XP machine.
Jim
LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
Yes; but you are talking about a relatively new USB based scanner and
Vista
X64. It is quite possible that this newer model scanner uses either third
party drivers developed by people like Ed Hemrick or has Epson developed
WMA
drivers which are designed
.
Additional comment below.
On 14-Jun-09 12:41, LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
I would check again on the 64-bit twain driver. Epson may have developed
a
proprietary driver for the scanner but I sort of doubt it was a twain
driver
since there were never any official standards set for the 64 bit twain
driver
V750-M Pro Scanner,
Laurie,
I could be wrong calling the Epson driver a 64-bit twain driver. If
memory serves me, Epson referred to it as a 64-bit driver. I did not
ask for it as I was, and still am, on 32-bit machines - mainly because
of the Sprintscan 120.
Jim
LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
I would
SCSI is the hardware connection; there are no twain drivers for 64 bit OS.
You need the ASPI layer with SCSI for any Windows OS (32 or 64 bit) to
recognize the scanner as a hardware device ( I do not know about USB
connected scanners); but this is different from getting the scanner to work
which
Win 7 is what Vista was suppose to be and should have been unless they screw
it up between now and its public release in Oct. 2009. As I noted before,
there are no 64 bit twain drivers and never have been any. So scanners
typically could not be used with the 64 bit OSs unless the maker supplied
those scans and the ones on the V500 -- and I am very picky. The
optics are
probably better on the V750 though. Don't bother with the Epson OEM
software. Either
Vuescan or Silverfast are greatly superior. Your choice.
On 13-Jun-09 15:43:44, LAURIE SOLOMON (lau...@advancenet.net) wrote:
SCSI
From my understanding JPEG 2000 is a dead fish in terms of support and
adoptions. If my understanding is correct, you would wind up with orphaned
files that neither you nor anyone else would be able to open and read in the
future; not good for archives. :-) The standard JPEG and the TIFF are at
: [filmscanners] Re: Advice on scanner settings
Security isn't much of an issue these days since you coul
d encrypt locally. Goin out of business is very likely. M
ediastor was in the same business and went under.
-Original Message-
From: LAURIE SOLOMON lau...@ad
VANCENET.NET
Date: Thu, 26
It is hard to say if you are delusional or not since you have failed to give
us enough data to say if the two are comparable or if they are apples and
oranges. You say you were comparing 400o dpi scans on a Nikon 8000 film
scanner of 6x6 negatives (were the ones used for the comparison color or
It was not I who posed the question, So am I delusional according
died-in-the-wool scanners? in my post or who made a point of noting that
they grounded their question in the comparative findings based on an
empirical test situation. I was merely suggesting the sorts of
clarifications and
It did, so I guess all is well with the world. :-)
Original Message
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter
Marquis-Kyle
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 6:27 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: ADMIN: LIST BACK
Tony Sleep wrote:
The list
If you have connected the devices to an unpowered hub, this can create
problems - especially if you have several devices that have power
requirements connected to the same hub directly or daisy chained to it.
Furthermore, despite the claims, two many devices and/or hubs daisy
chained of the same
. My trackball, an Epson 1640 scanner and R2400
printer work fine but the card reader fails to se the Compact Flash
card when it's inserted and a reboot is required - much like my older
machine, running win 2K did when I turned on my scanner.
Jim
Laurie Solomon wrote:
If you have connected
Don't these companies understand how it damages their
relationship with their customers? Don't they know that an
important driver for sales in the photography and imaging
business is brand loyalty? They are just shooting themselves in the
foot.
In all seriousness, your questions and
Probably the latter.
Original Message
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 4:15 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: large scanning project
But how will they know what demand for these drivers is?
- not the
individual users or the geeks.
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 6:18 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: large scanning project
Laurie Solomon wrote:
In all seriousness, your questions and comments may be more
appropriate for Nikon
Actually, he is wanting to make desktop wall paper for his wife; but he
and his wife want the wallpaper image to be as crisp, sharp, and clear
as a high resolution and quality monitor displayed image as contrasted
to the lower resolution and quality typical wallpaper images. So you
initial
I have been staying quite and following the thread and holding my tongue
to see what others might suggest. However, it appears that everyone has
neglected the questions dealing with resizing and focused on sharpening.
So I guess I have to jump in and ask the difficult primary questions.
