Re: filmscanners: open and control
I just came in on this discussion on this note. Interestingly and coincidentally, I was reading "Photogaphy Until Now" by John Szarkowski this morning. My historical comments will of course be colored by what Szarkowski chose to tell me... Part of the popularity of Daguerre's method was the openness compared to Talbot's calotype. However, a large part was due to the product. The daguerratype astounded people. It was something new and different. The calotype was more of an extension of existing art at the time. Despite its popularity, the daguerreotype rather quickly reached the limits of its "technology". The demise of the daguerreotype was due to more than it's "openness". Modern photography can trace its roots to Talbot. After about 1850, both methods were superceded by the wet plate method. Wet plate ruled photography for the next 30 years. Aound 1880, wet plate was surplanted by the dry plate method, which was developed by many and popularized by Eastman. With wet plate, the photographer was required to control the entire process. Essentially, he had to create the plate, expose it and then develop it all on the spot. With dry plate, the chemistry became so difficult that the creation of the plate and often the developing was done by a third party. George Eastman made that third party ubiquitously Kodak. To paraphrase Szarkowski, after the adoption of dry plate, the methods and materials available to photographers were what Kodak and the other photographic companies decided to supply them. While the hard ball tactics of George Eastman and Kodak are legendary, they don't extend back in time to Daguerre and Fox Talbot ;). Anyway, I found it interesting... Andrew Robinson Lynn Allen wrote: > > Bob Croxford wrote (very interestingly): > > > Daguerre was paid a pension by the French government to make his invention > free to everyone, (except the Brits). Fox Talbot on the other hand > controlled everything through his rigid patents. The result was that no one > tried to circumvent the daguerreotype while lots of inventors tried, and > succeeded, in > circumventing Talbot's patents. The result was a huge boost to neg/pos > photography while Daguerre's ideas stayed in a cul-de-sac. > > This is a story that I haven't read up on sufficiently, to my lasting shame. > I know I *really* should stay out of this one, but you all knew I'd be drawn > in, didn't you? ;-) > > It seems to me that George Eastman circumvented Talbot's and other patents > very successfully vis-a-vis sensitized-paper and celuloid negatives--and > then proceded to take over or eliminate almost every other film and > camera-maker in the USA within a short span of time. This probably relates > more to the variations of the nations' laws than to the hypotheses at hand, > viz "control" vs. "open," IMO. >
Re: filmscanners: VueScan Question
Or use the "Scan memory" button instead of "Scan" (as long as it's still the most recent scan you've made and you haven't closed down the program to release the memory) - Vuescan will hold the most recent scan in raw form in memory for this purpose. Maris - Original Message - From: "Rob Geraghty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2001 10:48 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: VueScan Question | "Walter Bushell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | > Is it necessary to rescan with infrared every time, IOW, when doing | > multiple scans of the same film is it necessary to do an IR scan every | > time? | | If you want to have the cleaning features in Vuescan work, you need | the IR channel. Bu there's no need to rescan a frame. Scan it once, | produce a raw file then crop from the raw file. | | Rob | |
Re: filmscanners: VueScan Question
"Walter Bushell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is it necessary to rescan with infrared every time, IOW, when doing > multiple scans of the same film is it necessary to do an IR scan every > time? If you want to have the cleaning features in Vuescan work, you need the IR channel. Bu there's no need to rescan a frame. Scan it once, produce a raw file then crop from the raw file. Rob
filmscanners: Used Nikon LS-20 for sale
Hi folks, I've been lurking here for a few weeks - now stepping out! The amount of traffic on this list is sometimes a little daunting. But I have already learned a lot - thank you to everybody. Now on to more tangible matters: My 2-year-old Nikon LS-20 w/ SilverFast is for sale at DM300 (US$150, GBP100) + shipping, w/ original packaging & Silverfast CD. It sometimes makes subtle stripes in the very dark areas of a slide (that's the reason why I recently bought a Polaroid SS4000... quite happy with it!). I had it serviced by Nikon a couple of weeks ago (cost me DM351), they say these results are "normal" and due "to the technical limitations of an 8-bit scanner". Thus, according to Nikon, the scanner is in perfect working condition. (If you ask me [or my photo gear supplier], that's a bunch of BS.) However, this scanner makes perfect scans of negatives and of well-lit slides. If there's anybody on this list with a tight budget and seeking to get into the subject matter without having to sell mom's cottage, please email me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thnaks and best regards, Karsten --- EDV-Beratung Karsten Petersen Karolinenstrasse 32 20357 Hamburg GERMANY email [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone +49-40-437472 Fax +49-40-435196
