filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Vuescan request

[Rob Geraghty]

John wrote:
>Will it only overwrite a folder on the "C" drive if it is named C:\Vuescan?
>Will it ignore any renamed folder ?

Vuescan always installs into c:\vuescan.  It has no effect on other copies.

Rob


Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com

Re: filmscanners: LS4000 reboot problem

[Maris V. Lidaka, Sr.]

It's MS KB Q253912 at
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q253/9/12.ASP

It's captioned "Out of Memory" error Messages with Large Amounts of RAM
Installed but it's the one.

Maris

- Original Message -
From: "Steve Greenbank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 7:57 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: LS4000 reboot problem


| I don't know if you have already dealt with this problem, but ...
|
| There is a Win 98/98SE problem where the disk caching locks up the system
if
| you have more than 512MB of physical RAM. There's an article in the
| Microsoft Knowledge database somewhere.
| Their workarounds are if memory serves correct:
|
| 1) Use msconfig to set the machines maximum memory to 512MB in Windows.
| Quite a dumb solution if you ask me.
| 2) FIRST MAKE A BACKUP COPY OF "C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM.INI" file then Edit
| C:\windows\system.ini and set a maximum file cache to less than 512MB -
I'd
| suggest something around the size of 16bit 4000dpi filescan which is
approx
| 108MB. So in the file "system.ini" look for the section marked [vcache]
add
| the following line for 108MB :
|
| MaxFileCache=110592
|
| This will leave your system.ini file looking like this:
|
| [vcache]
| MaxFileCache=110592
|
| The value after "MaxFileCache="  is 1024*n (where n is the number of MB
you
| wish to use as cache).
|
| Regards
|
| Steve
|
| P.S. Anyone running with limited memory (less than approx 3x scan_size)
you
| may wish to try setting MaxFileCache to quite a low value (16384 or 8192,
| perhaps). This will leave more memory to your photo-editting application
| which may help it to run more smoothly, unfortuantely it will also slow
| reading and saving large files. It depends what you find most
inconvenient.
|
| Right now I'd say memory is cheap (IMHO) and if your machine can take it,
| and you have the money, buy some more.
|
| - Original Message -
| From: "Paul Chefurka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 6:03 PM
| Subject: filmscanners: LS4000 reboot problem
|
|
| > I just got a Nikon LS4000 to replace my Polaroid SS4000.  It's a
wonderful
| scanner, especially when used with Vuescan.
| >
| > However...  I'm running it on a Win98SE box with 768MB of RAM  Whenever
I
| reboot my system, if the Firewire cable is plugged in the system hangs
about
| halfway into the Windows boot.  If I unplug the FW cable it boots
properly.
| It smells to me like an interrupt problem with the Firewire driver (I
| installed Nikon's upgraded driver from the CD).  I tried taking out the
SCSI
| card that was running my Polaroid to see if there was a conflict, but it
| didn't help.
| >
| > Has anyone else had this problem?  Any trouble-shooting ideas?  Should I
| consider upgrading to Win2K?
| >
| > Paul Chefurka
| >
|
|

Re: filmscanners: What is 4,000 scanner quality like in practice.

[Pat Perez]

Actually, Nikon has the Coolscan 8000, and Polaroid is now also shipping
(it's name escapes me) a medium format, 4000 dpi scanner. The Nikon has the
ASF ICE^3 suite.


Pat

- Original Message -
From: "Laurie Solomon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>



> I believe you may be mistaken or misinformed.  The new 4000 ppi scanners
are
> 35mm film scanners and not medium format scanners; hence they will not
> handle 120 films
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 4:52 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: filmscanners: What is 4,000 scanner quality like in practice.
>
>
>
> In a message dated 23/5/01 9:28:55 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> << If you ever want to use your scanner for other purposes (full res
> scanning
> etc., full quality), then you are better off with another more expensive
> scanner with ICE or FARE (dust removal algorithms), >>
>
> Apparently some photographers are using 4000 ppi scanners for digital
stock
> picture submissions. The new 4000 scanners from Polaroid and Nikon which
> take
> 120 film make this an interesting proposition for me. However, I am
> concerned
> on several points and Cornwall is not the place to find these scanners in
> action.
>
> Dust seems to be a big concern. Just how much time is spent dust busting a
> scan? A test I did on PCD was giving me about 15 minutes work on dust
alone
> which is far too long.
>
> Does ICE lose scan quality?
>
> Is a cheap, if you call £3,000 cheap, scanner a workable substitute for a
> drum scan?
>
> I can currently get 50Mb CGI drum scans at £7.50 each which are absolutely
> spotless.
>
> If I got a 4000 desktop scanner of my own it would need to produce about
ten
> fully finished scans per hour to be worth considering. Is this possible
> considering the amount of time that dust busting might take?
>
> Yours
>
>
>
> Bob Croxford
> Cornwall
> England
>
> www.atmosphere.co.uk


_
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

RE: filmscanners: What is 4,000 scanner quality like in practice.

