Re: filmscanners: which scanner for slides ? ( SCSI vs USB )
If you want to turn on your SCSI device after your computer is already booted, No problem. Just right click on MY COMPUTER, left click on properties,select DEVICE Manager tab and left click on REFRESH and then OK. This is for a windows machine. I don't know what you need to do for an Apple machine. Regards, Ron - Original Message - From: Steve Greenbank [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 5:08 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: which scanner for slides ? 3. Minolta may be USB, but USB devices has the advantage of being hot-swappable which means they can be turned on after the computer has been booted, and it will be detected. If I remember correctly, SCSI devices need to be turned on before you boot the system, in order for the SCSI controller to detect it. Generally in Win 9x/ME you can turn any device on and go to device manager of system properties and click on refresh and the device will work. Remember with USB you can take your scanner anywhere and plug it into any modern machine - you'll probably need to install some drivers as well. The downside is speed and some USB devices don't like some USB controllers. My USB controller on a Via KT133 motherboard is a complete PITA. Steve
RE: filmscanners: which scanner for slides ? ( SCSI vs USB )
I dont think that will work, as many SCSI devices have to be seen by the SCSI BIOS on boot up. -- James Grove [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.jamesgrove.co.uk http://www.mountain-photos.co.uk ICQ 99737573 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ron Carlson Sent: 04 June 2001 06:32 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: which scanner for slides ? ( SCSI vs USB ) If you want to turn on your SCSI device after your computer is already booted, No problem. Just right click on MY COMPUTER, left click on properties,select DEVICE Manager tab and left click on REFRESH and then OK. This is for a windows machine. I don't know what you need to do for an Apple machine. Regards, Ron - Original Message - From: Steve Greenbank [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 5:08 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: which scanner for slides ? 3. Minolta may be USB, but USB devices has the advantage of being hot-swappable which means they can be turned on after the computer has been booted, and it will be detected. If I remember correctly, SCSI devices need to be turned on before you boot the system, in order for the SCSI controller to detect it. Generally in Win 9x/ME you can turn any device on and go to device manager of system properties and click on refresh and the device will work. Remember with USB you can take your scanner anywhere and plug it into any modern machine - you'll probably need to install some drivers as well. The downside is speed and some USB devices don't like some USB controllers. My USB controller on a Via KT133 motherboard is a complete PITA. Steve
filmscanners: Nikon LS-30 Coolscan III makes scratches on negatives
Using the Coolscan III for scanning negatives I sometimes notice scratches after the scan. Sometimes when I scan negatives with 4 pictures, the next to the last one gets scratched in longitudinal direction. I thought that these scratches are caused by extremely bent negatives. Unfortunately the LS-30 is not long enough, so the negatives are bent and rolled up at the end of the scanning unit. The turn round is made by some plastics parts which probably cause the scratches when the negatives are bent too much. I was satisfied with that explanation and tried to smooth down the negatives before scanning. However, processing the last two films I noticed straight scratches across the whole film strip. Does anyone have the same problems? Or even an explanation and cure? I would really appreciate! I am tired of ruining all my films ;-) Thanks! Regards, Walter Nowotny (Vienna)
filmscanners: RE: Nikon LS-40 Coolscan 4
Anyone else find there Coolscan IV noisey? -- James Grove [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.jamesgrove.co.uk http://www.mountain-photos.co.uk ICQ 99737573
Re: filmscanners: LS4000 slide removed from mount
Peter Marquis-Kyle wrote: Arthur Entlich wrote As some may know, almost all viewfinders, except one Contax and a couple of older Nikons (F2, I think) and maybe one other camera which give 100% view of what ends up on the film) The vast majority of camera view finders show only 92-96% of the image which is recorded to the film frame. The reason viewfinders do not show the whole frame is because the exception that the images will either be mounted in slide mounts or cropped during printing by the film carrier. So, unless you are using one of a very small group of cameras, that extra edge of the frame wasn't supposed to be in your composition anyway, and was a bonus that didn't show in your viewfinder. Quite right as a general observation, Art. And thanks for the information that there is a Contax SLR with a 100% viewfinder -- I didn't know about that. I can add the Leicaflex to your list, and the three models of the Canon F-1. And maybe Leicas in the R series, and perhaps the Pentax LX? Ah, some more make the list. OK, I obviously was too severe in my comment ;-) Let's just say that most mid priced SLR cameras, are not likely to come with 100% viewfinders, and that more likely, cameras which do have them, are top of the line models... The feature costs $$, so only the creme of the crop gets that I agree with you that the real reason behind the mid and lower end cameras not being 100% was due to cost of trying to calibrate accurate viewfinders to film frame. The 92-86% numbers (I've even read of 90% or 89%) do allow for quite a fudge factor in the design. Art
