> Ian, I can see you're upset about this, but I think you're letting your
> anger get in the way of logical analysis.
I'm not in the least upset with the "problem". I don't have it anymore :-)
Users of Ed's more recent version of VueScan don't have it any more because
he uses the same buffer size in the PC version as Nikon use in the Mac
version of NikonScan. SilverFast doesn't have the problem because LaserSoft
use the same buffer size as the Mac version of NikonScan. This change in
buffer capacity effectively changes the timing of data being sent.
the CMS probably adds CPU overhead in processing the
> data.
Which would in theory mean that a low MHz would take a bigger hit than one
of say 1000Mhz. Sorry, but the CPU overhead theory dies a death as soon as
someone with a 200 Pentium using ICE says they don't have the problem and
someone with the faster CPU does. Nevertheless, I was of the understanding
that Scsi had the advantage of not (or only very slightly) impacting on CPU
overhead.
> If the problem was only to do with Nikon CMS, it would NEVER have occurred
> with Vuescan.
But it did until Ed fixed VueScan :-) I seem to recall a lot of folk singing
praises for doing so. I also recall that he spent some time explaining the
nature of the fix he applied.
Ian Lyons
http://www.ian.lyons.btinternet.co.uk
====================================================================
The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
