Re: filmscanners: storage
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 12:01:25 -0500, Larry wrote: >haven't paid too much detail to the settings on the Plextor. Since it's >gotten such a high rating in PC Magazine I felt I could trust it. I've >probably burned about 300 CD's flawlessly since purchasing it in September. It took a few minutes to find, but I thought the list might be interested in the reviews Larry was referring to. Computer Shopper review http://www.zdnet.com/products/stories/pipreviews/0,8827,258909,00.html PC Magazine review http://www.zdnet.com/pcmag/stories/reviews/0,6755,2598110,00.html Summary: Considering the PlexWriter's speed, fault-tolerance features, and solid software bundle, it is difficult to recommend any other CD-RW drive to mainstream users. Regards Yuri
RE: filmscanners: Digital ICE 3
Hi All- I'm in the market to upgrade my scanner. I would like one with USB connectivity. A friend recommended I look at the Kodak RFS 3600. B&H Photo lists it for $1100. Does anyone have any opinions on this scanner? Worth the money? Or would I be better off waiting for the Nikon Coolscan IV at $200 cheaper? I have searched all over the web, and can't find any reviews for the Kodak. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! Rick Berk
Re: filmscanners: OT: How to reset Epsons with "chipped" cartridges
Frank Paris wrote: > If the information is not sent back to the computer, then how does the > computer give a visual display of the amount of ink remaining in each > cartridge? In fact, the computer is sent this information continuously as a > print is being made, because I can watch the graphs go down as a large print > is being made. Computers these days receive all kinds of information from > the printer. Even my HP printer sends my computer information on ink levels > and it does it without any visible chip on the cartridge, don't ask me how. > > Frank Paris > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 You really don't need a chip on the cartridge for either the printer or the computer to keep track of the ink usage. All that's needed to be known is how many times the heads fire for each color, and what drop size is being used each time. Epson's have done this for years. It is also used to determine when the heads should be dabbed, when they should be swiped, and when they should go through a cleaning cycle. On the last one, I think they also use a timer, sort of like a taxi... you pay for movement and you pay for time at the stop lights ;-) Art
Re: filmscanners: VueScan support for UMAX USB scanners
Ed, After looking and testing several flatbed scanners (Epson, Microtek, Canon), I purchased a Canon FB 1200S SCSI scanner (probably being phased out in favor of USB scanners. However, the quality of the scans is high and the price is right ($99 with a rebate; was about $400-500 originally). I have VueScan which recognizes the Canon SCSI scanner, but Prescan and Scan do not work. Computer is Mac G3/300 minitower (beige). It would be nice to have the VueScan available for this high quality scanner as well as film scanners. I recently purchased VueScan, and used it for a few test Nikon LS-30 scans, but I am waiting for the new Nikon and Canon 4000 dpi film scanners. Regards, Bob At 2:59 PM -0500 2/21/01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >In a message dated 2/21/2001 2:51:36 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >> do you plan to support the UMAX USB scanners, like the Astra 2100U >> and its brethren? > >No, I don't. These scanners don't use the same types of commands >as the SCSI Umax scanners and would be quite difficult to >reverse-engineer. Umax also won't document the USB commands >needed to control these scanners. > >Regards, >Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
- Original Message - From: "Michael Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 4:19 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ?? > Richard: I have been a pro for more than 35 years, owned a lab and sold off my> darkroom equipment long ago. I know where my time is most valuable. And no doubt you do...but... you are something of a one-man-band, or a solo operator if you like and I have been attempting to discuss professional scanning as a separate business where one man bands hardly exist if ever. You just keep on doing whatever you do and jolly good luck to you my friend, however the economics of high end drum scanners would mitigate against people like you simply because you would be unlikely to be able to finance such a device or obtain a reasonable return on capital. You might, of course, buy a reconditioned machine but, as is the way in such matters, it would probably be quite old and maintenance would cost a penny or two. Modern high end drum scanners are not made for clever tricks or creative people anymore, but for volume production where printing is the ultimate destination and page make-up the main purpose. The drum scanner is required in order to digitise analogue film or flat copy as quickly and as accurately as possible from any size original up to A3, with enlargement as high as 20X, so that high volume page make-up requirements can be satisfied economically. Output can be from A3 pages( two to view) up to eight to view film sets with screen rulings from 150line up to 300 screen i.e A1 