Re: filmscanners: which scanner for slides ? ( SCSI vs USB )
In 01c0ecc2$a1908ef0$6401a8c0@jamesg, James Grove wrote: I dont think that will work, as many SCSI devices have to be seen by the SCSI BIOS on boot up. It certainly does *not* work on my Windows 98 machine - the SCSI devices all have to be on at boot-up. Brian Rumary, England http://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm
Re: filmscanners: open and control
Brian wrote: Eastman did _not_ evade Talbot's patents, as they had expired by the time he got into the photo business. At that time British patents lasted 16 years and I believe that Talbot invented his Calotype paper negative process about 1849. 1849 sounds about right to me (possibly earlier), without looking it up on Internet Time. :-) I carefully chose the words circumvented (not evade) and other patents because I frankly don't know *what* patents might or might not have been infringed, evaded, dodged, or circumvented--but *do* know that Eastman and/or Kodak was not above doing it (see: Polaroid Land Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co., c.1985). :-) In turn-of-the-century USA, there was a certain amount of lattitude in the enforcement of patents, and some of it was right out of the Wild West! (Example: Colt's constant court battles to protect his six-shooter). My old Kodak No.2 Bullet box camera (dated 1895) was designed to take both glass plates and roll film. I don't know who held the patents for roll film at the time, since several inventors were working on it (it's widely credited to Eastman), but the Model 1 Kodak (String) Camera, made by Frank Brownell for the Eastman Dry Plate and Film Co. c.June,1888, used a paper-based emulsion and was factory-loaded with a 100-picture roll that was returned to the factory for development and printing. My 1895 Bullet is clearly designed to hold a removable 101-size film roll, which was developed c. 1891-1895 (this I *did* have to look up--nb: my Britanica gives numerous dates, not *all* of which could possibly be right). George Eastman probably bought the patents for this process outright. Thomas Edison promptly used the invention to develop his kinetiscope, and the patent disputes with the Lumieres and others over *that one* are legendary, too. ;-) I think Ansco were killed by the fiasco of Anscochrome colour film. As I understand it this was brought out in the fifties. Ansco was a player in US photography for a very long time, though never as big as Kodak. Starting with a camera supply manufacture begun in 1842 by Edward Anthony, it merged with Scovill Adams in 1902 and the name shortened to Ansco in 1907. It then merged with Agfa Kamerawerke in 1928 and became Agfa-Ansco. In later years, this became GAF, which is still a power. I have a 1910 Dollar box and a plastic hotpix 110 pocket camera that I bought new in 1994. So they're still around, but seeing the name Ansco is a real rarity, anymore. Agfa film is still popular--except among some filmscanners. ;-) As for US-made cameras being killed off by Kodak, I think it is much more a case of them being wiped out first by the Germans and then the Japanese. That bit of common knowledge is probably very oversimplified. Kodak had a virtual monopoly on cameras and film for the US Armed Forces during WWII (that's not to say other cameras weren't used, because they were). During that time, I'm told, it was possible for competitors to ease into the market because Kodak was busy elsewhere. Universal Camera was one, Argus was another (both strted in the late 30's). Bell Howell had acquired a nitch in movie cameras, projectors and camera supplies. And Ansco, of course. After the war, Kodak was fat sassy, beefed up by the government contracts, and quick to go after their lost market share. Universal was the first to go--Kodak simply quit making film for their little compact movie camera! They made a stereo camera as late as 1954, but it nevery really caught on. Argus had almost ruled the roost for reasonably-priced 35mm with its C-Series bricks (Kodak did have the very good Retina, which was smaller, lighter...and German-made; and the Ektra-- these were in very short supply and cost $300 in the 1940's--the eauivalent of $3000 or more in today's economy). In the late 40's/early 50's, Kodak brought out a series of small, light, cheap 127 and 35mm cameras, and Argus lasted until about 1961 as a manufacturer. This was about when well-made Japanese cameras started appearing in the US (the Germans a little earlier--they didn't have to reverse-engineer anything). But it would be a stretch to say that's what forced Argus out, any more than that's why Kodak didn't make a good camera after the Retina. They just didn't keep up--for whatever reasons. Hubris, I'd call it, for want of a better word. As for BellHowell, their nitch was more secure than the others, and they continued to make movie cameras and the Cube slide projector into the 1980's--I have one. I can also state from experience that their service policies resembled the horror stories we've recently discussed about our scanners, and their business followed that poor service--right into the toilet. Whether they manufacture anything today, I couldn't tell you. And so, Boys and Girls, the point of my story is, Whatever Goes around, Comes around. Last winter, Kodak laid off 400 workers in Rochester (and Rochester is a *bad* place to be out of work in the
Re: filmscanners: Nikon LS-30 Coolscan III makes scratches on negatives