[Laurie Solomon]

I believe you may be mistaken or misinformed.  The new 4000 ppi scanners are
35mm film scanners and not medium format scanners; hence they will not
handle 120 films

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 4:52 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: filmscanners: What is 4,000 scanner quality like in practice.



In a message dated 23/5/01 9:28:55 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

<< If you ever want to use your scanner for other purposes (full res
scanning
etc., full quality), then you are better off with another more expensive
scanner with ICE or FARE (dust removal algorithms), >>

Apparently some photographers are using 4000 ppi scanners for digital stock
picture submissions. The new 4000 scanners from Polaroid and Nikon which
take
120 film make this an interesting proposition for me. However, I am
concerned
on several points and Cornwall is not the place to find these scanners in
action.

Dust seems to be a big concern. Just how much time is spent dust busting a
scan? A test I did on PCD was giving me about 15 minutes work on dust alone
which is far too long.

Does ICE lose scan quality?

Is a cheap, if you call £3,000 cheap, scanner a workable substitute for a
drum scan?

I can currently get 50Mb CGI drum scans at £7.50 each which are absolutely
spotless.

If I got a 4000 desktop scanner of my own it would need to produce about ten
fully finished scans per hour to be worth considering. Is this possible
considering the amount of time that dust busting might take?

Yours



Bob Croxford
Cornwall
England

www.atmosphere.co.uk

Re: filmscanners: LS4000 reboot problem

[Steve Greenbank]

I don't know if you have already dealt with this problem, but ...

There is a Win 98/98SE problem where the disk caching locks up the system if
you have more than 512MB of physical RAM. There's an article in the
Microsoft Knowledge database somewhere.
Their workarounds are if memory serves correct:

1) Use msconfig to set the machines maximum memory to 512MB in Windows.
Quite a dumb solution if you ask me.
2) FIRST MAKE A BACKUP COPY OF "C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM.INI" file then Edit
C:\windows\system.ini and set a maximum file cache to less than 512MB - I'd
suggest something around the size of 16bit 4000dpi filescan which is approx
108MB. So in the file "system.ini" look for the section marked [vcache] add
the following line for 108MB :

MaxFileCache=110592

This will leave your system.ini file looking like this:

[vcache]
MaxFileCache=110592

The value after "MaxFileCache="  is 1024*n (where n is the number of MB you
wish to use as cache).

Regards

Steve

P.S. Anyone running with limited memory (less than approx 3x scan_size) you
may wish to try setting MaxFileCache to quite a low value (16384 or 8192,
perhaps). This will leave more memory to your photo-editting application
which may help it to run more smoothly, unfortuantely it will also slow
reading and saving large files. It depends what you find most inconvenient.

Right now I'd say memory is cheap (IMHO) and if your machine can take it,
and you have the money, buy some more.

- Original Message -
From: "Paul Chefurka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 6:03 PM
Subject: filmscanners: LS4000 reboot problem


> I just got a Nikon LS4000 to replace my Polaroid SS4000.  It's a wonderful
scanner, especially when used with Vuescan.
>
> However...  I'm running it on a Win98SE box with 768MB of RAM  Whenever I
reboot my system, if the Firewire cable is plugged in the system hangs about
halfway into the Windows boot.  If I unplug the FW cable it boots properly.
It smells to me like an interrupt problem with the Firewire driver (I
installed Nikon's upgraded driver from the CD).  I tried taking out the SCSI
card that was running my Polaroid to see if there was a conflict, but it
didn't help.
>
> Has anyone else had this problem?  Any trouble-shooting ideas?  Should I
consider upgrading to Win2K?
>
> Paul Chefurka
>

Re: filmscanners: Minolta in W2K

[Robert E. Wright]

I have the Scan Elite and have used both the Twain and stand alone DS Elite
program. I believe you had a choice at step 10 (my copy of the manual) of
installation instructions. It was choose either "typical" or "Twain File".
If you chose "Twain File" that was all you loaded, if you chose "typical"
you got both.

I can't really help on the installation to W2K as I am using W98se. I will
add though that when I start the scanner with the computer already
operating, by refreshing the SCSI card in Device Manager, it shows up under
'other devices" as Minolta #2885 with a yellow question mark at the "other
devices tab" and a yellow exclamation mark at "Minolta #2885". Never the
less every thing seems to work correctly, and has since I first installed
8Feb2000. When you installed it did you have the scanner turned on before
you started the computer?