film size. Imagesetters and RIP's are generally the processing tools these days and fancy creative work is costed out at a price - a high price - proportional to the labour time used and is carried out on either a desktop computer or a much more sophisticated page make-up workstation incorporating massive computer processing power. Sci-Tex from Israel being probably the best known creative workstation provider today although for really flashy creative work the Quantel Graphics Paintbox would turn a few heads and a few bank balances as well at around £300,000 a time. Mind you it does take in Dainippon modified files scanned at massive resolution such as to provide 300mb for an A4 image. Displayed on a 48" high res Japanese monitor one might be forgiven if one had something of a turn when observing the detail in a jewellery catalogue page. If you want photographic quality then that's the business and if you wish massive creative functions it would leave Photoshop standing. Mind you would have to be something of an artist - in creative terms - in order to avail yourself of all it's many facilities. You are confusing the issues related to single self employed photographers with another industry entirely. The book you refer to is of course John Paul Caponigro's "Adobe Photoshop Master Class" and as you have reminded me of something I had forgotten I thank you, because as a future solo operator myself I will almost certainly need to obtain a copy - once I have decided which film scanner to buy. Now I think we had better end this thread as it is of little or no interest to anyone else but ourselves and anyway I believe we may well have worked the theme to death. Richard Corbett
Re: ICE--was: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
Dave H wrote, re: why OEMs don't include ICE: >> Several hundred thousand dollar fees might have something to do with it Ed H wrote: > ASF has two revenue streams from their ICE product - custom engineering support to help develop the product and royalties of 2% to 7% of the manufacturers price (this is from their SEC filing). That 7% almost sounds like an "Uncle Bill" deal to me, without the vast volume that made him a multi-billionaire. It seems there could be a more equitable way of making everybody happy (except for me and the other minions of Grouch&Curmudgeon). ;-) Best regards & thanks for an interesting discussion--LRA --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
Re: filmscanners: Digital ICE 3
on 2/21/01 10:20 AM, Rick Berk at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Hi All- > I'm in the market to upgrade my scanner. I would like one with USB > connectivity. A friend recommended I look at the Kodak RFS 3600. B&H Photo > lists it for $1100. Does anyone have any opinions on this scanner? Worth > the money? Or would I be better off waiting for the Nikon Coolscan IV at > $200 cheaper? I have searched all over the web, and can't find any reviews > for the Kodak. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! > Rick Berk > > Rick, The Kodak has gotten mixed reviews, although there are a few on this list that seem to be happy with it. I lost track of the one magazine review that I read, which was rather negative regarding the scanner's software, in particular. I almost bought it, but after hearing one more negative review on it, I chickened out and bought the Minolta Scan Dual II, which saved me $670 based on then current B&H prices. Now I can afford to get a second monitor. I am happy with the Minolta, but have not yet tried to make anything larger than 8x10. The software is easy to use, and I am having fun making prints on various papers on my Epson 1160. After a year or so, I will reassess my needs, and the new generation of more expensive scanners will have had a chance to get debugged somewhat by then. --Berry
Re: ICE--was: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
What will be interesting to see is how well Canon's version of ICE performs and how well made the scanner is for the pro's... If Canon takes the same tack with scanners as they have with their cameras, Nikon et al had best be ready to run hard to catch up and ASF will have to take a different marketing tack... This from a die hard Nikon camera user who is getting ready to switch to Canon's cameras and lenses Mike M. Lynn Allen wrote: > Dave H wrote, re: why OEMs don't include ICE: > >> Several hundred thousand dollar fees might have something to do with it > > Ed H wrote: > > > ASF has two revenue streams from their ICE product - custom > engineering support to help develop the product and royalties of > 2% to 7% of the manufacturers price (this is from their SEC filing). > > That 7% almost sounds like an "Uncle Bill" deal to me, without the vast > volume that made him a multi-billionaire. It seems there could be a more > equitable way of making everybody happy (except for me and the other minions > of Grouch&Curmudgeon). ;-) > > Best regards & thanks for an interesting discussion--LRA > > --- > FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com > Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