You appear to have deduced the cause of the scratches that appear using the feeder. The film strip holder is much better in every aspect except convenience:)) The feeder also doesn't get the film flat enough! In other words, it's 'one-hour' quality, don't use it unless you're just doing quick snaps. Dave - Original Message - From: Walter Nowotny [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 2:48 AM Subject: filmscanners: Nikon LS-30 Coolscan III makes scratches on negatives Using the Coolscan III for scanning negatives I sometimes notice scratches after the scan. Sometimes when I scan negatives with 4 pictures, the next to the last one gets scratched in longitudinal direction. I thought that these scratches are caused by extremely bent negatives. Unfortunately the LS-30 is not long enough, so the negatives are bent and rolled up at the end of the scanning unit. The turn round is made by some plastics parts which probably cause the scratches when the negatives are bent too much. I was satisfied with that explanation and tried to smooth down the negatives before scanning. However, processing the last two films I noticed straight scratches across the whole film strip. Does anyone have the same problems? Or even an explanation and cure? I would really appreciate! I am tired of ruining all my films ;-) Thanks! Regards, Walter Nowotny (Vienna)
Re: filmscanners: LS4000 slide removed from mount
Moreno Polloni wrote: As some may know, almost all viewfinders, except one Contax and a couple of older Nikons (F2, I think) and maybe one other camera which give 100% view of what ends up on the film) The vast majority of camera view finders show only 92-96% of the image which is recorded to the film frame. Just a correction: every Nikon I've used (F3, F4, F5) has had 100% viewfinder coverage. And as far as I'm aware, so does the Canon EOS IV and most of it's predecessors. Thanks to all for correcting my statement. It appears the 100% club is larger than memory served me. It is still the top of the line products, principally, but not as exclusive as I stated, for sure. For sake of interest, Popular Photo rated their F3 test camera at 98.8% horizontally by 99.2% vertically. I guess that's about as close to 100% as one can expect. Art
Re: filmscanners: Nikon LS-30 Coolscan III makes scratches on negatives
That's incredible. I thought only HP was asleep at the switch on this, with their HP Photosmart and S-20, both of which will destroy your sixth frame if you use a full 6 frame film strip. HP finally made the software limit intake to 4 or 5 neg strips to resolve the problem. Art Walter Nowotny wrote: Using the Coolscan III for scanning negatives I sometimes notice scratches after the scan. Sometimes when I scan negatives with 4 pictures, the next to the last one gets scratched in longitudinal direction. I thought that these scratches are caused by extremely bent negatives. Unfortunately the LS-30 is not long enough, so the negatives are bent and rolled up at the end of the scanning unit. The turn round is made by some plastics parts which probably cause the scratches when the negatives are bent too much. I was satisfied with that explanation and tried to smooth down the negatives before scanning. However, processing the last two films I noticed straight scratches across the whole film strip. Does anyone have the same problems? Or even an explanation and cure? I would really appreciate! I am tired of ruining all my films ;-) Thanks! Regards, Walter Nowotny (Vienna)
RE: filmscanners: CoolScan IV
Any find there CoolScan IV a bit noisey? -- James Grove [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.jamesgrove.co.uk http://www.mountain-photos.co.uk ICQ 99737573
Re: filmscanners: which scanner for slides ? ( SCSI vs USB )
Hot Swappable means only one thing: It can be plugged/un-plugged while the computer (and the cable connection) is in operation and active. Firewire (1394) and USB have that property. SCSI does not, although you can optain special connectors that allow hot-swappability at those connections, but you need to know what you are doing. On Apple Macs, you can turn on or off all SCSI (notice I didn't say unplug or plug) devices anytime. Harddrives (external) will need to be mounted if turned on after the computer is booted. Execute mounting software utility. Ditto for unmounting. Scanners however will become active on SCSI connections immediately without doing anything, even if not on initially when the computer boots. Auto recognition built in Apple OS without special drivers. Hot Swappability is only built into USB and 1394 IEEE standard, not SCSI, albiet the special purchase connectors that allow such connectors without high risk of frying your SCSI PCI board or your motherboard. Or, causing massive errors and crashing of your SCSI hardrives. Can't speak for ATA, EID drives, but generally speaking most parallel protocol communication technology can't be hot swapped. 1394 and USB are serial technology. If you want to turn on your SCSI device after your computer is already booted, No problem. Just right click on MY COMPUTER, left click on properties,select DEVICE Manager tab and left click on REFRESH and then OK. This is for a windows machine. I don't know what you need to do for an Apple machine. Regards, Ron - Original Message - From: Steve Greenbank [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 5:08 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: which scanner for slides ? 3. Minolta may be USB, but USB devices has the advantage of being hot-swappable which means they can be turned on after the computer has been booted, and it will be detected. If I remember correctly, SCSI devices need to be turned on before you boot the system, in order for the SCSI controller to detect it. Generally in Win 9x/ME you can turn any device on and go to device manager of system properties and click on refresh and the device will work. Remember with USB you can take your scanner anywhere and plug it into any modern machine - you'll probably need to install some drivers as well. The downside is speed and some USB devices don't like some USB controllers. My USB controller on a Via KT133 motherboard is a complete PITA. Steve
