GPU/CUDA acceleration can be enabled on nVidia cards that support CUDA and have at least 768MB of display memory apparently.
I did the follow hack with my GTX 260 (896MB) and it seems to accept it, I haven't done any serious testing or usage with it yet however.
How-To
(Source: http://www.cinema5d.com/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=14382)
[QUOTE=ZorkiKat;1002161]
A colour negative with punchy dyes will print with more punch on a positive material, when optically printed, that is.[/QUOTE]
Your results definately have a certain punch to them.
Step 1. Go to the Premiere CS5 installation folder.
Step 2. Find the file "GPUSniffer.exe" and run it in a command prompt (cmd.exe). You should see something like that:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------
Device: 00000000001D4208 has video RAM(MB): 896
Device: 00000000001D4208 has video RAM(MB): 896
Vendor string: NVIDIA Corporation
Renderer string: GeForce GTX 295/PCI/SSE2
Version string: 3.0.0
OpenGL version as determined by Extensionator...
OpenGL Version 2.0
Supports shaders!
Supports BGRA -> BGRA Shader
Supports VUYA Shader -> BGRA
Supports UYVY/YUYV ->BGRA Shader
Supports YUV 4:2:0 -> BGRA Shader
Testing for CUDA support...
Found 2 devices supporting CUDA.
CUDA Device # 0 properties -
CUDA device details:
Name: GeForce GTX 295 Compute capability: 1.3
Total Video Memory: 877MB
CUDA Device # 1 properties -
CUDA device details:
Name: GeForce GTX 295 Compute capability: 1.3
Total Video Memory: 877MB
CUDA Device # 0 not choosen because it did not match the named list of cards
Completed shader test!
Internal return value: 7
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------
If you look at the last line it says the CUDA device is not chosen because it's not in the named list of card. That's fine. Let's add it.
Step 3. Find the file: "cuda_supported_cards.txt" and edit it and add your card (take the name from the line: CUDA device details: Name: GeForce GTX 295 Compute capability: 1.3
So in my case the name to add is: GeForce GTX 295
Step 4. Save that file and we're almost ready.
Step 5. Go to your Nvidia Drivercontrol panel (im using the latest 197.45) under "Manage 3D Settings", Click "Add" and browse to your Premiere CS5 install directory and select the executable file: "Adobe Premiere Pro.exe" (After adding mine said it was CS3 for some reason, no problem).
Step 6. In the field "multi-display/mixed-GPU acceleration" switch from "multiple display performance mode" to "compatibilty performance mode"
Step 7. That's it. Boot Premiere and go to your project setting / general and activate CUDA
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Friday, May 21, 2010
Colour Developer Mk I Results
Here are some results from the first revision of my unnamed colour developer, which can be used at high dilutions, ambient temperatures, and long processing times like Rodinal.
1+100, 1 hour semi stand, 2 inversions at 30 min mark
These negatives came out with very rich negative contrast, but are very difficult to scan and correct, it turn out a bit flat in colour like this because of how dense they are.
This was on some unknown 400 speed film on sale at K-Mart "Shooter Fun SnapShots " on 35mm.
1+100, 30 min semi stand, several inversions at 15 min mark:
Top image is film, bottom is digital comparison for reference, right histogram is source histogram before adjustments on both images, left histogram is after black and white points had been set to the black and white squares on the colour chart.
Density range (dmax - dmin) is a bit small, I can see this recipe needs changing, I think I know exactly what the problem is too :)
This was also on "Shooter Fun SnapShots" on 35mm
I decided to do one more test, before redesigning the formula, with Kodak Ektacolor 160 (one of the Portra 160's I assume) on 6x7cm with the RB67.
It is 1+150, 1 hour semi stand, several inversions at 20 minute and 40 minute marks.
Results have a thin density range, developer needs a few things removed, and some other things added.
Example with source histogram:
1+100, 1 hour semi stand, 2 inversions at 30 min mark
These negatives came out with very rich negative contrast, but are very difficult to scan and correct, it turn out a bit flat in colour like this because of how dense they are.
This was on some unknown 400 speed film on sale at K-Mart "Shooter Fun SnapShots " on 35mm.
1+100, 30 min semi stand, several inversions at 15 min mark:
Top image is film, bottom is digital comparison for reference, right histogram is source histogram before adjustments on both images, left histogram is after black and white points had been set to the black and white squares on the colour chart.
Density range (dmax - dmin) is a bit small, I can see this recipe needs changing, I think I know exactly what the problem is too :)
This was also on "Shooter Fun SnapShots" on 35mm
I decided to do one more test, before redesigning the formula, with Kodak Ektacolor 160 (one of the Portra 160's I assume) on 6x7cm with the RB67.