First,
- Original Message -
From: Laurie Solomon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 10:26 PM
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Using high res digital camera for
scanning/duplicating
Your questions tend to ignore some other key issues. Even if
the resolutions
Your questions tend to ignore some other key issues. Even if the
resolutions and quality of digital cameras have improved to the point of
competing with flatbed scanners or even film scanners when it comes to
the results or even if one uses high quality flat field normal and/or
macro duplicating
I think that these days you will probably find that all the flatbeds offer
some form of film scanning capability since the cost differential between
offering it and not offering it is minimal and the inclusion is a big
selling point for most potential amateur and hobbyist buyers - especially
with
I would speculate that the impact that various dilutions of ammonia and
water or Windex with ammonia might have on optical surfaces, on mirrored
surfaces, and on flatbed scanner glass would depend (a) on if the
surface is coated or not and (b), if it is coated, on what the coating
is that is being
, 2005 8:39 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: HP PhotsSmart - questions
I was surprised, but the Schneider guy recommended the dilute
Windex solution without any reservations.
Mr. Bill
Laurie Solomon wrote:
I would speculate that the impact that various dilutions
450 ppi/dpi) but who
knows what kind of optical light path bending they had to do to
accomplish that.
Art
Laurie Solomon wrote:
I looked at the web site you gave the link for; it was not clear from
its contents as to what the unit's native optical resolution is. If
the native optical
in what you know and solve for what you don't. It works
every time, IF the scanner has variable resolution (many
don't). Remember, you can never exceed the maximum optical
resolution of the scanner.
Mr. Bill
Laurie Solomon wrote:
Maybe my math is bad; but if it has a native resolution
Anti-reflection coating on the flatbed of a scanner has
nothing to do with uncovered parts of the flatbed and
everything to do with the fact that anytime the image forming
light hits a glass-air surface there is the potential for a
reflection (or backscatter) which will reduce the contrast of
I do not have answers to the question of cleaning the internal optics,
mirror, or sensors; nor do I have an answer to why 150 dpi appears
sharper than 300 dpi when scanning a 3 x 5 color print. I take it that
this is a flatbed scanner.
I would suggest the obvious with respect to cleaning. You
Windex contains amonia which can etch coatings. Never use it
on optics.
Electronics grade alcohol is generally accepted as best for
optics. I use cottonballs rather than cloth.
Laurie Solomon wrote:
I do not have answers to the question of cleaning the
internal optics,
mirror, or sensors
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rich Koziol
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 12:56 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: HP PhotsSmart - questions
Hi Laurie,
On 6 Aug 2005 at 12:06, Laurie Solomon wrote:
I do not have answers to the question of cleaning the
internal optics,
mirror
Hi Jack,
Without arguing the points you make, most of us who responded that Digital
Ice does not work well with Kodachromes did qualify our statements and
avoided making any absolute statements. However, the real question (even if
Digital Ice works on many Kodachromes), given the original
But the poster says clearly that the slides are mostly Kodachromes (I
have a collection of around 2500 slides, mostly Kodachrome). Digital
Ice does not work very well if at all with Kodachromes. Digital ICE
relies on infrared to identify scratches and dust; but infrared does not
see through
So Mike what you are saying is that unless the Nikon has a manual focus like
the Minolta does the problem is not correctable with the Nikon scanner but
is correctable with the Minolta; but both scanners have the problem under
the autofocus option.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL
would help, but that's the realm of
professional scanners.
Mr. Bill
Laurie Solomon wrote:
So Mike what you are saying is that unless the Nikon has a manual
focus like the Minolta does the problem is not correctable with the
Nikon scanner but is correctable with the Minolta; but both scanners
of)
will cure the problem.
Heaven forbid someone mention to you the quality improvement
that can be gained from oil mounting your slides for scanning
(not on these two scanners, though).
Mr. Bill
Laurie Solomon wrote:
I am going to assume that you are using my post to piggy-back
Most use high optical resolution flatbed scanners with some form of
transparency adapter to scan film formats 5x7 or larger since one often does
not really need resolutions greater than 1200 - 2400 ppi which many current
flatbed scanners can handle easily. Film scanners that can handle this size
or mailing
lists that focused on scanners used to scan that size film).
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 2:08 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] Re:
Laurie Solomon wrote
right here on the forum -- or it the 4990 the only one?
Laurie Solomon wrote:
I guess it all depends on how you define a good job of scanning.
Doesn't the Epson Perfection 4990 Photo scanner scan
transparencies up
to 8x10?
I fail to see how this contradicts anything that I have said
Art,
I would also be interested in locating and re-establishing contact with
David - especially concerning the Polaroid Film Recorder that I have and
how one might get or create new lookup files for it that are dedicated
to handling today's batch of films. However, I think that he dropped
out of
While I do not usually engage in this sort of comparative reviewing of
products nor in the recommending of them, I will make two general
observations from my experiences, which need to be taken with a grain of
salt since they entail my biases and preferences.