Re: filmscanners: LS4000 slide removed from mount
Enoch's Vision, Inc. (Cary Enoch R...) wrote: At 23:40 02-06-01 -0700, Arthur Entlich wrote: As some may know, almost all viewfinders, except one Contax and a couple of older Nikons (F2, I think) and maybe one other camera which give 100% view of what ends up on the film) The vast majority of camera view finders show only 92-96% of the image which is recorded to the film frame. Just FYI, the Canon EOS1n and EOS-1v have this ability. I use the former for copy work and rely on the 100% viewfinder feature extensively. I never shoot images all the way to the edge but with the 100% viewfinder coverage I don't have to worry about it either. I believe the Nikon F4 and F5 have the same capability. Thanks for the update. I admit to being out of touch on this matter in newer cameras. I'm glad to see some of the manufacturers have gone back to the 100% viewfinder. Art
Re: filmscanners: which scanner for slides ? ( SCSI vs USB )
That works on mine. Geoff - Original Message - From: James Grove [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 4:50 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: which scanner for slides ? ( SCSI vs USB ) I dont think that will work, as many SCSI devices have to be seen by the SCSI BIOS on boot up. -- James Grove [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.jamesgrove.co.uk http://www.mountain-photos.co.uk ICQ 99737573 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ron Carlson Sent: 04 June 2001 06:32 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: which scanner for slides ? ( SCSI vs USB ) If you want to turn on your SCSI device after your computer is already booted, No problem. Just right click on MY COMPUTER, left click on properties,select DEVICE Manager tab and left click on REFRESH and then OK. This is for a windows machine. I don't know what you need to do for an Apple machine. Regards, Ron - Original Message - From: Steve Greenbank [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 5:08 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: which scanner for slides ? 3. Minolta may be USB, but USB devices has the advantage of being hot-swappable which means they can be turned on after the computer has been booted, and it will be detected. If I remember correctly, SCSI devices need to be turned on before you boot the system, in order for the SCSI controller to detect it. Generally in Win 9x/ME you can turn any device on and go to device manager of system properties and click on refresh and the device will work. Remember with USB you can take your scanner anywhere and plug it into any modern machine - you'll probably need to install some drivers as well. The downside is speed and some USB devices don't like some USB controllers. My USB controller on a Via KT133 motherboard is a complete PITA. Steve
filmscanners: re: Acer v. Cannon (was: which scanner for slides ?
Hi, Jerry-- You wrote: The Acer appears to be very large and the slide holder can be difficult to load with plastic springs that are fragile. That is a very fixable problem, accomplished with an X-Acto tool or even a sturdy pocket-knife. My post on that should be available in the archives, or I can re-do it for anyone interested. So, make your decision based on your needs and the scanner that feels right for you. I'm completely unfamiliar with the Canon so can't help you out there, but there are several of us on the list who are happy with Acer, and a website (Photoscientia--which I can't access at the moment, sorry). Good luck and good scanning--LRA --Original Message-- From: Jerry [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: June 3, 2001 7:59:09 PM GMT Subject: Re: filmscanners: which scanner for slides ? I received several replies with helpful information from my original email. My choices seem to be Acer 2740 Canon FS2710 Minolta Scan Dual The Acer and Canon are SCSI connections and the Minolta is USB. I think I remember reading that slide scanners with USB sometimes cause problems. There have also been some problems with the Minolta that I have been reading on this group. If this is correct, I can limit my choices to the Acer or the Canon. The Acer appears to be very large and the slide holder can be difficult to load with plastic springs that are fragile. The Canon loads the slides vertically. The Acer comes with digital ICE. So far, I have not decided. Maybe another round of replies will help me decide. Thanks, This is my original email I have many color slides that I want to scan and make prints. Most of the prints will be 4x6 or 5x7 with an occasional 8x10. The scanner that falls in my price range of $400+ is the Minolta Scan Dual, but a friend of mine recommended a Nikon Coolscan, but the prices of the Nikon scanners seem to start at $800. Recently, I have seen messages about the Canon FS2710 and the Acer is also in this price range. Photography is my hobby and I have slides going back many years. I also take slides when I travel. What are your suggestions for a scanner to meet my needs? Jerry [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
RE: filmscanners: LS4000 slide removed from mount
24.1 x 36.0 mm as I measured it. Extra 0,5 mm will be useful - it is rather difficult to position the film precisely From the LS4000 pdf file: Scanning area (max.) 25.1 x 38mm (3,946 x 5,959 pixels) Effective area SA-21: 23.3 x 36.0mm (3,654 x 5,646) (size/pixels) MA-20(S): 25.1 x 36.8mm* (3,946 x 5,782) FH-3: 24.0 x 36.0mm (3,762 x 5,646) IA-20(S): 16.1 x 26.9mm (2,525 x 4,219) SA-30: 23.3 x 36.0mm (3,654 x 5,646) SF-200(S): 25.1 x 36.8mm* (3,946 x 5,782) FH-G1: 22.9 x 35.0mm (3,591 x 5,488) * Actual effective size depends on slide mount aperture size.