It is 1+150, 1 hour semi stand, several inversions at 20 minute and 40 minute marks.
Results have a thin density range, developer needs a few things removed, and some other things added.
Example with source histogram:
Friday, May 7, 2010
Canon CanoScan 9000F Film Scanner
Attention Canon: Lies and re-iterated useless crap we film users are all god damn sick of makes me fucking angry.
So Canon have released a new film scanner.
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=120&modelid=20411
It accomodates 35mm and 120, but not sheet sizes, unfortunately it is yet another fucking flatbed.
Apparently it's "been designed with film-faithful photographers in mind" - Jesus Tittyfucking Christ, you think these idiots would have learned by now we are god damn sick of their incompetent flatbed rubbish, no it has not been designed with film-faithful photographers in mind, it has been designed by marketing with dollar signs in mind, it is clear they are fucking incapable (read: unwilling) to improve 3 critical things in flatbeds since 2 decades ago:
1. Signal to Noise ratio, the sensors have nasty nasty noise, and typically scan at slightly different exposure times per line, which you can see when you need to stretch levels due to the scanner's shithouse dMax that's actually half of the advertised value.
2. DMax, has such poor DMax values, and the entire range isnt useable, the shadow and highlights section of the scanner are both so poor in quality, as to render an unusable image if your film falls on either end of it and not in the middle of the range.
3. True Resolution, these idiots want to up the sensor resolution, but they will not put in even $20 worth of optics to even be able to resolve anywhere near 50% of the claimed optical resolution.
Canon, Epson and others are LIARS and are committing FRAUD, they state a number like 4800 or 6400 dpi for optical resolution, when the optics they put in the scanners do not have that resolution, they are taking the sensor resolution and calling it optical resolution, that is plain fucking lying, it is also fraudulently misrepresenting the true performance of the scanner.
In the 9000F's case, it is 9600 dpi, fat chance they are putting in optics capable of resolving that sensor resolution, if Canon even put in optics that could resolve even a third of that (3200 dpi) I'd be over the moon and buy one to replace my piece of shit V500 for scanning 120 straight away soon as it was available.
Canon once made a great 4000 dpi scanner called the FS4000US, but what happened? It was discontinued with flatbeds as the replacement! Fuck me!
It's not impossible to make a flatbed form factor/design scanner with a high dMax, good SNR and with sharp optics, it is just not done for some reason, and I would love it if Canon have put that kind of equipment in their 9000F, it would make me happy to have available a good scanner on the market than can scan 120.
Currently, there is no such thing as a good 120 scanner available, they're all fucking shit, you have to find the ridiculously high priced 2nd hand dedicated scanners.
9600 dpi is just another fucking figure gimmick to complete with Epsons "6400" dpi, and probably to try and steal some market away from Plustek's 7200 dpi scanners given the indicated price point is just under the plusteks.
These scumbag marketing tactics while providing an inferior product are disgusting.
If you want a good 35mm scanner, the Plustek 7400 and 7600i are the choices available apart from 2nd hand dedicated scanners.
Even without the optics to support the resolution, if the 9000F had sheet film scanning, with a decent sensor (ACTUAL USEABLE capable dMax rating), with a good SNR, and non-varying exposure between each set of lines, then it'd be an awesome buy.
So Canon have released a new film scanner.
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=120&modelid=20411
It accomodates 35mm and 120, but not sheet sizes, unfortunately it is yet another fucking flatbed.
Apparently it's "been designed with film-faithful photographers in mind" - Jesus Tittyfucking Christ, you think these idiots would have learned by now we are god damn sick of their incompetent flatbed rubbish, no it has not been designed with film-faithful photographers in mind, it has been designed by marketing with dollar signs in mind, it is clear they are fucking incapable (read: unwilling) to improve 3 critical things in flatbeds since 2 decades ago:
1. Signal to Noise ratio, the sensors have nasty nasty noise, and typically scan at slightly different exposure times per line, which you can see when you need to stretch levels due to the scanner's shithouse dMax that's actually half of the advertised value.
2. DMax, has such poor DMax values, and the entire range isnt useable, the shadow and highlights section of the scanner are both so poor in quality, as to render an unusable image if your film falls on either end of it and not in the middle of the range.
3. True Resolution, these idiots want to up the sensor resolution, but they will not put in even $20 worth of optics to even be able to resolve anywhere near 50% of the claimed optical resolution.
Canon, Epson and others are LIARS and are committing FRAUD, they state a number like 4800 or 6400 dpi for optical resolution, when the optics they put in the scanners do not have that resolution, they are taking the sensor resolution and calling it optical resolution, that is plain fucking lying, it is also fraudulently misrepresenting the true performance of the scanner.