First, even at today's stage in
good.
LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
snip
First, even at today's stage in technology, I do not find
digital black
and white to be all that satisfactory be it captured with a digital
camera or scanned in via a scanner. I find that both the monitor
displaying and the hard copy printing of digital
of blackness (if that is the correct term), but the
inkjetmall solution is just too expensive for me.
I'm not sure how the RIP will solve the problem since you
would still be making BW with color ink.
Laurie Solomon wrote:
I am familiar with it and have heard good things about it from users
I have no dispute with anything you have said below.
Original Message
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Austin Franklin
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 7:10 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Compact Cameras
Hi Laurie,
I am familiar with it
with fine results.
For glossy, folks print with glop or spray the prints with
Print Shield which reportedly does a good job minimizing bronzing.
Scott
LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
I think the solution is to have BW ink in different levels of
blackness (if that is the correct term
better
than any Epson or Canon output I've seen.
LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
I think the solution is to have BW ink in different levels of
blackness (if that is the correct term)
That appears to be one type of solution to some of the issues;
another potential solution is to have not just different
, but instead
just ignoring the intermediate ones.
Art
Laurie Solomon wrote:
Yes, I did understand that; but I did not think that too many
scanners out there used this approach except to produce low
resolution preview scans. But I could be wrong. What I did not get
and may have been
a great many sampling
errors, since it is a much coarser sample of the actual data.
Some scanners do seem to do just this, as the resulting scan takes as
little as one third the time to be scanned and produced as a raster
image when the resolution is quartered.
Art
LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
If you scan
: LAURIE SOLOMON [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you scan at 1200dpi, the scanner usually either samples all the 4800
possible data points per inch and throws three out of every four away, or
only samples every fourth possible point. So you are only getting one
quarter of the possible data from the film. So why
If you scan at 1200dpi, the scanner usually either samples all the 4800
possible data points per inch and throws three out of every four away, or
only samples every fourth possible point. So you are only getting one
quarter of the possible data from the film. So why scan at large format if
you are
PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Myles
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 10:18 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Genuine fractals?
Date sent: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 15:12:13 -0600
Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Laurie
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of LAURIE SOLOMON
Sent: 25 November 2004 17:36
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals?
Well, I do not own that camera and am not familiar with it;
but I assume
that if you look in the manual you will find that you can capture your
images
: Genuine fractals?
LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: Well, I do not own that camera and am not familiar
with it; but I assume that if you look in the manual you will find that you
can capture your images at around 300 dpi and save them to a tiff format;
but capturing them at a high resolution around 300 dpi
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals?
From: Laurie Solomon
Yes, the tests were done prior to PSCS and I know of none done
since. I am
not sure if Adobe made significant improvements to the basic Bicubic
formulation as much as they made its implementation more
I use the program frequently; and find that for most upsampling within the
normal ranges, it is not all that much different from Photoshop's Bicubic
methods. It is in the extreme ranges of upsampling that the difference may
begin to appe arandGFmaybegintoshine.
What I do not understand is,
is that the standard version only works with RGB files which is what most
digital files are and what most inkjet,laser, and hybrid photographic
printers use, while the Pro version works with RGB and CYMK files.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 20/11/04 13:12, Laurie Solomon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I use
Paul,
If you overuse it, say beyond 4X in each dimension, it starts to look
artificial
I think if you overuse any tool, it starts to look artificial; but that
being said, I think that your 4x guideline needs to be qualified by the
proviso that it depends on the type and content of the image. As
as evidence that the GF limits do not stop at upsamplings of lower than 4 or
5 X.
- Original Message -
From: Ed Verkaik [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 12:15 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Genuine fractals?
From: LAURIE SOLOMON [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have
Two points need to be made. One deals with one of your comments concerning
getting ICE. ICE only works with color negtives or chromgenic black white
films. It does not work with silver halide films like true bw films. The
second point, which is not one that addresses anything that you have
It got through.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been trying to sent a posting to the list but it doesn't appear
and I
don't get any admin/error messages. This test is just to see if a
message with different text fares any better!
Al Bond
All this might not be necessary if MS learned to play well with
others! grin
MS does play well with others; but only if it can be boss. :-)
Unfortunately, this seems to be a common failing of the whole industry.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
installed
Laurie,
This site:
I have had problems trying to run two scanners off a SCSI card wherein one
of the scanners insisted that it be loaded first or else it would not load.