RE: filmscanners: open and control
Bob Croxford wrote (very interestingly): > Daguerre was paid a pension by the French government to make his invention free to everyone, (except the Brits). Fox Talbot on the other hand controlled everything through his rigid patents. The result was that no one tried to circumvent the daguerreotype while lots of inventors tried, and succeeded, in circumventing Talbot's patents. The result was a huge boost to neg/pos photography while Daguerre's ideas stayed in a cul-de-sac. This is a story that I haven't read up on sufficiently, to my lasting shame. I know I *really* should stay out of this one, but you all knew I'd be drawn in, didn't you? ;-) It seems to me that George Eastman circumvented Talbot's and other patents very successfully vis-a-vis sensitized-paper and celuloid negatives--and then proceded to take over or eliminate almost every other film and camera-maker in the USA within a short span of time. This probably relates more to the variations of the nations' laws than to the hypotheses at hand, viz "control" vs. "open," IMO. There's no question that Eastman-Kodak exerted every bit of "control" they could muster or buy, and squashed any "upstart" that dared rear their ugly head--Universal Cameras in the '40's, for example. Ansco managed to hold out the longest, but is gone now except for the name. Eastman and Kodak did in fact start an "Industry" of affordable photography for people who otherwise wouldn't have done it. They even produced some good cameras (largely under pressure from European manufacturers--since they'd eliminated their local competition, who made better and much more beautiful cameras). But they haven't produced a "good" camera for a long time. So, is Eastman Kodak supposed to be the ideal model for "control?" If you'd bought their stock in 1920 (or whenever you first could buy stock), you'd be rich now. On the other hand, if you'd bought their cameras, you'd only have some fuzzy-focused negs to show for it! I understand what Dick's saying--if you don't consider "profit," you won't be around very long, any more than you'd change the world if you don't win the election. That aside, if you insist on "control" without wisdom and insight, you'll wind up an "R.J.Reynolds Tobacco Co." with nothing but your money to comfort you as the barbarians batter down the gates. :-) Yes, having it "both" ways is best. Daguerre will always be remembered as the Father of Photography, although Fox Talbot beat him to it. What will Bill Gates be remembered as? "The Man Who Forestalled the Future?" or "The Man Who Ripped-Off Everybody?" Show of hands. As I said, I should have stayed out of this--but it's too damned important to dummy-up about. If we *have* a future, it should be open enough to explore and expand upon. And screw Bill--he's got enough. His prosperity is well taken care of. It's his *posterity* he needs to be concerned about. ;-) Best regards--LRA --Original Message-- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: June 2, 2001 8:15:21 PM GMT Subject: filmscanners: open and control In a message dated 2/6/01 4:05:12 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << The "Open" advocates seem to favor "freedom" (in a product/market sense), and strongly believe that growth and innovation is greater this way than with the "Control" people's way. They also seem to be less aware of, or concerned with profits, and are more willing to invest their energies based on passion rather than some assurances of payoff. "Standards" are an anathema.>> Dear Dick In the earliest days of photography these two ideas fought it out. Daguerre was paid a pension by the French government to make his invention free to everyone, (except the Brits). Fox Talbot on the other hand controlled everything through his rigid patents. The result was that no one tried to circumvent the daguerreotype while lots of inventors tried, and succeeded, in circumventing Talbot's patents. The result was a huge boost to neg/pos photography while Daguerre's ideas stayed in a cul-de-sac. The history of photography seems to be against your hypothesis. Sticking with photography it was Agfa who gave us colour film we could process ourselves while Kodak believed emphatically in the idea of a hugely expensive factory owned Kodachrome line. Which idea is winning now? Kodak also launched the PhotoCD and hasn't yet learnt the value of the home scanner market. Another moral is what happened to Radstock Repro who spent 1.5 million pounds on a closed architecture digital scanner and film output system a few years ago. They promptly went bust when someone had the bright idea of plugging a Mac into existing scanners and invented Photoshop and Quark. 85,000 pounds bought a better, more flexible system which unbelievably did typesetting AS WELL! Yours Bob Croxford Cornwall England www.atmosphere.co.uk --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www
filmscanners: LS-4000 First Impressions WAS - Nikon Scan 3.0 crashes under Win98 SE