Bob Wright
- Original Message -
From: Michael Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 10:44 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Minolta in W2K


> Pat: I have a Minolta Elite (since last November)... The only way I use
> it is thru PShop as a twain import... I scan mostly Fuji Reala negs, set
> the scanner up for 16 bit 2 or 4 pass scan with DIce on, max resolution
> (unless I just want some quick lo res scans for proofs), color match RGB
> space, then hit the go button and let it scan the image into PShop as a
> negative, where I then invert it, adjust the brightness in the LAB color
> space, then retrurn to RGB to adjust levels (with the eyedroppers, since
> this makes it a more accurate tweak)... The few transparencies I have
> scanned I also Twain into Pshop I just checked my programs pop-up
> bar, looked at the Minolta bar, and all it has is the help and remove...
> I believe it was made to be used as a TWAIN import device and not
> stand-alone...
>
> Mike M.
>
> Pat Perez wrote:
>
> > I sold my Canoscan 2710 recently in order to get a
> > Minolta Dimage Scan Elite. I really wanted the Digital
> > ICE. I tried loading the software and it wouldn't
> > recognize  the device. This was odd, since Vuescan saw
> > it just fine (and doesn't depend upon TWAIN support).
> > I emailed Minolta support, who told me to uninstall
> > Vuescan and try again. Uh huh. Anyway, I mentally put
> > it on the back burner until today, and saw that there
> > was a dialog box being hidden during the SW install
> > that asked for my W2K CD. I provided the disc,
> > rebooted, and the same problem continues.
> >
> > On a lark, I tried acquiring an image with Photoshop 5
> > LE, and lo and behold, it launches the Minolta SW just
> > fine, and seems fully functional, so at least I know I
> > *can* use the Minolta SW, albeit in a roundabout way.
> >
> > Does anyone here have any suggestions on how to try to
> > resolve this so that I can launch the Minolta SW
> > directly?
> >
> > Pat
> >
> > __
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
> > http://auctions.yahoo.com/
>
>

RE: filmscanners: LS4000 reboot problem

[Paul Chefurka]

Thanks!  That should give me a bunch of things to try.  I called Nikon tech support - 
their theoriy is that the FW driver is conflicting with my McAfee anti-virus software, 
and I should just reboot with the scanner switched off.  I'm not convinced, so I'll 
give your suggestions a try.

-Original Message-
From: shAf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 3:26 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: filmscanners: LS4000 reboot problem

[snip amazingly detailed suggestions]

Paul writes ...

> ...
>
> ...I'm running it on a Win98SE box with 768MB of
> RAM  Whenever I reboot my system, if the Firewire
> cable is plugged in the system hangs about halfway
> into the Windows boot.  ...

If you have absolutely no need for the SCSI controller, remove it.
You can try putting the FW controller in its location, or swapping the
FW controller with something else.  If FW is anything like ethernet or
SCSI controllers, it may not like sharing an IRQ.  You should first
examine your IRQs with
'start|programs|accessories|system|system information' =>hardware|irqs

Look for something in conflict with the FW...

Your CMOS may be capable of assigning a specific IRQ to the PCI slots
for your IRQ ... and some motherboards insist that certain PCI slots
share IRQs (common for 4 & 5, and 1 & AGP).  You can also try removing
all cards you don't need, and then replacing them one at a time, after
installing the FW 1st.  The procedure would be:

(1)  boot into safe mode
(2)  look for duplicate instances for hardware ... for example, more
than one instance for your AGP video card (right-clik 'my
computer|properties).
(a)  If you see multiple instances, you need remove them all.
(3)  shutdown your computer, and pull all PCI cards ... leave the AGP
video in.
(4)  Reboot into normal mode ... Windows will indicate it has found
new hardware and install the driver (... you should have your Windows
install CD handy ... or know where on the harddisk the hardware
drivers are ... as if you may have downloaded one more recent from the
manufacturer's wwwsite ...)
(5)  Inspect IRQs and your device list ... did FW work? ... take notes
...
(6)  Shutdown and install the next PCI card ... repeat (4)
...
At some point in this process, you may have to read your motherboard
manual, and figure out if you need to assign a specific IRQ to a
specific PCI slot.  If you're computer is anything like mine ... given
its present configuration ... it can have SCSI or Firewire, not both
(... although I do sometimes feel I can sacrifice a sound card very
easily ...)

Windows 2000 will get you very little with respect to hardware ... it
is just as susceptable to a bad driver and hardware conflicts as are
all versions of Windows (It primary advantage is being less
susceptable to bad software).  My feeling is Win98SE has the best
support for hardware.

hth ... shAf  :o)

RE: filmscanners: LS4000 reboot problem

[Paul Chefurka]

It's too early for me to give a definitive answer yet, but...

The scans look sharper (especially in the middle of the frame :-/)
The scanner is way faster
The histograms look a bit smoother
I should get better performance from my available light slides and negs, both from 
multiscanning and from the 14-bit depth allowing me more freedom from posterization.

More news as I get more experience.

Paul


-Original Message-
From: Lloyd O'Daniel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 4:09 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: LS4000 reboot problem


Do you see a significant real world improvement in scans from the LS4000
over the SS4000?

Lloyd

- Original Message -
From: "Paul Chefurka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 12:03 PM
Subject: filmscanners: LS4000 reboot problem


> I just got a Nikon LS4000 to replace my Polaroid SS4000.  It's a wonderful
scanner, especially when used with Vuescan.
>
> However...  

Re: filmscanners: Vuescan request

[John & Anne Mahany]

Ed,
You replied:
> Can the whole directory be moved to another drive?
Yes.

> Is the code specifically 
>  aware of the c: drive?
No.