In the 9000F's case, it is 9600 dpi, fat chance they are putting in optics capable of resolving that sensor resolution, if Canon even put in optics that could resolve even a third of that (3200 dpi) I'd be over the moon and buy one to replace my piece of shit V500 for scanning 120 straight away soon as it was available.
Canon once made a great 4000 dpi scanner called the FS4000US, but what happened? It was discontinued with flatbeds as the replacement! Fuck me!
It's not impossible to make a flatbed form factor/design scanner with a high dMax, good SNR and with sharp optics, it is just not done for some reason, and I would love it if Canon have put that kind of equipment in their 9000F, it would make me happy to have available a good scanner on the market than can scan 120.
Currently, there is no such thing as a good 120 scanner available, they're all fucking shit, you have to find the ridiculously high priced 2nd hand dedicated scanners.
9600 dpi is just another fucking figure gimmick to complete with Epsons "6400" dpi, and probably to try and steal some market away from Plustek's 7200 dpi scanners given the indicated price point is just under the plusteks.
These scumbag marketing tactics while providing an inferior product are disgusting.
If you want a good 35mm scanner, the Plustek 7400 and 7600i are the choices available apart from 2nd hand dedicated scanners.
Even without the optics to support the resolution, if the 9000F had sheet film scanning, with a decent sensor (ACTUAL USEABLE capable dMax rating), with a good SNR, and non-varying exposure between each set of lines, then it'd be an awesome buy.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Processing C-41 Colour Negative Film Yourself Cheaply in Australia
Update: After much digging and comparison, You can use the Fuji Starter for Kodak C-41 chemicals (warning: Kodak Flex SM doesn't use a starter, so dont add one if you use SM, and isn't replenished either), Fuji licensed it from Kodak at one point, and well, it's the same stuff.
Also it seems Vanbar has doubled it's price on Ferricyanide, I am experimentnig with a Copper Sulphate bleach (get it from the hardware store or possibly K-Mart/BigW/etc, Vanbar also sell it) and it works great, density is basically the same, very small colour difference if corrected the same as normal bleach, but you dont do that when scanning or printing colour in the dark room.
(Side Note: I plan on creating my own developer concentrate that can be used at 1+100 20 degrees celsius, similar to Rodinal, but a colour negative developer, which should also double as a developer for b&w film, and also substitute for the colour develop stage in E-6, I'll probably make it available $30 for 500ml )
Just thought I'd post a summary on the cost of getting into C-41 outside of the tetenal kits for more economy within Australia (although even Tetenal kits provide excellent value already), in case you think it's expensive, or hard, it is not.
If you can process B&W, you can process your own colour.
Kodak Flex SM Unit Dv 2 ltr (k36SM-DEV2) $18.64
(Flexicolor SM is recommended for tank processing, and doesnt require adding a starter, nor replenishment)
http://www.vanbar.com.au/catalogue/product.php?id=56350
or
Fuji CN16L C-41 Dev rep N1-CR 850067 (f3-CN16L-DR-20) (20 litre) $88.00
http://www.vanbar.com.au/catalogue/product.php?id=58648
and
Fuji CN16L C-41 Dev Start N1S 850066 (f3-CN16L-DS-10) $11.00
http://www.vanbar.com.au/catalogue/product.php?id=58649
Kodak Flex SM Final Rinse 1.5 ltr (k36SM-RINSE1.5) $6.27
http://www.vanbar.com.au/catalogue/product.php?id=56353
Agfa 70 BL (C41) 5 ltr (a341-5) $39.61
http://www.vanbar.com.au/catalogue/product.php?id=47886
OR
Photochem Potassium Ferricyanide per 1kg (05524-1000) $19.80
http://www.vanbar.com.au/catalogue/product.php?id=43258
and
Photochem Potassium Bromide per 1kg (05521-1000) $27.83
http://www.vanbar.com.au/catalogue/product.php?id=72170
(you can also just use non-iodised table salt instead of potassium bromide with no ill-effect for normal colour processing, it should also be slightly faster overall as it has a slight fixing action too - so i wont count the bromide in the cost - ps: dont mix fixer with ferricyanide) - 50g/L ferricyanide, 50g/L salt will work fine.
Kodak +E-6 Fixer & repl > 10lt (k397-10) $6.27
http://www.vanbar.com.au/catalogue/product.php?id=72253
There's also Kodak Flexicolor LORR (lower usage and replenishment rate - basically mixed developer lasts longer sitting around) developer replenisher for $46.75 (10 litre)
http://www.vanbar.com.au/catalogue/product.php?id=71807
But you need the starter for that, which I dont think Vanbar sells, but you could get away with using the slightly different Fuji starter listed above most likely if you want to do some testing before usage.