At 23:36 02-06-01 +0200, Manfred E. Bendisch wrote: >today I've received my new Nikon LS-4000. What a difference compared to my >old HP photosmart. >The problem is that the Nikon scanner software (Nikon Scan 3.0) constantly >crashes, especially >when I try to use ICE or other advanced features. I'm running Windows 98 >Second Edition. >Any ideas what might be wrong? I picked up my Nikon LS-4000 in Atlanta on Tuesday and am still getting familiar with it. I found that NikonScan is very unstable when used stand-alone. It can scan only one time and then it crashes. However, when I use its TWAIN module inside of Photoshop 6 it never crashes. I'm scanning a 40-year-old badly faded filmstrip with everything turned on, ICE, GEM, and especially ROC. The results so far have enthralled me. The original frames are so faded that they project in a dull nearly monochromatic reddish tone. The Nikon literally makes them look as good as new. I'll post some samples on the Web in a few days for list members to check out. Getting back to the crash issue: NikonScan (NS) appears to have serious problems with both memory and disk management. I tried Vuescan on a few slides and noticed that it saved files nearly twice as fast as NS did. Photoshop also saves files much faster than NS does. And Vuescan didn't crash, btw. Vuescan's equivalents to ROC and ICE are also much faster than NS's routines. I'm running Windows 2000/SP1 on a Dell Precision Workstation 420 with dual 933 MHz Piii CPUs and 768 MB RDRAM. Processing times are about 10% faster than those listed in the Nikon manual. That's still pretty slow but an acceptable trade-off for the magic that it does with damaged and faded film. Oddly, after exiting NS and Photoshop the system has about 50 MB more available RAM than it had before starting those applications. Despite that interesting anomaly the system doesn't become unstable. However, this indicates that NS has some serious bugs. Some suggestions for Win98 users: place both the TEMP folder and the system swapfile on any partition except C: (for efficiency) and make it a fixed size to prevent fragmentation. You can find out how to do that on scores of Windows performance tweak sites. Defrag your partitions before attempting to do very large scans. Think about expanding RAM to 512 MB. That's the maximum that Win98 can use because of a Microsoft bug that has never been fixed. Create multiple Photoshop swap files on different partitions. Upgrade to Win2K if possible. A few initial impressions: Don't try Digital ICE with Kodachrome. NS adds halos around the darker shadow areas and is totally ineffective. Vuescan does a better job with Kodachrome and doesn't have the halo problem. Old Fujichrome slides appear slightly greenish when scanned but it's correctable in PS. Nikon should have provided a way to store the film adapters and not just fragile plastic baggies. Given the price that I paid for the scanner this is very tacky. They should provide a case for them plus a dust cover for the scanner. On all but Kodachromes ICE and ROC seem to work better in NS than in Vuescan. I've scanned about 40 slides so far all of which needed ICE. The FH3 strip film attachment holds even badly curved film flat and I'm not seeing any edge sharpness issues so far. More to come . . . Cary Enoch Reinstein aka Enoch's Vision, Inc., Peach County, Georgia http://www.enochsvision.com/ http://www.bahaivision.com/ -- "Behind all these manifestations is the one radiance, which shines through all things. The function of art is to reveal this radiance through the created object." ~Joseph Campbell
RE: filmscanners: LS-4000 - Nikon Scan 3.0 crashes under Win98 SE
>The problem is that the Nikon scanner software (Nikon Scan 3.0) constantly >crashes, especially >when I try to use ICE or other advanced features. I'm running Windows 98 >Second Edition. >Any ideas what might be wrong? Yes I think these are known problems. Though I do not have LS 4000 but Coolscan IV it uses the same soft. Mine crashes mostly when cropping is used. However it never crashed when used as plugin to Photoshop... Also it is very sensitive to another applications running in the background (Corel, Outllok, IE Explorer) especially when switching back to Nikonscan window (W98 SE PII 450 MHZ 380 MB RAM). Scanner color space doesn't work properly with GEM and not only with it, cropping as mentioned is problem, previewing image with ICE set on only - making the tonal correction and then switching to GEM not ROC will involve ROC as well - you have to redraw the picture to get the correct colors - which is time consuming , LCH editor Chroma option doesn't work even when on screen is everything OK etc. I am eagerly looking forward for the patch. Vlad --- Odchozí zpráva neobsahuje viry. Zkontrolováno antivirovým systémem AVG (http://www.grisoft.cz). Verze: 6.0.256 / Virová báze: 129 - datum vydání: 31.5.2001
filmscanners: LS-4000 - Nikon Scan 3.0 crashes under Win98 SE
Hello list members, today I've received my new Nikon LS-4000. What a difference compared to my old HP photosmart. The problem is that the Nikon scanner software (Nikon Scan 3.0) constantly crashes, especially when I try to use ICE or other advanced features. I'm running Windows 98 Second Edition. Any ideas what might be wrong? Thanks, Manfred.