How will an update affect this:  
Will it only overwrite a folder on the "C" drive if it is named C:\Vuescan?
Will it ignore any renamed folder ?

regards,

John

Re: filmscanners: OK, Vuescan is driving me nuts

[Tony Sleep]

On Wed, 23 May 2001 01:29 +0100 (BST)  Tony Sleep 
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:

> When selecting the tone and colour setting for the highlight dropper, 
> drag the little circle to where you want it on the big graduated picker 
> panel. I usually *don't* use the highlight dropper for the brightest 
> highlight, used this way, but select a bright value which still has 
> some detail in.
> 
> By setting it to the tone and colour you want, you let the brightest 
> highlights look after themselves (usually specular so beyond any detail 
> anyhow), but PS straightens out a lot of the colour correction.

OK, it seems I really didn't explain this adequately! More requests for 
clarification and here it is:-

> Thanks for the response at your end, BTW. Yes, I double click on the
> highlight eyedropper in Levels and get the box you're describing, with 
> the
> little circle and graduated colors. Guess I'm dense but whether I use 
> the
> eyedropper or move the little circle there is no change in either the
> picture or histogram. I must be missing a step.

Which is the next step! Having selected with the eyedropper what colour 
and tone you want your target area of near-highlight to appear, you must 
then click the eyedropper on that part of the image. Magic ensues.

For example say a subject has light gray hair, but in the image it has a 
blue cast, so looks like a bad blue rinse. Select the light gray it should 
be using the picker, then click on the area of hair you want to fix. PS 
will correct the entire image to sort out the colour rendition so that the 
blue hair now appears the selected, correct gray.

As the eyedropper samples either 1x1 or 3x3 pixels, you may need to try a 
few times to get the best effect.


Regards 

Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner 
info & comparisons

filmscanners: What is 4,000 scanner quality like in practice.

[TREVITHO]

In a message dated 23/5/01 9:28:55 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

<< If you ever want to use your scanner for other purposes (full res scanning
etc., full quality), then you are better off with another more expensive
scanner with ICE or FARE (dust removal algorithms), >>

Apparently some photographers are using 4000 ppi scanners for digital stock 
picture submissions. The new 4000 scanners from Polaroid and Nikon which take 
120 film make this an interesting proposition for me. However, I am concerned 
on several points and Cornwall is not the place to find these scanners in 
action.

Dust seems to be a big concern. Just how much time is spent dust busting a 
scan? A test I did on PCD was giving me about 15 minutes work on dust alone 
which is far too long. 

Does ICE lose scan quality?

Is a cheap, if you call £3,000 cheap, scanner a workable substitute for a 
drum scan?

I can currently get 50Mb CGI drum scans at £7.50 each which are absolutely 
spotless. 

If I got a 4000 desktop scanner of my own it would need to produce about ten 
fully finished scans per hour to be worth considering. Is this possible 
considering the amount of time that dust busting might take?

Yours



Bob Croxford
Cornwall
England

www.atmosphere.co.uk

Re: filmscanners: repro wars (was drum scanning services)

[TREVITHO]

In a message dated 23/5/01 2:24:45 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

<< Bob, I know what you say makes perfect sense - the 150-180LPI screen needs 
no more than ~300dpi at repro size. But the run-ins I have had with these 
guys suggest that they regard 12,000ppi as necessary, because that's what 
they get out of their drums and send to the imagesetter. They frighten 
production eds silly with this sort of nonsense, and I have come across it 
enough to think it isn't just lack of communication or different 
conceptual frameworks of different industries. They just want to hang on 
to magazine scanning as it's their bread and butter. >>

Dear Tony

12,000 ppi is definately not what they send to the image setter.  Image 
setters are quite slow beasts and many repro houses run them through the 
night to get enough use out of them. To get the RIP and Setter to run at its 
fastest the scan will most likely be automatically cut to the minimum 
required. 12,000 lpi is the resolution of some film setters but that is s
omething else altogether. 

I have now done some self publishing via CTP (computer to plate printing) The 
Scitex platemaker changes the entire Quark document and associated TIFFs to a 
special Scitex file which is a bit like a PDF because it includes the text 
instructions too. 115mm x 165mm high quality postcards require and use an 
11Mb Scitex file. An A4 on the same system would be about 30Mb. 

I agree that some repro houses are desperate to hang onto what work they can. 
They lost film makeup with DTP and imposed film output. They are losing 
proofing and film output with CTP. They are also losing scanning work to 
other repro houses who have invested in modern scanners which have much 
greater throughput and can afford lower prices. 

Yours

Bob Croxford
Cornwall
England

www.atmosphere.co.uk

Re: filmscanners: OT-ish - Ektachrome E100VS

[Joel Wilcox]

>From: Mark Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writ in part:
>I admit it was processed by a non-pro lab, so this ain't scientific
>evidence, but I would hesitate to ever use this film again in early morning
>or late afternoon light, esp. now after hearing these comments on the list.

Right, but also don't use Velvia, or probably Provia F, or many other more 
saturated films in such light either.  I would use Astia or plain old 
Elitechrome in those circumstances.