I don't think anyone will argue that for now, drum scanners have the edge in the digital scanning arena. I also don't think many would argue that CCD scanners are being successfully used to scan 35mm frames used in the coffee table glossy book market, with considerable success. For those who wish more control over their images and also economy, the newer CCD based scanners are opening up a new market for photographers who wish to provide either manipulated images (do it yourself fixes, etc) or electronic digital images which can then be used on web pages, or sent via electronic means to stock houses or clients. I do, however, see a day when a major breakthough will likely occur and the whole high end marketplace will be knocked on its ears. A perfect example was the video/CG marketplace. Video switchers, and workstations to produce 3d CG were held by companies like Panasonic, Sony and others with their multi hundred thousand dollar units. Then a small marriage took place between a product called the Amiga computer and a company called Newtek, which came out with the "Video Toaster" and bundled it with Lightwave 3d, and that world was changed forever. For under $5000 one had a digital switcher and CG system that rivaled units worth over $100,000. WIthin months I saw trade magazines like "Video Systems" go from 120 pages down to 40 as advertising revenues disappeared, as the biggies ran out of that market, and soon only Newtek ads, and a few other non-linear editing system upstarts were left placing ads. The rest, as they say, is history. Almost all professional video editing and CG development is now done via computers. Hardware switchers are pretty much history, and it took only a few years to happen. Today, major television effects and full CG animations are produced in a room with Macs or average PCs. It only takes one genius company willing to work "outside the box", to come up with a new blackbox, and all bets are off. Whether this will happen in the scanning field and when, I can't say. But I do not believe anyone can with any certainty say drum scanners are here to stay, or that most pro photographers will not be doing their own scanning 5 years from now. Predicting the future is full of sand traps. Art
Re: filmscanners: VueScan support for UMAX USB scanners
In a message dated 2/21/2001 2:51:36 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > do you plan to support the UMAX USB scanners, like the Astra 2100U > and its brethren? No, I don't. These scanners don't use the same types of commands as the SCSI Umax scanners and would be quite difficult to reverse-engineer. Umax also won't document the USB commands needed to control these scanners. Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: storage
Tony Sleep wrote: > On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 19:39:41 -0800 Arthur Entlich ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > >> Doesn't this speak volumes about where one finger can be pointed. >> Thanks for this, I'm gonna track down Gears. > > > www.gearcdr.com - but be warned, it is a disconcertingly strange piece of > software (though early-version Vuescan users will feel right at home ;-) I have > a fairly old version, 4.1 ISTR - pre v4 was almost incomprehensible. It is also > possible to make it fall over by doing things in a sequence it isn't expecting. > But it does work well, so I've stuck with it. I have done test burns of CD's > from data being pulled across the LAN and without making a virtual image first, > which is a completely ridiculous thing to try. The buffering coped just fine, > but Gear seemed to hit a bug when trying to close the disk. Later versions may > have fixed that. > Thanks for this info, I will take heed. > Nero also has many fans. Adaptec has a much nicer UI but seems to be the market > leader in consumption of blanks to no useful effect. > Nero doesn't get along with my system when I need to extract info from more than one CD disk source (at least, I haven't figured it out!) even if I just want to collect the info onto the hard drive as an image first. Adaptec probably has partial ownership of some CD disk companies, so every coaster is money in the bank ;-) Speaking of leaders leading us astray... Corel has stopped all production on Linux products. They will, for now, continue to sell those they have produced, and will shortly sell their Linux division. They claim they will spend their efforts on getting their current products (Corel Draw, Paint, Word Perfect and the Meta products) into more hands and working better on Macs. Then again they also claim they'll be in the black (as opposed to a black hole, as they currently are) by year end ;-) Apparently the US Dept. of Justice is looking into the MS Corel connection for possible further violation of anti-trust legislation, in regard to the Linux sale. Art
Re: filmscanners: storage
On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Arthur Entlich wrote: > Terry Carroll wrote: > > I don't do any of that stuff. I can just start the burn and go on reading > > my email, using the web, Microsoft Word, etc. That's never caused a > > problem. > > > I'm running a 64M (I think) Pentium II with a two-year-old HP CDRW. > > May I ask which interface your HP CD-R has... SCSI or E-IDE/APATI? E-IDE. -- Terry Carroll | No representations, warranties or characterizations Santa Clara, CA | regarding any actual university, including any named [EMAIL PROTECTED] | "UC Sunnydale" or "University of California at Modell delendus est | Sunnydale" are intended and none should be inferred.