Re: filmscanners: open and control
In 382693518.991527991110.JavaMail.root@web595-ec, Lynn Allen wrote: 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. Eastman did _not_ evade Talbot's patents, as they had expired by the time he got into the photo business. At that time British patents lasted 16 years and I believe that Talbot invented his Calotype paper negative process about 1849. By Eastman's time paper negs had long been replaced by glass plates. A lot of people who talk about evading patents are confusing them with copyright, which is another thing entirely. Patents cover the basic principles of an invention but only last 16-20 years. Copyright covers the exact design of a particular product, and last virtually for ever. However when something is out of patent, you can sell something that *looks* different, even if it conforms to the same basic principles. For instance if Henry Ford had patented the motor car, then no one could have sold another motor car until his patent ran out. After that they could have sold other designs of cars, but *not* an exact copy of the Model T, as to do so would have infringed his copyright on that design. Ansco managed to hold out the longest, but is gone now except for the name. I think Ansco were killed by the fiasco of Anscochrome colour film. As I understand it this was brought out in the fifties. Photographers thought it was wonderful, as it had a much higher speed than Kodachrome, which at that time was only about 10ASA. They saw that they could no take colour slides of fast moving subjects, or in lower light conditions - great!! However it was not so great a few years later when they found all the colours were fading from their Ansco slides! Anscochrome was not chemically stable, while Kodachrome has always been famous for its stability. As for US-made cameras being killed off by Kodak, I think it is much more a case of them being wiped out first by the Germans and then the Japanese. Brian Rumary, England http://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm
Re: filmscanners: VueScan Question
In a message dated 6/3/2001 10:55:46 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Unlike Nikons, doesn't this scanner insist the IR channel scan separately from the RGB scan ... ie, a 2nd pass. I thought the original post was stating, if he wanted 16x RGB passes, it also scanned the IR 16x. There would indeed be no need for this. There's no point to increasing the bit depth of the RGB data if the IR data doesn't have the bit depth similarly increased. The two are combined when doing dust removal. This is why there are the same number of passes for the RGB data as the infrared data. Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: Nikon LS-30 Coolscan III makes scratches on negatives
Walter Nowotny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: scanning unit. The turn round is made by some plastics parts which probably cause the scratches when the negatives are bent too much. I was satisfied with that explanation and tried to smooth down the negatives before scanning. However, processing the last two films I noticed straight scratches across the whole film strip. Is the unit under warranty? See if you can send just the SA-20 back for repair or replacement, and in the meantime use the filmstrip holder and the MA-20. The SA-20 must be faulty if it is scratching strips of 4 frames. It's designed to handle strips of up to 6 frames. I've never had the SA-20 scratch my negs. All the scratches on the negs are from mishandling by the lab technicians when they originally processed the film. :( Rob
Re: filmscanners: Nikon LS-30 Coolscan III makes scratches onnegatives
On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, Dave King wrote: You appear to have deduced the cause of the scratches that appear using the feeder. The film strip holder is much better in every aspect except convenience:)) The feeder also doesn't get the film flat enough! In other words, it's 'one-hour' quality, don't use it unless you're just doing quick snaps. Dave _ For 1 hour quailty why not use the 1 hour lab? :) - Original Message - From: Walter Nowotny [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 2:48 AM Subject: filmscanners: Nikon LS-30 Coolscan III makes scratches on negatives Using the Coolscan III for scanning negatives I sometimes notice scratches after the scan. Sometimes when I scan negatives with 4 pictures, the next to the last one gets scratched in longitudinal direction. I thought that these scratches are caused by extremely bent negatives. Unfortunately the LS-30 is not long enough, so the negatives are bent and rolled up at the end of the scanning unit. The turn round is made by some plastics parts which probably cause the scratches when the negatives are bent too much. I was satisfied with that explanation and tried to smooth down the negatives before scanning. However, processing the last two films I noticed straight scratches across the whole film strip. Does anyone have the same problems? Or even an explanation and cure? I would really appreciate! I am tired of ruining all my films ;-) Thanks! Regards, Walter Nowotny (Vienna)
Re: filmscanners: which scanner for slides ? ( SCSI vs USB )
James Grove [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I dont think that will work, as many SCSI devices have to be seen by the SCSI BIOS on boot up. It works with my LS30 and the Scanjet IIIc. Scanners shouldn't be a problem. The most likely devices that would need to be seen at SCSI BIOS load would be hard drives. Someone else suggested selecting the SCSI card in the device list and then clicking refresh. This seems to be more specific and slightly quicker. You can get to the device list fastest by right-clicking on My Computer and selecting Properties. Rob
Re: filmscanners: which scanner for slides ? ( SCSI vs USB )
I dont think that will work, as many SCSI devices have to be seen by the SCSI BIOS on boot up. Have you tried it? I've been using that method for years. It works about 95% of the time.