Joel W.
_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

Re: filmscanners: LS4000 reboot problem

[Lloyd O'Daniel]

Do you see a significant real world improvement in scans from the LS4000
over the SS4000?

Lloyd

- Original Message -
From: "Paul Chefurka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 12:03 PM
Subject: filmscanners: LS4000 reboot problem


> I just got a Nikon LS4000 to replace my Polaroid SS4000.  It's a wonderful
scanner, especially when used with Vuescan.
>
> However...  I'm running it on a Win98SE box with 768MB of RAM  Whenever I
reboot my system, if the Firewire cable is plugged in the system hangs about
halfway into the Windows boot.  If I unplug the FW cable it boots properly.
It smells to me like an interrupt problem with the Firewire driver (I
installed Nikon's upgraded driver from the CD).  I tried taking out the SCSI
card that was running my Polaroid to see if there was a conflict, but it
didn't help.
>
> Has anyone else had this problem?  Any trouble-shooting ideas?  Should I
consider upgrading to Win2K?
>
> Paul Chefurka
>

RE: filmscanners: LS4000 reboot problem

[shAf]

Paul writes ...

> ...
>
> ...I'm running it on a Win98SE box with 768MB of
> RAM  Whenever I reboot my system, if the Firewire
> cable is plugged in the system hangs about halfway
> into the Windows boot.  ...

If you have absolutely no need for the SCSI controller, remove it.
You can try putting the FW controller in its location, or swapping the
FW controller with something else.  If FW is anything like ethernet or
SCSI controllers, it may not like sharing an IRQ.  You should first
examine your IRQs with
'start|programs|accessories|system|system information' =>hardware|irqs

Look for something in conflict with the FW...

Your CMOS may be capable of assigning a specific IRQ to the PCI slots
for your IRQ ... and some motherboards insist that certain PCI slots
share IRQs (common for 4 & 5, and 1 & AGP).  You can also try removing
all cards you don't need, and then replacing them one at a time, after
installing the FW 1st.  The procedure would be:

(1)  boot into safe mode
(2)  look for duplicate instances for hardware ... for example, more
than one instance for your AGP video card (right-clik 'my
computer|properties).
(a)  If you see multiple instances, you need remove them all.
(3)  shutdown your computer, and pull all PCI cards ... leave the AGP
video in.
(4)  Reboot into normal mode ... Windows will indicate it has found
new hardware and install the driver (... you should have your Windows
install CD handy ... or know where on the harddisk the hardware
drivers are ... as if you may have downloaded one more recent from the
manufacturer's wwwsite ...)
(5)  Inspect IRQs and your device list ... did FW work? ... take notes
...
(6)  Shutdown and install the next PCI card ... repeat (4)
...
At some point in this process, you may have to read your motherboard
manual, and figure out if you need to assign a specific IRQ to a
specific PCI slot.  If you're computer is anything like mine ... given
its present configuration ... it can have SCSI or Firewire, not both
(... although I do sometimes feel I can sacrifice a sound card very
easily ...)

Windows 2000 will get you very little with respect to hardware ... it
is just as susceptable to a bad driver and hardware conflicts as are
all versions of Windows (It primary advantage is being less
susceptable to bad software).  My feeling is Win98SE has the best
support for hardware.

hth ... shAf  :o)

filmscanners: LS4000 reboot problem

[Paul Chefurka]

I just got a Nikon LS4000 to replace my Polaroid SS4000.  It's a wonderful scanner, 
especially when used with Vuescan.  

However...  I'm running it on a Win98SE box with 768MB of RAM  Whenever I reboot my 
system, if the Firewire cable is plugged in the system hangs about halfway into the 
Windows boot.  If I unplug the FW cable it boots properly.  It smells to me like an 
interrupt problem with the Firewire driver (I installed Nikon's upgraded driver from 
the CD).  I tried taking out the SCSI card that was running my Polaroid to see if 
there was a conflict, but it didn't help.

Has anyone else had this problem?  Any trouble-shooting ideas?  Should I consider 
upgrading to Win2K?

Paul Chefurka

Re: filmscanners: Fast, decent, low res scans

[Phil]

Thank you for the replies on the "how do I make fast, decent low res scans"
question I posted yesterday!

Based on the replies, I've done some more research, and have accumulated the
following information.  I would like share it; I hope it will be useful to
one or more of you.

For making fast, decent low res scans, the Kodak 3570 Plus seems like a
dream.  From Q&A on the Kodak site:

"What are typical scan times for scanning an image?  For 1,000 dpi (50%
resolution), less than 10 seconds. For 2,000 dpi (full resolution), less
than 30 seconds."



This is nice.  The problem is that the best price I've found so far in the
US is $8200 .  I guess this is
what Tony Sleep meant when he said these scanners cost as much as a
reasonable car.

In addition to the fact that the Kodak machine is very expensive, the
maximum resolution is disappointing, given how much it costs and taking into
account the other less expensive scanners on the market.  It seems difficult
for me to understand why so much money doesn't buy you at least the same
resolution you can get with the Polaroid Sprintscan 4000 or the Nikon
LS-4000.