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
My last comment on this... Yes, I and almost every professional photographer I know are "Lone Rangers" with cameras... That would include almost all of the top shooters.. They may be doing enough volume to afford a couple of assistants (that's how I started) but they still have to deliver THEIR VISION and the "low cost" ($1,000 - 15,000) filmscanner is one of the most important tools on the market for ensuring that image gets created properly and on time.. it's really the new equivalent of the enlarger... any pro shooters who do not master this new technology do so at their own peril, unless they only plan to sell silver based collector's prints ... The industry you refer to is the printing/publishing industry and they will be going through their own revolution as prices come down and quality goes up... The danger in your comments as to these "low end" scanners (Nikon, Minolta, Canon) being for amateur fun is that the fellows from Polaroid, ASF, and the other manufacturers read comments like these and figure that they don't need to bother giving us the truly professional tools we need... that's why Ed Hamrick is beating the pants off Nikon's scanner software... I remember when people spoke of "real" computers as being the ones that needed their own climate controlled special rooms and we mortals had to go through a bevy of computer priests to call upon the digital gods... that was before Apple and IBM came along with what we now know as the Mac and The PC... Same thing will happen with scanning... it's only just begun. Mike M. Dicky wrote: > - Original Message -From: "Michael Moore" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Sent: Wednesday, > February 21, 2001 4:19 AMSubject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or > Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ?? > Richard: I have been a pro for more than > 35 years, owned a lab and sold off my > > darkroom equipment long ago. I know where my time is most > valuable. And no doubt you do...but... you are something of a > one-man-band, or a solo operator if you like and I have been > attempting to discuss professional scanning as a separate business > where one man bands hardly exist if ever. You just keep on doing > whatever you do and jolly good luck to you my friend, however the > economics of high end drum scanners would mitigate against people like > you simply because you would be unlikely to be able to finance such a > device or obtain a reasonable return on capital.You might, of course, > buy a reconditioned machine but, as is the way in such matters, it > would probably be quite old and maintenance would cost a penny or > two. Modern high end drum scanners are not made for clever tricks or > creative people anymore, but for volume production where printing is > the ultimate destination and page make-up the main purpose. The drum > scanner is required in order to digitise analogue film or flat copy as > quickly and as accurately as possible from any size original up to A3, > with enlargement as high as 20X, so that high volume page make-up > requirements can be satisfied economically. Output can be from A3 > pages( two to view) up to eight to view film sets with screen rulings > from 150line up to 300 screen i.e A1 film size. Imagesetters and RIP's > are generally the processing tools these days and fancy creative work > is costed out at a price - a high price - proportional to the labour > time used and is carried out on either a desktop computer or a much > more sophisticated page make-up workstation incorporating massive > computer processing power. Sci-Tex from Israel being probably the best > known creative workstation provider today although for really flashy > creative work the Quantel Graphics Paintbox would turn a few heads and > a few bank balances as well at around £300,000 a time.Mind you it does > take in Dainippon modified files scanned at massive resolution such as > to provide 300mb for an A4 image.Displayed on a 48" high res Japanese > monitor one might be forgiven if one had something of a turn when > observing the detail in a jewellery catalogue page. If you want > photographic quality then that's the business and if you wish massive > creative functions it would leave Photoshop standing. Mind you would > have to be something of an artist - in creative terms - in order to > avail yourself of all it's many facilities. You are confusing the > issues related to single self employed photographers with another > industry entirely. The book you refer to is of course John Paul > Caponigro's "Adobe Photoshop Master Class" and as you have reminded me > of something I had forgotten I thank you, because as a future solo > operator myself I will almost certainly need to obtain a copy - once I > have decided which film scanner to buy. Now I think we had better end > this thread as it is of little or no interest to anyone else but > ourselves and anyway I believe we may well have worked the theme to > death. Richard Corbett
RE: filmscanners: evolution (was Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tony Sleep > Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 6:13 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: filmscanners: evolution (was Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid > Sprintscan 120 ?? > > > On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 18:33:31 -0700 Michael Moore > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > Ah, but the market determines the price. Why would a manufacturer > charge less > than they can achieve? A cheap pro quality scanner is therefore > tautological. Tautological or an oxymoron? Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
