff except they want to use Linux for a variety of reasons cost being one of them.

    So they really need the mfg of hardware to wake up and have good out of the box software that runs on top of Linux.

  8. #8
    Just Joined!
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    London/UK
    Posts
    32
    Well if they released the source, someone else could easily port it, and you distro could make a package of it.

    Either way, have you tried running it under Wine or Crossover Office

  9. #9
    Just Joined! measekite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by beojan View Post
    Well if they released the source, someone else could easily port it, and you distro could make a package of it.

    Either way, have you tried running it under Wine or Crossover Office
    There is a good reason why they CANNOT do this. This do not own the source in many cases. They contract it out and the company that writes the stuff will not release the source so they can stay in business.

Posting Permissions

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