In any case, in terms of scanners that are lower in price, I was very
excited by Jerry Oostrom's post on the Acer Scanwit 2740S.

Jerry wrote that:

> if you ever start thinking about filmscanners and don't want to spend too
> much money initially, you should know that although 'Auto-levels' was said
> to be a Photoshop thing, the Acer Scanwit software called Miraphoto also has
> such a setting (called Auto-density). The Acer scans quite fast using lower
> dpi settings (e.g. 675dpi)...

The very high speed of the lower res scans is something I saw mention of
again from a review of the Acer 2740S at cnet.com:

"...I scan mostly for web and the proposed 675 ppi, well below the maximum
power available, is more than anyone will ever need for digital/web
purposes. Scans are blazing fast at this resolution, something like 5
seconds."

Then I read a review of the Acer Scanwit 2720 (the lower priced version of
the 2740S) that was quite positive- the review is at:


The best price I've seen so far for the Acer Scanwit 2740S in the US is $485
, and less for the
2720 (about $330, but the 2720 doesn't have ICE; also, I believe that the
2720 cannot be used with a Mac).

Jerry, is the 675 ppi scan on the Acer Scanwit 2740S REALLY done in under 10
seconds?

Are there any additional thoughts or leads for me to investigate on other
scanners out there that can make low res scans quickly?  I am obsessed with
making fast low res scans.

Philippe
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nonstock Photography

RE: filmscanners: Any insight on H.P. vs Epson printers

[Lynn Allen]

Lawrence wrote:

>The top of the SJ6300 can be removed easily if you pry out the oval shaped
screw covers near the front (beside the glass panel).  I had to do it when
the new scanner arrived with a layer of paper dust on the inside.

Thanks, Lawrence--that's the answer HP should have provided, but they
didn't! :-(

I finally figured out that the oval covers with holes in them were *not* for
the purpose of depressing nasty spring-loaded retainer clips. They're just
covers. The screws are designed for star-drivers, but a metric Allen wrench
will work (and yes, I totally see the irony, here). It's a bit confusing for
the technically-impaired, like me. ;-)

Cleaning the underside of the glass (which HP urges you not to do, for some
reason) cleared up about 1/3rd of the problem, but I still get
color-banding. I suspect the lamp, but HP is silent on that issue, too.

>They have turned service into a profit centre.  You buy a "service pack"
good for "x" number of calls.  Or an extended warranty.  At one stage, they
even started charging for printer driver upgrades (I believe this has
stopped).

You can probably see me *burning* from where you sit! I din't "cheap out" on
this purchase--could have gotten "nearly as good" for a lot less, so I guess
I expected better. I can appreciate a company's desire to reduce costs and
increase profits, but playing "Gotcha" with customers and gouging them for
service they would normally expect in a well-designed product isn't very
smart. If this is a "trend," it could use some serious rethinking, IMHO.

> We've got several HP Laserjets in the office, and some certainly don't
deserve the "good" label :-(

I appreciate the warning and the input. Thanks.

Best regards--LRA


---
FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com
Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com

RE: filmscanners: drum scanning services

[Laurie Solomon]

I am afraid the message you quote, attribute to me, and respond to is not my
message but the message that I responded to.  My comments were that they
might be demanding smaller files because they did not have as good a
workstation as the original poster which was capable of handling files of
the size the original poster was talking about.

I do believe your response is better and more appropriately directed at the
original poster (PAUL GRAHAM ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) of the message you
quote.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 3:38 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: drum scanning services



In a message dated 22/5/01 8:01:41 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

<<

Every drum scanning bureaux here  (central London) seems to think asking for

a file this big is ridiculous. One suggests 80Mb as a maximum another 120Mb.

Why? Nobody can explain to me why I would want a small file and have the

Lambda RIP invent pixels (sorry, interpolate) to make up the 400 dpi output

needed, when I have real pixels readily available on my large format

negative.

I went to the bother of shooting 5x7" precisely because I wanted the

sharpest and purest tones possible to record. Now I'm being shunted

downstream by drum operators.. >>

Dear Laurie

This is a bit like asking advice in a hi fi showroom. How good are your ears
or in this case eyes? Have you really compared the output from a 480Mb and a
120Mb file? Could you really see the difference?

I have seen scan tests done from 6 x 7 inch transparencies which were if
anything better than the original ektachromes at only 40Mb. USM was applied.
Gene Fisher did an exhibition in Canada with very good (expensive)
sponsorship and worked with the highest quality output in California. His
files were 120Mb if I remember and the prints were big from linhof panoramic
trannies. The important thing is to match the pixel lines exactly with the
output with led printers. I have gone just under your print size and the
file
size was only 56Mb so I have a hunch your calculation is out somewhere.