Jack & Michael, Actually Dolby manufactures patented electronics for both the encoding and decoding of audio. That is, in order to use a Dolby process (Noise Reduction, Surround Sound Imaging, etc) the audio source must be encoded using a Dolby process *and* the playback device must decode using a Dolby decoding process. ASF is not like Dolby. ASF (as I understand it) is a one ended technology. There is no ASF software for my camera. My film is not encoded with an ASF process. The ASF software works at the scanning end of the process. All else aside, Dolby *does* make both encoders and decoders available as stand alone products on a professional level. ASF could do the same, but I guess that that might infringe upon their relationships with the scanner manufacturers. Who can fault them? They are in business to make money? Aren't we all? My US $0.02 and then some. Bob Kehl - Original Message - From: Michael Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 4:47 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ?? > Jack... I thought Dolby was patented circuitry, ie: hardware... You guys sell > software.. I think you are missing a big bet (and it has been commented upon > previously in this forum) by not making your goodies available to those of us > who are serious about filmscanning... I would hold up our esteemed guru, Ed > Hamrick, as one who is working fervently to fill the niche you and the scanner > manufacturers are leaving wide open... I can buy SilverFast bundled with or buy > it separately, why not GEM and ROC, especially if my scanner already supports > ICE? I haven't yet tried to contact Minolta support (my Elite works beautifully) > but if they are anything like most customer support, it means hours on Ignore > and generic answers from support droids, unless I want to scream and finagle to > get ahold of someone who really knows something. I am serious about this.. I am > not a hobbyist.. I am a pro.. I shoot film, I scan it and manipulate it and burn > it on a CD to deliver to my client... there are a lot more like myself... we > have a certain amount invested in a pro-sumer scanner and may not be ready to > jump at the latest and greatest and untried offerings from Nikon, etc. > > Anyway, that's my two cent's worth... > > Mike Moore > > > Jack Phipps wrote: > > > Think of our software like Dolby(tm) for stereo equipment. You can't buy > > Dolby(tm) for your stereo, you have to buy a stereo with Dolby(tm). > > > > The software is custom designed for each scanner model and we have worked > > with scanner manufacturers to deliver the software to end users. I encourage > > you to contact your scanner manufacter. They may be able to provide our > > products to you. > > > > Jack Phipps > > Applied Science Fiction > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Michael Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > So when will you guys make your super software available to the end users? I > > have a Minolta Elite with DIce... Love it, but would also like to have the > > other > > goodies... > > > > Mike Moore > > > > Jack Phipps wrote: > > > > > I wouldn't consider a scanner that didn't have Digital ICE. Not only that, > > > but the Nikon scanner has Digital ROC (Reconstruction of Color) that does > > an > > > incredible job of restoring color to faded images. It even works on > > certain > > > new over/under exposed images as well. It also includes Digital GEM (Grain > > > Equalization & Management). This reduces the grain when you have to > > enlarge > > > images and grain becomes apparent. This is one of the first scanners that > > > bundles all three of these important features into one scanner. You can > > find > > > more information on these features at: > > > www.asf.com > > > > > > In my biased opinion, the Nikon is the clear choice between these two > > > scanners. > > > > > > Jack Phipps > > > Applied Science Fiction > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: David Freedman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 4:43 PM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ?? >
RE: filmscanners: Digital ICE 3
You can run each one separately or together in any combination. Jack Phipps Applied Science Fiction -Original Message- From: Dale & Gail [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 6:14 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: Digital ICE 3 With the new Nikons having ICE, ROC, and GEM. I wonder if you will be able to use each individually, combined in different groups of two or will they all be applied at the same time? Dale
filmscanners: Re: OT...Trimming Quotes...
Tony, I am impressed with the way you trim your quotes. Do you have to do this with multiple Highlight and Delete functions? I can do it easily with AOL, but I have not found a way to do it with Microsoft's Internet Mail, Outlook Express and Outlook 2000. I am writing this as an OT matter as it will help all of us in being sensitive to trimming our quotes. Regards...Marvin -- From: Tony Sleep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: evolution (was Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ?? Date: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 8:00 AM On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 18:33:31 -0700 Michael Moore ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > There is a BIG market out there for a good quality, reasonably priced > scanner that will meet pro needs..
Re: filmscanners: OT: How to reset Epsons with "chipped" cartridges
Ed ,I was referring to the way the cartridge let you know how much ink was left. That's in stone, so not debatable !! As for fooling the system that's fine with me if it can be done but our NT4 system does not have the graphics to show the cartridges state,so we know we have run out when the paper is blank !! regards Michael Wilkinson. 106 Holyhead Road,Ketley, Telford.Shropshire TF 15 DJ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.infocus-photography.co.uk For Trannies and Negs from Digital Files ### - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 9:55 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT: How to reset Epsons with "chipped" cartridges In a message dated 2/20/2001 4:47:08 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > The stated that the chip on the cartridge counted the number of droplets > it ejects. > Removing and replacing the cartridge will NOT effect the drop counter. > End of debate ! You missed the subtle technique for changing the cartridge. It gets removed when it's on the left side, a full cartridge gets inserted on the left side, the full cartridge gets removed when it's on the right side and the refilled cartridge gets replaced on the right side. The technique apparently takes advantage of the printer reading the cartridge when it travels left to right and and writing the cartridge when it's on the right. The "end of debate" comment is just silly - there are actual screen shots of this techique working. Regards, Ed Hamrick
filmscanners: VueScan support for UMAX USB scanners