Re: filmscanners: Nikon LS-30 Coolscan III makes scratches on negatives
I haven't noticed such scratches myself, but the solution of course is to use the 6-frame negative strip holder rather than the automatic film feeder. Maris - Original Message - From: Walter Nowotny [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 1:48 AM Subject: filmscanners: Nikon LS-30 Coolscan III makes scratches on negatives | Using the Coolscan III for scanning negatives I sometimes notice scratches | after the scan. Sometimes when I scan negatives with 4 pictures, the next to | the last one gets scratched in longitudinal direction. I thought that these | scratches are caused by extremely bent negatives. Unfortunately the LS-30 is | not long enough, so the negatives are bent and rolled up at the end of the | scanning unit. The turn round is made by some plastics parts which probably | cause the scratches when the negatives are bent too much. I was satisfied | with that explanation and tried to smooth down the negatives before | scanning. However, processing the last two films I noticed straight | scratches across the whole film strip. | Does anyone have the same problems? Or even an explanation and cure? | I would really appreciate! I am tired of ruining all my films ;-) | | Thanks! | Regards, Walter Nowotny (Vienna) |
Re: filmscanners: open and control
--- You wrote: Argus had almost ruled the roost for reasonably-priced 35mm with its C-Series bricks (Kodak did have the very good Retina, which was smaller, lighter...and German-made; and the Ektra-- these were in very short supply and cost $300 in the 1940's--the eauivalent of $3000 or more in today's economy). --- end of quoted material --- Lynn, What was that monster Kodak 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 rangefinder (220 film) that they sold during the war and possibly before? Beautifully built in the US, uncoated optics that were quite good, it looked like a kid's toy on steriods. I had one for a while. Some years ago you could pick them up quite cheaply. I think they were intended for the military. I loved my Retina IIIC but it left static tracks on Tri X film. Made beautiful chromes. I had both auxiliary lenses too. Rich
Re: filmscanners: which scanner for slides ? ( SCSI vs USB )
Well it works without any problem for now one year on my W2k machine with sp2 installed... Jean-Pierre - Original Message - From: B.Rumary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 6:29 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: which scanner for slides ? ( SCSI vs USB ) In 01c0ecc2$a1908ef0$6401a8c0@jamesg, James Grove wrote: I dont think that will work, as many SCSI devices have to be seen by the SCSI BIOS on boot up. It certainly does *not* work on my Windows 98 machine - the SCSI devices all have to be on at boot-up. Brian Rumary, England http://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm
Re: filmscanners: LS4000 slide removed from mount
Art wrote: Ah, some more make the list. OK, I obviously was too severe in my comment ;-) Yes, Art sometimes does that, but never without a bit of wit. :) Let's just say that most mid priced SLR cameras, are not likely to come with 100% viewfinders, and that more likely, cameras which do have them, are top of the line models... Mine does, but it's a 1960's model Pentax, which I like so much I've never been tempted to replace. Fix it, yes, but not replace. OTOH, I've never been tempted to to push the edges, in composition. That's for View Cameras, IMHO. Another 2-cent's worth from the Rust Belt. ;-) Best regards--LRA --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
Re: filmscanners: LS4000 slide removed from mount
For sake of interest, Popular Photo rated their F3 test camera at 98.8% horizontally by 99.2% vertically. I guess that's about as close to 100% as one can expect. One thing that no one seems to take into consideration is the focal length of the lens used. Take some photos on the same roll of film with your widest wide angle and your longest telephoto. You'll find that the image size of the wide angle is slightly larger than that taken with your telephoto. This is a bit of a bugger when you're trying to file out the aperture of your neg carriers.
filmscanners: CD RW Deal
Given the propensity of scanners to make large files, eg, 35mm at 2700 with VueScan at 64 bits 50 meg *each*. OTOH I've seen pre orders being taken for 24x writers. thought this might be of interest here. at http://www.us.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=70002669 TDK VeloCD 12x/10x/32x CD-RW EIDE for $119 shipped I'd jump on it but I bough a Samsung 12/10/32 yesterday for $85 + shipping. -- walter That's the moon a long time ago we used to go there.