Bob Croxford
Cornwall
England

www.atmosphere.co.uk

filmscanners: VueScan 7.0.22 Available

[EdHamrick]

I just released VueScan 7.0.22 for Windows, Mac OS and Linux.
It can be downloaded from:

  http://www.hamrick.com/vsm.html

What's new in version 7.0.22

  * Added full support for USB scanners on Mac OS X

  * Improved memory usage on Mac OS X

  * Added HP 7400C support for both CCD sensors
(600 dpi and 2400 dpi)

  * Added 645 film format (6x4.5 cm)

Regards,
Ed Hamrick

Re: filmscanners: OK, Vuescan is driving me nuts

[Tony Sleep]

On Tue, 22 May 2001 19:46:53 -0400 (EDT)  Lynn Allen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 
wrote:

> The eydroppers intimidate the **ll out of me. I guess I'm hoping to see
> "Instant Results" (i.e. feedback), which doesn't always happen. Just 
> got a
> new PS book from the library, from the "Not QUITE for Dummies" series.
> Thanks for the nudge, Tony, I'll work on that.

I am a dummy with PS, don't use much of it at all and keep on discovering 
stuff I never realised existed. I assume there's still tons more I don't 
know about, so I am always wary about posting any advice here, 'cos 
someone is likely to pop up and say 'nah, that's a really silly way to go 
about things'. However I stumbled on this a few months ago having 
accidentally double-clicked on an eyedropper, and it really does help with 
colour negs.

Regards 

Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner 
info & comparisons

filmscanners: Re: Buying a Nikon Coolscan 4000 in the UK

[Cooke, Julie]

Does anyone know what the best deals are in the UK for purchasing one? I've
heard so many good things about this scanner and I've been contemplating
upgrading my LS30 for the past year. 

Currently Speed Graphic and CPW are selling for £1200 inc VAT. Can I get one
cheaper anywhere else? Please don't reply and say the US! 

Thanks

Julie

Re: filmscanners: drum scanning services

[TREVITHO]

In a message dated 22/5/01 8:01:41 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

<< 

Every drum scanning bureaux here  (central London) seems to think asking for

a file this big is ridiculous. One suggests 80Mb as a maximum another 120Mb.

Why? Nobody can explain to me why I would want a small file and have the

Lambda RIP invent pixels (sorry, interpolate) to make up the 400 dpi output

needed, when I have real pixels readily available on my large format

negative.

I went to the bother of shooting 5x7" precisely because I wanted the

sharpest and purest tones possible to record. Now I'm being shunted

downstream by drum operators.. >>

Dear Laurie

This is a bit like asking advice in a hi fi showroom. How good are your ears 
or in this case eyes? Have you really compared the output from a 480Mb and a 
120Mb file? Could you really see the difference? 

I have seen scan tests done from 6 x 7 inch transparencies which were if 
anything better than the original ektachromes at only 40Mb. USM was applied. 
Gene Fisher did an exhibition in Canada with very good (expensive) 
sponsorship and worked with the highest quality output in California. His 
files were 120Mb if I remember and the prints were big from linhof panoramic 
trannies. The important thing is to match the pixel lines exactly with the 
output with led printers. I have gone just under your print size and the file 
size was only 56Mb so I have a hunch your calculation is out somewhere. 



Bob Croxford
Cornwall
England

www.atmosphere.co.uk

Re: filmscanners: which space?

[TREVITHO]

In a message dated 22/5/01 3:05:24 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

<< We don't disagree - I work primarily in LAB and CMYK myself, for both web

and print, but then convert to RGB for final contrast adjustments and to

send to the printer.  >>

Dear Maris

To the best of my knowledge RGB to CMYK is a one way conversion. CMYK to RGB 
although possible will cause problems. Although its OK for web use and ink 
jet printers have you tried litho print when it needs converting back again? 

Bob Croxford
Cornwall
England

www.atmosphere.co.uk

Re: filmscanners: drum scanning services

[TREVITHO]

In a message dated 23/5/01 1:37:56 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

<< 
I think you are right, and they are saying some very strange things. 
Whenever I come across drum operators (in the context of magazine repro), 
they go to great lengths (4 or 5 words) to explain that my puny 4,000ppi 
scans are no good even for a postage stamp headshot, and that they scan 
*everything* at 12,000ppi. Where have you tried? Metro should know what 
they are talking about. >>

Dear Tony

What they might mean is that the sharpness of a $100,000 scanner capable of 
doing 12,000 ppi will give a better result than a 4000 ppi desktop scanner 
even when only 4000lines are needed. A scan at 12,000 would only be employed 
by a repro house for a 40 x 60 inch high quality repro from a 35mm trannie 
but only in the most extreme quality circumstances. For magazine repro 
they'll use much less. 

Bob Croxford
Cornwall
England

www.atmosphere.co.uk

Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street

[TREVITHO]

In a message dated 21/5/01 5:05:05 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

<< This area of law is not my area of expertise - I am a corporate lawyer.  I

know enough to be wary.  I do some street photography and do not get model

releases.  I have always wondered what a model release is anyway.  If I were

to draft one that truly covered my risks, the release would probably be

several pages long. >>

Actually "model releases" cover two different things. The right to expose the 
persons privacy and the right to exploit the image.