Ed, do you plan to support the UMAX USB scanners, like the Astra 2100U and its brethren? I ask because I'm trying to use one for building profiles and VistaScan (UMAX's scanner software) is helping me entirely too much. I believe that with VueScan I would be able to get scans that haven't had as much "correction" and other unwanted manipulation. --Dana
Re: filmscanners: evolution (was Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 18:33:31 -0700 Michael Moore ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > There is a BIG market out there for a good quality, reasonably priced > scanner that will meet pro needs.. Ah, but the market determines the price. Why would a manufacturer charge less than they can achieve? A cheap pro quality scanner is therefore tautological. The same goes for Nikon F5, EOS1v, sundry Leicas and Contaxes etc. Of course I wish they were $200 too... However, as with cameras, mid-market filmscanners may start to acquire extra bells and whistles to entice buyers who aren't as interested in long-term durability or best-possible quality, but rather the overall blend of attributes. The profusion of brand new acronyms might suggest filmscanner marketing is already headed down this well-worn path. It's a sign of a maturing market where technological advance has rather reached a stalemate, or at least adequacy for the market, and is a standard way of making your products seem superior to rivals of otherwise equal performance. I think all the current generation filmscanners are, at a hardware level, basically competent and capable of good results in the right hands. That's why I think the donated-Q60 review methodology is past it's best-by date. When I started doing it, just about every scanner was grossly different and incapable of anything approaching neutrality. That has changed - like SLR's they're all pretty damn good now, and preferences come down to features, ergonomics, software and useability. And of course price. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Digital ICE 3
Rick: You may want to check some back issues of PC Photo for something ion the Kodak. I ythink one or 2 months ago. They have an article on the Nikon 8000 in the issue I received yesterday. I saw the Kodak listed in PC Photo for less than $1100 at one of the NY houses in this issue also. Gordon Rick Berk wrote: > Hi All- > I'm in the market to upgrade my scanner. I would like one with USB > connectivity. A friend recommended I look at the Kodak RFS 3600. B&H Photo > lists it for $1100. Does anyone have any opinions on this scanner? Worth > the money? Or would I be better off waiting for the Nikon Coolscan IV at > $200 cheaper? I have searched all over the web, and can't find any reviews > for the Kodak. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! > Rick Berk
Re: filmscanners: Digital ICE 3
b&h has recently dropped the price to $999 i think jim Gordon Tassi wrote: > > Rick: You may want to check some back issues of PC Photo for something ion the > Kodak. I ythink one or 2 months ago. They have an article on the Nikon 8000 > in the issue I received yesterday. I saw the Kodak listed in PC Photo for less > than $1100 at one of the NY houses in this issue also. > > Gordon > > Rick Berk wrote: > > > Hi All- > > I'm in the market to upgrade my scanner. I would like one with USB > > connectivity. A friend recommended I look at the Kodak RFS 3600. B&H Photo > > lists it for $1100. Does anyone have any opinions on this scanner? Worth > > the money? Or would I be better off waiting for the Nikon Coolscan IV at > > $200 cheaper? I have searched all over the web, and can't find any reviews > > for the Kodak. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! > > Rick Berk
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
In a message dated 2/21/2001 9:48:20 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Will you be getting a loner to test out Canons new scanner? No, I don't have any contacts at Canon. I won't be able to add support for Canon's new scanners until someone loans me one. Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: OT: How to reset Epsons with "chipped" cartridges
Austin Franklin wrote: >> It apparently turns out that the Epson 870/890/1270 printers with the >> chipped cartridges work by reading the cartridge info once upon >> installation, then that info is sent to the computer and then software >> is used to keep track of the ink levels until the cartridge is removed, >> at which point the new ink level info is written to it. > > > That is not my understanding of how the chipped cartridges work. The ink > use is read from the cartridge every time it is powered up, or an ink > cartridge inserted, and recorded back to the cartridge every time it is > powered down, or removed from the printer. It is not sent back to the > computer at all. That would make no sense to do it the way you suggest. > > What is the source for your information? > > BTW, I do not believe this link is correct: > > http://medlem.tripod.net.nu/chipreset/ You are absolutely correct, Austin, (I hope that makes you feel better) there is an error in the URL, which is shown corrected at the end of this posting. As I mentioned, the website is written in somewhat difficult to understand english, probably due to the language being a second language to the writer. So, it is possible my explanation might have been garbled. However, as to if my interpretation make sense or not, that's another matter. As I see it, the only time the ink levels need to be written to the cartridge is when it is removed from the printer. This could be when the cartridge is partially full, or empty. The only time the printer needs to read the ink levels in the cartridge, is when a cartridge is installed, either a new one, or a partially used one. As to if the printer communicated this info to the computer, that too would make sense. Epson has, in the past, always allowed the printer driver through a TSR type program to keep track of the ink levels, which are shown graphically in a computer graphic which is part of the menu for the printer driver. Since a similar graphic is used with the 1270/870/890 printers, it makes sense that somewhere along the line the printer has to inform the driver of the ink levels. It could do so continually, or it could leave this task to the printer driver to maintain, based upon the approximation of ink used by the print method used (which determines the dot sizes, etc.), and the amount of each color used, all of which, could easily be determined on the software end of things by the printer driver. This info could be saved on the system. However, if Epson was concerned about a software hack cracking their system, they might, as you suggested, have gone for a more hardware intensive solution, which indeed might have required the info being written each time the system is shut down or at another interval. Then, perhaps the method this guy uses is to trick the system into re-writing to the chip that it is full after pulling the switcheroo from the full OEM cartridge to the refilled cartridge. Personally, I just think you are jealous that you didn't figure out this trick yourself. ;-p Under any circumstances, it must work as MIS is now selling refill inks, and they would have a lot of angry customers if it did not. So, without further fanfare, I provide for all the corrected URL (and especially for Austin, who just can't seem to be happy unless he can call someone 'wrong'...) http://medlem.tripodnet.nu/chipreset/ Art