Re: filmscanners: which scanner for slides ? ( SCSI vs USB )
This is strange, because mine works just fine without the BIOS/ Boot or fiddling around. What year-model machines are you guys usning? It shouldn't make any difference, given Win98, but it would look like it does. Mine's a '99 Dell with a very few updates, and spots any device as soon as the device is turned on or plugged in (USB only--don't try this with SCISI). Best regards--LRA --Original Message-- From: B.Rumary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: June 4, 2001 4:29:12 PM GMT Subject: Re: filmscanners: which scanner for slides ? ( SCSI vs USB ) In 01c0ecc2$a1908ef0$6401a8c0@jamesg, James Grove wrote: I dont think that will work, as many SCSI devices have to be seen by the SCSI BIOS on boot up. It certainly does *not* work on my Windows 98 machine - the SCSI devices all have to be on at boot-up. Brian Rumary, England http://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
Re: filmscanners: which scanner for slides ? ( SCSI vs USB )
I tried this today and it worked for me - I'm running Windows 98SE Maris - Original Message - From: B.Rumary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 11:29 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: which scanner for slides ? ( SCSI vs USB ) | In 01c0ecc2$a1908ef0$6401a8c0@jamesg, James Grove wrote: | | I dont think that will work, as many SCSI devices have to be seen by the | SCSI BIOS on boot up. | | It certainly does *not* work on my Windows 98 machine - the SCSI devices | all have to be on at boot-up. | | Brian Rumary, England | | http://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm | | |
Re: filmscanners: which scanner for slides ? ( SCSI vs USB )
It has always worked for me. I believe that the device manager refresh I suggested accomplishes what you suggest just as if the SCSI device was on at Windows Boot up. This is a proceedure that I nearly always use with my SS 4000. It has never failed. Try it. Regards, Ron - Original Message - From: James Grove [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 11:50 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: which scanner for slides ? ( SCSI vs USB ) I dont think that will work, as many SCSI devices have to be seen by the SCSI BIOS on boot up. -- James Grove [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.jamesgrove.co.uk http://www.mountain-photos.co.uk ICQ 99737573 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ron Carlson Sent: 04 June 2001 06:32 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: which scanner for slides ? ( SCSI vs USB ) If you want to turn on your SCSI device after your computer is already booted, No problem. Just right click on MY COMPUTER, left click on properties,select DEVICE Manager tab and left click on REFRESH and then OK. This is for a windows machine. I don't know what you need to do for an Apple machine. Regards, Ron - Original Message - From: Steve Greenbank [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 5:08 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: which scanner for slides ? 3. Minolta may be USB, but USB devices has the advantage of being hot-swappable which means they can be turned on after the computer has been booted, and it will be detected. If I remember correctly, SCSI devices need to be turned on before you boot the system, in order for the SCSI controller to detect it. Generally in Win 9x/ME you can turn any device on and go to device manager of system properties and click on refresh and the device will work. Remember with USB you can take your scanner anywhere and plug it into any modern machine - you'll probably need to install some drivers as well. The downside is speed and some USB devices don't like some USB controllers. My USB controller on a Via KT133 motherboard is a complete PITA. Steve
Re: filmscanners: which scanner for slides ? ( SCSI vs USB )
It works on my wife's Win 98 SE machine and her SCSI flat bed. Regards, Ron - Original Message - From: B.Rumary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 9:29 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: which scanner for slides ? ( SCSI vs USB ) In 01c0ecc2$a1908ef0$6401a8c0@jamesg, James Grove wrote: I dont think that will work, as many SCSI devices have to be seen by the SCSI BIOS on boot up. It certainly does *not* work on my Windows 98 machine - the SCSI devices all have to be on at boot-up. Brian Rumary, England http://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm
Re: filmscanners: open and control
Richard wrote: What was that monster Kodak 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 rangefinder (220 film) that they sold during the war and possibly before? Beautifully built in the US, uncoatedoptics that were quite good, it looked like a kid's toy on steriods. Oooh, that's a toughie. The Medalist was a 620, but it looks and sounds like you describe. Right years, too--1941-1946. Could also be a Duex, also 620, 1940-1946, but cheap, probably not as heavy as you describe. If you have one and send it to me, I could get a much better fix on it--I'd pay the shipping one-way. Don't ever expect to get it back, OTOH. ;-) The Retina IIIc was in fact one of the last really good cameras Kodak made, from about 1960. German-made largely, certainly the optics with a Compur shutter. Kodak also made some reasonably good reflex cameras about then. I don't have any of them, but I know of a lake where there's one at the bottom of. :-) Best regards--LRA --Original Message-- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Starr) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: June 4, 2001 7:20:37 PM GMT Subject: Re: filmscanners: open and control --- You wrote: Argus had almost ruled the roost for reasonably-priced 35mm with its C-Series bricks (Kodak did have the very good Retina, which was smaller, lighter...and German-made; and the Ektra-- these were in very short supply and cost $300 in the 1940's--the eauivalent of $3000 or more in today's economy). --- end of quoted material --- Lynn, What was that monster Kodak 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 rangefinder (220 film) that they sold during the war and possibly before? Beautifully built in the US, uncoated optics that were quite good, it looked like a kid's toy on steriods. I had one for a while. Some years ago you could pick them up quite cheaply. I think they were intended for the military. I loved my Retina IIIC but it left static tracks on Tri X film. Made beautiful chromes. I had both auxiliary lenses too. Rich --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