If you are dealing with a professional model you are asking for use related 
to commercial exploitation. You probably will have to pay more for a poster 
than a small trade ad. There is a general theory which holds that the more 
work a model gets the less future work they will get. They can often only 
work for one perfume company for instance. This argument cannot be used by a 
non-professional model or a child who is deemed to not suffer financial loss 
of earnings with the publication of their image. This is where invasion of 
privacy seems a bit of a minefield. A few years ago the context had to be 
defamatory or cause actual emotional pain. Now it seems that lawyers get 
called because someone wants to get rich quick. 



Bob Croxford
Cornwall
England

www.atmosphere.co.uk

RE: filmscanners: Fast, decent, low res scans

[Oostrom, Jerry]

Philippe,

filmscanner batch scanning low-res with auto-levels:
if you ever start thinking about filmscanners and don't want to spend too
much money initially, you should know that although 'Auto-levels' was said
to be a Photoshop thing, the Acer Scanwit software called Miraphoto also has
such a setting (called Auto-density). The Acer scans quite fast using lower
dpi settings (e.g. 675dpi), its own scanner software allows batch scanning,
but only to an application I believe. Vuescan is not too expensive and can
help you a lot there. However, batch scanning is only done in batches of six
negatives or four framed dias. It would be good to have 2 slideholders and 2
filmholders for faster batch scanning. 
The Acer Scanwit 2720S has no ICE and the 2740S has, but I don't know if you
will need ICE scanning at such low resolutions for the specific purpose that
you mentioned. The Acer scanwits come with their own SCSI card (at least the
2720S does).
I don't recommend any filmscanner cheaper than the Acer 2720S for your job.

Future other use:
If you ever want to use your scanner for other purposes (full res scanning
etc., full quality), then you are better off with another more expensive
scanner with ICE or FARE (dust removal algorithms), since the Acers have
hardware imposed limitations to the exposure of R,G and B channels (so I've
heard) and can therefore not properly expose negatives and dust is always a
time-consuming problem.

Batch scanning whole films:
If somehow you decide you have more money available then there is a Kodak
scanner that allows you to scan whole filmstrips of 36 frames at a time. It
does not follow your budged though.

Budget flatbed scanners that do film too:
I have no idea here, what the prices are, but I believe there are some Epson
flatbeds that do a good job, and I recently saw an ad in Popular Photography
on a Canon flatbed that does 2400x4800ppi and I believe that was optical. I
don't think it is cheap though.

Jerry

RE: filmscanners: Any insight on H.P. vs Epson printers

[ar164ts]

Lynn Allen wrote:

(This is a delayed response)

Disclaimer:  I used to work for HP, but not in the printer/scanner 
divisions.  My only connection is being a (not very satisfied) customer
and as a supplier of components to the scanners and printer 
divisions.

> Dan wrote:
> 
> >I am looking to buy another printer. I currently have an HP970cxi which
> > has PhotoREt III technology (HP's latest three color + black) and I
> > think it prints great. I have not seen a side by side comparison of the
> > HP's vs the Epson's.
> 
> This is my first opportunity to "sound off" on this issue, but after only
> 18
> months my "loyal" HP Scanjet 6300 is giving me trouble--it needs a good
> cleaning, but their engineers deliberately made it very hard to take
> apart.
> That, IMHO, is bad engineering. So, for that matter, is a product that
> can't
> go beyond 18 months without expensive service (changing oil in a car
> notwithstanding)!

The top of the SJ6300 can be removed easily if you pry out the oval shaped
screw covers near the front (beside the glass panel).  I had to do it
when the new scanner arrived with a layer of paper dust on the inside.

> My point being, re buying an HP printer, is "Caveat Emptor." While HP may
> have a new CEO, their Customer Service is still very "In Your Face." They
> don't want to hear from you to begin with--they have no wats lines, so
> it's
> all toll calls; first there's an endless recorded "menu" and then you're
> on
> endless hold. They also have 900 numbers at $2.50 per minute, or you can
> opt
> for the flat $25 charge. Once the 90-day warranty is up, they don't help
> at
> all.

They have turned service into a profit centre.  You buy a "service pack"
good for "x" number of calls.  Or an extended warranty.  At one stage,
they even started charging for printer driver upgrades (I believe this 
has stopped).

> While HP's printers are good (Canon manufactures them, I've heard), if you
> suspect you might need customer service in the future, you've been warned.

Actually, Canon manufactures the laser engines.  The firmware and final 
assembly is, I think currently, contracted out.  We've got several HP
Laserjets in the office, and some certainly don't deserve the "good" 
label :-(

When I worked with them on the Deskjet 890/895 and 720/722, only the 
design was done in HP, the actual manufacturing was outsourced.  I 
suspect the other major printer companies also outsource their 
manufacturing.

Back to the original topic, I can't really compare the Epson inkjet 
performance.  My only Epson experience was the Stylus 800 
(1992 purchase), and that was an experience I don't want to repeat.


Cheers
Lawrence

-- 
Sent through GMX FreeMail - http://www.gmx.net