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
B2 plus my boy, that's the size. Richard Corbett - Original Message - From: "Hemingway, David J" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 9:32 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ?? > Why wait!! Polaroid has that already, the ProPalette 8K series film > recorders are available with 35mm, medium format and/or 4x5 film backs. > David > > -Original Message- > From: Dicky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 12:26 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 > ?? > > - Original Message - > From: "Michael Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 1:33 AM > Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ?? > > > > I don't know where these guys get the idea that everyone that uses a > pro-sumer > > (Minolta Elite, Nikon LS2000, etc.) is an amateur... I see a lot of pros > buying > > these to scan work to give clients... I've tried PhotoCD Master and Pro.. > > that's why I am scanning my own 35mm... To say that we don't need or can't > use > > ICE and any other time saver we can get is flat wrong I never did a > get a > > straight answer from Jack at ASF on why we can't buy GEM and ROC and > upgrade > > ICE... There is a BIG market out there for a good quality, reasonably > priced > > scanner that will meet pro needs.. I can't afford to buy an Imacon, or > Scitex > > or anything else that sets me back multiple thousands... > > > > Mike Moore > > > > Frank Paris wrote: > > > > > > output levels and therefore anything that slows down output is > avoided. > > > > The amateur, on the other hand, has rarely such a need and usually > likes > > > > their equipment to embrace as many functions as possible in a single > > > > product. > > > > This is seen as good value for money, which I would suggest is the > case. > > > > He is not likely to be selling his scans for profit and therefore > > > > has little > > > > need for high output of digitised images and is also not likely > > > > to have any > > > > time deadlines to meet. > > > > > > > > Richard Corbett > > > > > > > > > > I think this is the wrong message to send to a representative of a > > > filmscanner manufacturer. Amateurs most definitely want a system that > saves > > > time, the moreso the more they have lives outside filmscanning. > > I would suggest that a professional photographer does not earn his living by > scanning images. A professional in the repro division of the printing > industry most certainly does. > > The pro scanner user operates under a division of labour principle where > each specifically identified skill is carried out by separate individuals. > Thus a scanner operator is looking for facim plus cast removal. Retouching, > of all kinds, is carried out on a separate workstation. > > The professional scanner operator is outputting to data storage at around 4" > per min horizontal and drum diameter vertically. > He is also producing CYMK images, usually in TIFF with a low res composite > image for "the mac" or PC if you will. > He is paid to produce volume. The clever tricks are carried out elsewhere. > > The Amateur is doing all this for fun, one hopes, and is therefore > fascinated by the process itself. > > The amateur therefore has more fun and the professional makes more money. > > Each to his own, that's what I say. > > As an Ex professional and now an amateur in retirement I am looking at the > Nikon 4000 and can't wait for all things to be available on but a single > piece of equipment. > > Now all the Nikon people have to do is to produce an output device that sits > at the end of the chain Scan-in.PC/Mac.Output to film, and hey > presto we have Professional amateurs who will both have fun and make > money.always provided they know how to sellbut that's some thing > else entirely. > > Richard Corbett
Re: filmscanners: storage
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 19:39:41 -0800 Arthur Entlich ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Doesn't this speak volumes about where one finger can be pointed. > Thanks for this, I'm gonna track down Gears. www.gearcdr.com - but be warned, it is a disconcertingly strange piece of software (though early-version Vuescan users will feel right at home ;-) I have a fairly old version, 4.1 ISTR - pre v4 was almost incomprehensible. It is also possible to make it fall over by doing things in a sequence it isn't expecting. But it does work well, so I've stuck with it. I have done test burns of CD's from data being pulled across the LAN and without making a virtual image first, which is a completely ridiculous thing to try. The buffering coped just fine, but Gear seemed to hit a bug when trying to close the disk. Later versions may have fixed that. Nero also has many fans. Adaptec has a much nicer UI but seems to be the market leader in consumption of blanks to no useful effect. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Digital ICE 3
Thanks Jack. From: "Jack Phipps" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > You can run each one separately or together in any combination. > > Jack Phipps > Applied Science Fiction > > -Original Message- > From: Dale & Gail [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 6:14 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: filmscanners: Digital ICE 3 > > > With the new Nikons having ICE, ROC, and GEM. I wonder if you will be able > to use each individually, combined in different groups of two or will they > all be applied at the same time?