Others have said that they have run into a similar thing with a SCI card
where one of the scanners insisted on being given a specific ID assignment
normally but it will
not power down - screen goes dark, hard drives spool down, but the fans
and power light stay on.
Jim
LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
I have had problems trying to run two scanners off a SCSI card wherein one
of the scanners insisted that it be loaded first or else it would not load
can avoid it); but I would select to manually instal the drivers by
selecting the non-automatic option that Windows offers which will allow you
to search the CD for drivers to be installed manually.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
installed
LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
What's strange is that the only
if time were money (it
isn't for me) I'd opt for a scanner with dICE.
Preston, I have to wonder if time were money if you would actually save a
whole lot by using dICE since using it often slows down the scan speed a
great deal. If one cleaned one's film and dust out of the scanner, would
one
to the
questioners questions, solutions to their problems, and resolution to issues
that they encounter.
At any rate, I respect your decisions any way you decide to go; I am just
engaging you is discussion as a way of furnishing food for thought. :-)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
But if your
2. It's still useful to have a dedicated reference forum in one place, for
as long as there are filmscanners around. Even if traffic is negligible, it
may be tomorrow that any of us needs the conduit to the expertise of
others.
But if your analysis is correct and traffic is negligable because
For starters, check out the Yahoo lists; I am sure you will find all kinds
of lists on all kinds of hardware, applications, workflows, and processes.
There are a number of lists on Photoshop CS alone.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Brad
Maybe, the name of the group should be changed to Image Capturing and
Digitalization Techniques. :-)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I, for one, would hate to see this list go by the wayside. It has
helped me make choices in a evolution of scanners and, as far as I
know, scanners are still
it.
-- Brad
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving
safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in
broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly
proclaiming ... wow, what a ride! F.French
On 8/9/04 15:28, Laurie Solomon [EMAIL PROTECTED
There are several things that film scanner software do whiich are difficulat
if not impossible to do with post scanner image editing programs such as
Photoshop.
1. Many scanner software permits the user to do multi-pass scans which may
enable one to capture additional detail in the shadow areas
Printers and monitors have different gamuts that is color ranges
they can reproduce. Also monitors emit light, while prints reflect
light. This basic differrence means that it is hard to compare colors
on screen and paper.
Correct. Printers and monitors also have different color spaces as
/html/vuesc6.htm#topic5
http://hamrick.com/vuescan/html/vuesc7.htm#topic6
A good program for adjusting digital images is:
Picture Window Pro, at www.dl-c.com, PC-only.
A certified toolchain is much more expensive.
Regards
Erik
Wednesday 14 July 2004 20.21 skrev Laurie Solomon:
First
Bob,
I would only add a qualifier to one statement you have made. You say: OR,
you can do it the manual way by
using the sliders in Advanced page of the printer driver to make the prints
more/less contrasty, more/less bright, and more/less of r,g, or b. My
qualification is that this manual
First, unless you have a really high end flat panel monitor, costing in the
$1000 us range, you will have difficulty calibrating and profileing the
monitor display. Current consumer and prosumer models of flat panel
displays tend not to lend themselves to calibrating and profiling with the
If you read the manual closely, you will find that SHE is a HE. :-)
First, how many physical hard drives do you have (1, 2, 3, ...); and if you
only have one or two physical hard drives, how many partiions is each broken
down into and what size are they?
Second, how large is the partition that
familiar with Macs. Have you called Epson about the problem?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
on 7/11/04 4:41 PM, Laurie Solomon at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you read the manual closely, you will find that SHE is a HE. :-)
First, how many physical hard drives do you have (1, 2, 3, ...); and
if you
Actually Art, what you say is only true when talking about new dedicated
medium format film scanners. There may be athe possibility of a few older
models available in or around that price range as used or refurb units on
Ebay or elsewhere. Ken should check Ebay as well as some of the larger used
If I understand what you are saying, I think that I cannot agree with your
explanation. Your analogy appears to be confounding halftone dots with
halftone cells. Moreover, it is not necessarily the case that either
translate one-to-one into pixels or into samples. Also I believe that if
your
Always appreciate your butting in and corrections. :-) If your remarks are
based on the paragraph quoted alone, I will defend myself by noting that I
was only extrapolating from the orgianal statement of the analogy by the
preious poster using their language and argument structure.
If you are
I believe that ICM does refer to the the color management module that the
operating system uses for its system level color management, which in the
case of Windows systems, I believe, is the Kodak module that uses the Kodak
color management engine as opposed to Mac systems which use Colorsync.
can be resized to about 8 times its original size and still maintain
an acceptible optical resolution without requiring any interpolation.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Laurie Solomon wrote:
I think that he was asking more about if this causes an increase in
the image size and not the file size
Make sure that they pay for the fat ylu chew; they can afford it.