Re: filmscanners: VueScan 7.0.25 Available
In a message dated 6/2/2001 12:10:10 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I have to ask, does the Nikon LS4000 now work under OS8 and 9? No, it doesn't. I'm planning on adding support for FireWire on Mac OS X only. Regards, Ed Hamrick
filmscanners: open and control
In a message dated 2/6/01 4:05:12 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << The "Open" advocates seem to favor "freedom" (in a product/market sense), and strongly believe that growth and innovation is greater this way than with the "Control" people's way. They also seem to be less aware of, or concerned with profits, and are more willing to invest their energies based on passion rather than some assurances of payoff. "Standards" are an anathema.>> Dear Dick In the earliest days of photography these two ideas fought it out. Daguerre was paid a pension by the French government to make his invention free to everyone, (except the Brits). Fox Talbot on the other hand controlled everything through his rigid patents. The result was that no one tried to circumvent the daguerreotype while lots of inventors tried, and succeeded, in circumventing Talbot's patents. The result was a huge boost to neg/pos photography while Daguerre's ideas stayed in a cul-de-sac. The history of photography seems to be against your hypothesis. Sticking with photography it was Agfa who gave us colour film we could process ourselves while Kodak believed emphatically in the idea of a hugely expensive factory owned Kodachrome line. Which idea is winning now? Kodak also launched the PhotoCD and hasn't yet learnt the value of the home scanner market. Another moral is what happened to Radstock Repro who spent 1.5 million pounds on a closed architecture digital scanner and film output system a few years ago. They promptly went bust when someone had the bright idea of plugging a Mac into existing scanners and invented Photoshop and Quark. 85,000 pounds bought a better, more flexible system which unbelievably did typesetting AS WELL! Yours Bob Croxford Cornwall England www.atmosphere.co.uk
filmscanners: VueScan Question
Dear Mr. Hamrick: Is it necessary to rescan with infrared every time, IOW, when doing multiple scans of the same film is it necessary to do an IR scan every time? With my ScanWit 2740 scanner it takes about 35 minutes to do a 16 pass scan (including the 16 IR scans), with a 666* Pentium III and 128 MB ram. With 48 bit scanning and heavy cleanup it does a great job on my problem film, but for a 4 fram shot its go take a walk time. * Dell says 667, but we really know what's happening.
filmscanners: remove please
Hi, how do I get off the list?