~$51 to get into C-41 processing with 2 litres of developer, with more than enough fix and bleach.
~$130 for the same thing with 20 litres of developer.
(or ~$79 for the 10 litre Flexicolor LORR)
Shipping Cost: Vanbar charges an $18 flat rate shipping Australia wide, and they do ship these chemicals.
Compared to the $150 5 litre Tetenal kit (I have used this and it does produce excellent results).
The above prices are for the Ferricyanide bleach you mix up yourself, not the Agfa C-41 premade bleach, I also didnt include the Potassium Bromide in the cost as you can just use salt from your cupboard at home.
I've also used the Agfa C-41 bleach and it works very well on both C-41 and E-6 film.
The chemical concentrates unmixed last a very long time, the E-6 colour dev I got from vanbar on special was expire in 2005, but they're still like new, I only mix up the developer as I need it, I don't use it one-shot either.
Also it seems Vanbar has doubled it's price on Ferricyanide, I am experimentnig with a Copper Sulphate bleach (get it from the hardware store or possibly K-Mart/BigW/etc, Vanbar also sell it) and it works great, density is basically the same, very small colour difference if corrected the same as normal bleach, but you dont do that when scanning or printing colour in the dark room.
(Side Note: I plan on creating my own developer concentrate that can be used at 1+100 20 degrees celsius, similar to Rodinal, but a colour negative developer, which should also double as a developer for b&w film, and also substitute for the colour develop stage in E-6, I'll probably make it available $30 for 500ml )
Just thought I'd post a summary on the cost of getting into C-41 outside of the tetenal kits for more economy within Australia (although even Tetenal kits provide excellent value already), in case you think it's expensive, or hard, it is not.
If you can process B&W, you can process your own colour.
Kodak Flex SM Unit Dv 2 ltr (k36SM-DEV2) $18.64
(Flexicolor SM is recommended for tank processing, and doesnt require adding a starter, nor replenishment)
http://www.vanbar.com.au/catalogue/product.php?id=56350
or
Fuji CN16L C-41 Dev rep N1-CR 850067 (f3-CN16L-DR-20) (20 litre) $88.00
http://www.vanbar.com.au/catalogue/product.php?id=58648
and
Fuji CN16L C-41 Dev Start N1S 850066 (f3-CN16L-DS-10) $11.00
http://www.vanbar.com.au/catalogue/product.php?id=58649
Kodak Flex SM Final Rinse 1.5 ltr (k36SM-RINSE1.5) $6.27
http://www.vanbar.com.au/catalogue/product.php?id=56353
Agfa 70 BL (C41) 5 ltr (a341-5) $39.61
http://www.vanbar.com.au/catalogue/product.php?id=47886
OR
Photochem Potassium Ferricyanide per 1kg (05524-1000) $19.80
http://www.vanbar.com.au/catalogue/product.php?id=43258
and
Photochem Potassium Bromide per 1kg (05521-1000) $27.83
http://www.vanbar.com.au/catalogue/product.php?id=72170
(you can also just use non-iodised table salt instead of potassium bromide with no ill-effect for normal colour processing, it should also be slightly faster overall as it has a slight fixing action too - so i wont count the bromide in the cost - ps: dont mix fixer with ferricyanide) - 50g/L ferricyanide, 50g/L salt will work fine.
Kodak +E-6 Fixer & repl > 10lt (k397-10) $6.27
http://www.vanbar.com.au/catalogue/product.php?id=72253
There's also Kodak Flexicolor LORR (lower usage and replenishment rate - basically mixed developer lasts longer sitting around) developer replenisher for $46.75 (10 litre)
http://www.vanbar.com.au/catalogue/product.php?id=71807
But you need the starter for that, which I dont think Vanbar sells, but you could get away with using the slightly different Fuji starter listed above most likely if you want to do some testing before usage.
~$51 to get into C-41 processing with 2 litres of developer, with more than enough fix and bleach.
~$130 for the same thing with 20 litres of developer.
(or ~$79 for the 10 litre Flexicolor LORR)
Shipping Cost: Vanbar charges an $18 flat rate shipping Australia wide, and they do ship these chemicals.
Compared to the $150 5 litre Tetenal kit (I have used this and it does produce excellent results).
The above prices are for the Ferricyanide bleach you mix up yourself, not the Agfa C-41 premade bleach, I also didnt include the Potassium Bromide in the cost as you can just use salt from your cupboard at home.
I've also used the Agfa C-41 bleach and it works very well on both C-41 and E-6 film.
The chemical concentrates unmixed last a very long time, the E-6 colour dev I got from vanbar on special was expire in 2005, but they're still like new, I only mix up the developer as I need it, I don't use it one-shot either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)