Not a feature that I think you should ask them to creat but a suggestion
that you should suggest that they might want to monitor and participate in
this list if they do not already so as to facilitate communicatins between
users
I am not sure about this, but it is quite possible that this is a result of
using LED based scanners, such as the Nikon, on silver halide films; it also
might be a side effect of trying to use digital ICE silver halide films - if
you happen to have this feature turned on.
As I said, I am
words... now
THAT's a slight reversal of roles ;-)
Art
Laurie Solomon wrote:
I am not sure that that is an answerable question without actually
seeing the various images.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I am seeking an opinion about the purpose for sharpening a certain
type of image
Art,
While I am not refuting you, I wish to elaborate on one detail that you did
not make real clear in your response so that others will not go away with a
misunderstanding.
A common trick of the trade is to convert the image to LAB, and then
only sharpen the monochromic image, leaving the
, skys at sunrise, etc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Laurie Solomon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am not sure that that is an answerable question without actually
seeing the various images.
Just imagine a typical sky -- either one with cloud elements and blue
sections, or cloudy with varyiong degree
Paul,
I did not realize that it could be used that way. I would think that such
use would be really limited and dependent on the subject matter and what one
wanted to do with it. While it might enhance localized contrasts, it is an
uncontrolled enhancement of all local contrasts in the image as
Better is a relative term. Generally higher dpi (technically it should be
spi or samples per inch and not either dpi, dots per inch, or ppi, pixels
per inch) will produce a higher resolution and sharper image than lower
amounts of samples per inch. One has to be careful in making comparisons
Bob,
That has been refined and is now being sold as a commercial application by
Pixel Genius called Photokit Sharpener.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is a current wisdom among many including some industry gurus
that because of the points you make regarding captures by scanners
(and I might
Art,
I really am not trying to pick on you (ok, yes I am); scanners techically
measure resolution in terms of samples per inch or spi. Thus, Your
correction below is wrong.
That would mean if the scanner claimed a 4000 dpi (really ppi or
pixels per inch) resolution
It is really 4000 spi and
Art,
There is a current wisdom among many including some industry gurus that
because of the points you make regarding captures by scanners (and I might
add digital cameras), it is beneficial to apply slight sharpening to an
image prior to doing any editing of the image, additional sharpening at
natural, sort of like a
fractal-like process where definition was generated by massaging
the pixels into place.
Art
Laurie Solomon wrote:
Art,
There is a current wisdom among many including some industry gurus
that because of the points you make regarding captures by scanners
(and I might add
I am not sure that that is an answerable question without actually seeing
the various images.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I am seeking an opinion about the purpose for sharpening a certain
type of image. I have a large batch of unsharpened scans of various
cloud forms and skies. In most
Nick,
That may be the only one around that has legal size scanning capabilities
within that price range. I do not now what the maximuim scan size is for
the Epsons; but you might want to check and see what they have in their line
of models.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Traffic has been very slow
Maybe and maybe not. It certainly is a definite possibility but not a
certainty. However, the question was what would keep the film chip flat.
:-) But your advice on the possible limitation, which I neglected, is a
welcome addition. Thank you.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL
What do you mean by good? Oversized full frame windows, rigid mounts that
do not bend or bow, mounts that keep the film chip flat, or something else?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can anyone please recommend slide mounts that are good for scanning?
TIA,
Tom Maugham
; but they are for the most part in the US.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mounts that keep the frame as flat as possible.
Thanks...
Tom
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Laurie Solomon
Sent: March 15, 2004 10:29 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject
Hope it serves you well and gives you little trouble in the future.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Tony Sleep
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 7:42 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] ADMIN: server upgrade completed Saturday
..and
I have a 6in1 internal card
reader that, once ejected or unplugged, won't come back without a
system restart. The only devices that do not cause any problem are
the Epson printer (USB) and Polaroid 120 scanner (Firewire).
Not specifically on your problem; but sometimes if the unpluging and
First are your USB controllers on your motherboard or are they addin PCI
adapter cards? If the first, you may need to upgrade your BIOS for your
motherboard; or you could install a PCI USB adapter card in an open PCI slot
which would avoid the motherboard controllers and BIOS.
Secondly, are you
I am sure that they probably will take all current projects in the area of
film rewsearch and development to completion; but they probably will not
start any new projects, given that they intend to phase out of the market
over the next 7 years. It is likely that this decision may have been
1 - 100 of 529 matches
Mail list logo