Re: filmscanners: VueScan 7.0.25 Available
At 01:01 PM 6/1/01 -0400, you wrote: >I just released VueScan 7.0.25 for Windows, Mac OS 8/9/X and Linux. >It can be downloaded from: > > http://www.hamrick.com/vsm.html > >What's new in version 7.0.25 > > * Added support for Nikon SA-30 roll film adapter > > * Fixed problem with HP 5300C firmware version 4.00 > > * Fixed problem with negatives and Canon FS2710 > > * Fixed problem with QuickScan 35 and negatives > > * Added 'vers' resource to Mac OS version > >Regards, >Ed Hamrick Ed I have to ask, does the Nikon LS4000 now work under OS8 and 9? Thanks! Tan
Re: filmscanners: Minolta Dual II banding - OT
"Something to be said" (Art - below) is a mite of an understatement; and the core of probably the greatest emotions in this industry. "Control" means either strict "Standards", or monopoly, or "de facto" standard. "Open" means individualizing, customizing, "open-ended alterations", unencumbered by "Controls". The passions seem to be divided by those who favor "Controls", and those who favor "Open", with only a few who seem to want it both ways, or say so seriously. The "Control" advocates seem to be longer range thinkers, who have a strong value in predictability, and planning. Also strong feeling about the notion of profitability. The "Open" advocates seem to favor "freedom" (in a product/market sense), and strongly believe that growth and innovation is greater this way than with the "Control" people's way. They also seem to be less aware of, or concerned with profits, and are more willing to invest their energies based on passion rather than some assurances of payoff. "Standards" are an anathema. There is no doubt that the entire computer industry started with "Open" people. There is no doubt that the entire industry is moving (has moved) to "Control". And, There is no doubt (IMO), as the bulk of the industry moves into a commodity mode, that only the "Control" people will survive. The reasons are alluded to by Art (below), that fragmentation, lack of conformance, lack of standards, will ultimately pull everything down. And result in marketplace confusion. With regard to innovation, IMO the best situation, with regard to innovation, and profitability is that of what is called an Oligopoly, or a "shared" monopoly where there are strict standards, controls, and proprietary software/hardware but the market is split by two major entities, who compete directly or indirectly. In this situation there are sufficient profits to support innovation, yet standards - de facto or real - to prevent sprawl and confusion. A situation we really have with Apple and Microsoft eventhough Apple has only 5% of the world market. An interesting leverage, to say the least. All the subsegments will migrate to the same ultimate situation: Oligopoly. Not too bad an outcome, IMO. But I certainly wouldn't invest in the "Open" products. Anybody want to continue this please do it direct. >Sadly, I suspect you are right about each PC being its own DNA code >(to paraphrase), and we all know what percentage of success doctors >run. > >It is obvious to most of us who use the equipment that this system >of everyone writing their own software, changing libraries, and >confounding hardware and firmware codes, and parameters, isn't >making life any easier. As much as I used to complain about limited >market options (and therefore large costs) for Amiga peripherals and >software (and I suppose this is also true of Apple) there is >something to be said for a controlled environment, especially if the >software is going to be close-coded. > > >Seems to me, something is going to have to give eventually, or the >frustration levels, not only of users, but even of manufacturers and >service providers, is going to become unbearable. > >Art > > >Ramesh Kumar_C wrote: > >>Hi >> I too have Minolta Dual II scanner. Before buying, I was really >>confident about this model but not now. >>My scanner gives "Holder not set properly" error and stops scanning until >>you reinstall the software or reboot the PC(I got this within 2 weeks of its >>purchase). >>I sent the scanner to Minolta for repairing. Minolta said it is not able to >>reproduce the problem and returned it back. It was just waste of >>shipping charges and cell-phone-minutes (I waited a lot >>to speak to Minolta support on their 1-800 number). >> >>I do not blame Minolta for this because, this problem may happen only on my >>PC.(As a software guy I have experienced such cases) >>The software/hardware companies have really complicated the world with thier >>own standards; it is not surprising if each PC has its own unique >>finger print. >> >>Thanks >>Ramesh >> >> >>-Original Message- >>From: Vladislav Jurco [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >>Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 3:05 PM >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Subject: RE: filmscanners: Minolta Dual II banding >> >> >>>ART wrote >> >> >>>Obviously, this is disconcerting. One thing I am wondering about, >>>without trying to make excuses (I have been suggesting this model to >>>people based upon the reports I have heard until recently)... what is >>>the voltage your part of the world.. >> >> >>>.Did your dealer indicate the defect you experienced is a common >> >>problem? >> >>> Could it be your home voltage is too high relative to "normal"? Since >>>it is USB poorly regulated computer power supplies could also be at >>>fault, but I''m mainly thinking of the power supply of the unit itself. >> >> >>Hi Art >>Central Europe - 220 V/50 cycles. >>My dealer only sells (I-shop). Local Minolta peop
filmscanners: remove
Remove