Re: filmscanners: LS4000 slide removed from mount
Uhm, I think that's that word that Rob and I were trying to think of and couldn't. :-) With a wide-angle lens, your image will tend to spread out a little behind the shutter, rather than being cut off by it. I wouldn't have thought it was a particularly measurable distance, but on 4-square it aparently is, since Mr. Polloni has measured it. That's another disadvantage of not being on the metric system in the US, IMHO. ;-) Best regards--LRA --Original Message-- From: Moreno Polloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: June 4, 2001 7:41:06 PM GMT Subject: Re: filmscanners: LS4000 slide removed from mount For sake of interest, Popular Photo rated their F3 test camera at 98.8% horizontally by 99.2% vertically. I guess that's about as close to 100% as one can expect. One thing that no one seems to take into consideration is the focal length of the lens used. Take some photos on the same roll of film with your widest wide angle and your longest telephoto. You'll find that the image size of the wide angle is slightly larger than that taken with your telephoto. This is a bit of a bugger when you're trying to file out the aperture of your neg carriers. --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
Re: filmscanners: LS4000 slide removed from mount
Is it that big a difference? We're speaking of the light angle differences which can allow for an exposed area due to the gap between the internal frame mask within the camera and the film plane... so, that's based upon how far the guide tracks stand out from the frame surface. On the Nikon I just looked at, the guide rails actually make up the top and bottom edge of the film frame mask, so the difference there is zero, the short edges do have a small gap, I'm guessing less than 1/32nd of an inch, assuming the film lies perfectly flat. How much difference in frame length could that make? Art Moreno Polloni wrote: For sake of interest, Popular Photo rated their F3 test camera at 98.8% horizontally by 99.2% vertically. I guess that's about as close to 100% as one can expect. One thing that no one seems to take into consideration is the focal length of the lens used. Take some photos on the same roll of film with your widest wide angle and your longest telephoto. You'll find that the image size of the wide angle is slightly larger than that taken with your telephoto. This is a bit of a bugger when you're trying to file out the aperture of your neg carriers.
Re: filmscanners: VueScan Question
I don't mean to question your authority on this, since I don't own a 2740 and you probably have worked with one, however, I am trying to understand the mechanism of this situation. I understand that dICE works by doing a comparison of the infrared image and the visible image and does some sort of subtractive process, to assume that stuff that is on the one and not the other is likely dust, dirt, fingerprints, scratches, etc. I also understand that the concept of multipass is to average out the random noise a CCD produces in the visible spectrum, by basically assuming any pixel which alters value through a number of scans is likely an artifact of noise rather than real data. What I'm not clear on is this... Does the infrared scan tend to have similar amounts af shadow noise during its data acquisition? In other words, is it really necessary to do 4 or 8 or 16 infrared scans of an image to get a more accurate infrared scan of the image? If so, wouldn't that mean that dICE actually adds a certain amount of random noise (or random artifacting) to the scan when doing a since pass scan. After all, if the visible light scan makes an image and during that, the shadow area data contains a certain amount of erronious random noise artifacting, and then the dICE infrared scan does the same thing, wouldn't that introduce a second level of errors, since the dICE scan would have different random pixel data (noise) than that of the visible light scan, and when the subtraction formula occurs, some data would either be subtracted that should not have been, or not subtracted that should have been? Again, I'm guessing, but I would be surprised that the infrared light scan would have very much noise artifacting in it. I'm therefore also guessing that taking one infrared scan and then simply using it as the subtractive model for all the multi-visible light scans would make little difference in the final result. Ed, if you have access to an Acer 2740 and can write you software to do this (take one infrared scan, and then average all the visible light scans and then do the subtractive process once) you will find almost no difference in the final result, and probably no meaningful difference. Coming from this with no way of documenting it, but using gut science ;-) only, I very interested if such a test could be carried out. This would tremendously help any 2740 owners when doing multi-scans with dICE. Art [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 6/3/2001 10:55:46 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Unlike Nikons, doesn't this scanner insist the IR channel scan separately from the RGB scan ... ie, a 2nd pass. I thought the original post was stating, if he wanted 16x RGB passes, it also scanned the IR 16x. There would indeed be no need for this. There's no point to increasing the bit depth of the RGB data if the IR data doesn't have the bit depth similarly increased. The two are combined when doing dust removal. This is why there are the same number of passes for the RGB data as the infrared data. Regards, Ed Hamrick