RE: filmscanners: OT: How to reset Epsons with "chipped" cartridges
> As I see it, the only time the ink levels need to be written to the > cartridge is when it is removed from the printer. Possibly, but I doubt it, and the procedure outlines on the URL does not indicate one way or the other that this is the case, nor does it matter (I don't believe)...what matters is it knows when the cartridge is changed, and that it reads the 'new' cartridge when it returns the head to the right. Whether it writes it back to the replaced cartridge at any time may or may not be true. My guess is it is. > ...it makes sense that somewhere along the line the > printer has to inform the driver of the ink levels. Of course, but that has nothing to do with maintaining the levels, only reporting them. > This info could be saved on the system. I do not believe the PC saves anything, it only gets static information from the printer. > However, if Epson was concerned about a software hack cracking their > system, they might, as you suggested, have gone for a more hardware > intensive solution, which indeed might have required the info being > written each time the system (did you mean printer) is shut down or at another interval. > Then, perhaps the method this guy uses is to trick the system into > re-writing to the chip that it is full after pulling the switcheroo > from the full OEM cartridge to the refilled cartridge. Bingo, that's how I think it's done. Easy to test. Take the less than full cartridge, after it has been 'made full'...and remove it, and replace it with a not full cartridge...print status monitor will? report half...then replace it with the 'made full' cartridge and see if it reports full... > Personally, I just think you are jealous that you didn't figure out this > trick yourself. ;-p It is a very good trick, and I couldn't have figured it out...I don't have any chipped printers yet ;-) Thanks for the info!
Re: filmscanners: evolution (was Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
Tony... I wasn't talking about a $200 scanner... I was talking about a scanner in the $1000 to $2000 range, same as those cameras you referred to... BTW, I use a Nikon N90s, cost me $750 for the body new... uses the same glass as the F-5... It seems to me a camera is actually a more complex animal than a scanner, even a film scanner... when enough fotogs start to figure out they are going to have to scan or die, the market will get really competitive for their dollar, just like the pro camera market is... Mike M. Tony Sleep wrote: > On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 18:33:31 -0700 Michael Moore ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > There is a BIG market out there for a good quality, reasonably priced > > scanner that will meet pro needs.. > > Ah, but the market determines the price. Why would a manufacturer charge less > than they can achieve? A cheap pro quality scanner is therefore tautological. > The same goes for Nikon F5, EOS1v, sundry Leicas and Contaxes etc. Of course I > wish they were $200 too... > > However, as with cameras, mid-market filmscanners may start to acquire extra > bells and whistles to entice buyers who aren't as interested in long-term > durability or best-possible quality, but rather the overall blend of > attributes. The profusion of brand new acronyms might suggest filmscanner > marketing is already headed down this well-worn path. It's a sign of a maturing > market where technological advance has rather reached a stalemate, or at least > adequacy for the market, and is a standard way of making your products seem > superior to rivals of otherwise equal performance. > > I think all the current generation filmscanners are, at a hardware level, > basically competent and capable of good results in the right hands. That's why > I think the donated-Q60 review methodology is past it's best-by date. When I > started doing it, just about every scanner was grossly different and incapable > of anything approaching neutrality. That has changed - like SLR's they're all > pretty damn good now, and preferences come down to features, ergonomics, > software and useability. And of course price. > > Regards > > Tony Sleep > http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & > comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
Ed, Will you be getting a loner to test out Canons new scanner? Dale From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > In a message dated 2/20/2001 10:07:53 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > This doesn't stop manufacturers from bypassing ASF entirely > like Canon did with their latest scanners. Canon added the infrared > channel themselves, and did their own dust-removal software (FARE). > The FS4000US looks like an interesting scanner (4000 dpi, motorized > film feeding, infrared dust removal, USB/SCSI, $1000, available 2Q 2001). > > Regards, > Ed Hamrick >
Re: filmscanners: Workflow questions
Thanks to all those offering assistance to my questions, it has been very helpful. I will have to do some more experimenting, but at least now I can start from an informed beginning. Noel Charchuk -- http://telusplanet.net/public/nhcharch
filmscanners: Digital ICE 3
With the new Nikons having ICE, ROC, and GEM. I wonder if you will be able to use each individually, combined in different groups of two or will they all be applied at the same time? Dale
RE: filmscanners: ICE dust removal (was Nikon v Polaroid)
Mark wrote: >I thought that ICE used infrared simply to image the dust and other >physical imperfections, and that the normal photographic image is >relatively transparent to IR. Then (I assumed) it lined up the defects >with those on the non-IR scan, and used some sort of 'intelligent >interpolation' to remove the defect. If that is how it is done, you would >expect some softening at the defect, but there need not be softening >elsewhere. This may be what you would expect logically, but it isn't what happens in practice, probably because the image itself is *not* totally invisible in IR. I don't know what the reasons are, but on my Nikon LS30 both ICE and Vuescan's dust removal components soften the image slightly overall (ICE more than Vuescan at the lower settings of Vuescan). Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
