Re: filmscanners: Fast, decent, low res scans
> This is just plain silly. I always thought a PCI card was a PCI card, > and a Mac with PCI bus should follow the protocol, one would think. > WHich Mac are you using? The PCI bus only specifies the bus pinout, and signalling protocol and other lower-level functions. How the card is recognized by and communicates with the host computer is not really part of the PCI standard. >From my understanding, Mac PCI cards require certain things in the card firmware to facilitate recognition of the card, and integrate into the Mac hardware and OS. For example, some PC SCSI cards work on the Mac, but cannot be booted from. Flashing the firmware to Mac firmware enables booting. Many PC SCSI cards do not need firmware at all, but don't work in the Mac. For example, I've seen instructions for soldering on a flash device onto a PC SCSI card and flashing with Mac firmware to make a generic card Mac compatible. > OK, the first question is: Is anyone on this list using an Acer 2720 or > 2740 with a Mac? And if so, what are they doing about interfacing. I already posted that I've used a Acer 2720 with my PowerMac G3 with Initio BlueNote SCSI card. This card is PC and Mac compatible. On the Mac, it requires no software installation-- just plug the card in and it it just works in the system without any drivers, plug and play recognition, or anything. I currently use this card in a PowerMac G4 with a Canon FS2710. > I'm actually surprised to here this. I thought the Acer was Mac > compatible as it comes out of the box, and that would make me assume the > SCSI card would also work. My belief is that the Acer scanners will probably work with any Mac with a working SCSI card. Whether Acer's included card will work is another matter. To draw from recent postings on this list, I wouldn't ascribe this situation to malice on Acer's part. For a long period of time, starting with the 1986 Mac Plus to the 1998 iMac, all Macs included a built-in SCSI port. Most PC's didn't. Thus the standard situation for SCSI scanners was that they were bundled with cheapo SCSI cards that Mac users promptly threw into the closet before they hooked the scanners directly into their Macs. Now, originally the Acer 2720 was PC-compatible only, because it provided no Mac scanner drivers. It also included a SCSI card that probably didn't work on Macs, but it didn't need to, cause there were no Mac drivers. However, given a Mac with a working SCSI port (via card or built-in), and VueScan software, you could use the 2720 just fine. Then, around the time of the 2740's release, Acer upgraded their Miraphoto software (which I've never heard of anybody actually using in favor of VueScan) to include a Mac version. At that point, somebody at Acer probably thought, "Hey, we're Mac compatible" because up until the iMac introduced Apple's new architecture that eliminated legacy ports like SCSI, Macs could always be assumed to have built-in SCSI ports and it wasn't necessary to include a Mac-compatible SCSI card. So it probably wasn't malice, just a oversight based on changing market and technical assumptions. > Do you know just what the problem is? Do other PCI cards usually work > in Multi-platform situations? Why are Mac SCSI cards so expensive (at > least ones which work with the Acer) Mac SCSI cards aren't that expensive. I don't know why the original poster citied $300. The only SCSI cards that expensive now for either platform are exotic Ultra160 cards intended for RAID arrays and the like. For film scanners, generally a $50-80 SCSI I or II card is adequate. To the original poster: I understand you are upset, but the situation is very easily rectified. Go to: http://eshop.macsales.com/Catalog_Page.cfm?Parent=96&Title=SCSI%20%26%20IDE%20Controllers&Template= Buy one of the inexpensive SCSI cards for $50-80. I have used this vendor several times and they are cheap, quick, reliable, and will help you. Throw the Acer SCSI card away or give it to a PC user. Likely, you would have bought the Acer scanner anyway if it didn't claim to include a Mac SCSI card, since it is the lowest-cost scanner with ICE. Get VueScan and forget about the Acer Miraphoto, too. Scan. Be happy. -Collin Ong
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
> These negative profiles will > be similar wich "ring around" sub sets What's a "ring around sub sets"? > to correct for specific conditions > such as over exposure, underexposure, high or low contrast, But isn't that what a tonal curve adjustment box is supposed to do, or are you saying you will supply a button for the operator to push if s/he sees one of these conditions, and it will automatically set the curve for you? > The bottom line here is we are testing the concept to > determine > if it is of value. May be or may be not. I guess we will see. > David If it is just film characteristic profiling, I would say no...but film characteristic profiling is different than the "specific conditions" you mentioned above, isn't it?
Re: filmscanners: RE: Nikon LS-40 Coolscan 4
Mine whirrs and grinds, but not objectionably. - Original Message - From: "James Grove" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 1:44 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: RE: Nikon LS-40 Coolscan 4 > Umm when the motors move i cant say its really noisey just loader than > my Minolta was! You can here the motors whirring (is that a word?) when > you put the film adaptors in. > > I just want to know whether they are supposed to whirr?! > > -- > 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 Jan Copier > Sent: 05 June 2001 18:18 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: filmscanners: RE: Nikon LS-40 Coolscan 4 > > > Hi James > > mine is'nt noisy, maybe you can be more specific. > > Jan > > > - Original Message - > From: "James Grove" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 12:23 PM > Subject: 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: Hazy bleed in hi contrast blacks on LS2000
1st question: How many people smoke near where the scanner is located? Or cook fried foods? Or was the unit moved that day from a cold to warm place? The most common cause of halos in a scanner which seemed fine in the past, is an accumulation of residue on the lenses optics of ccd surface. Sometimes it could be water condensation from moving the scanner into a new environment or if you have a very steamy situation (hey, just what kind of images are these anyway ;-)) but if it is that, it will resolve in a few hours. Of course, if you don't normally scan high contrast images with a lot of black, you might not have noticed that this problem was developing over time (residue on the optics). Before panicking, however, it could be improper exposure. All CCD scanners suffer from some blooming, and this can be made worse by incorrect setting causing overexposure, which can occur with a lot of black background and the scanner using autoexposure. Assuming, however, that the part of the image that isn't black looks properly exposed, it likely isn't that. If the non-black portion is overexposed, you need to reset the white and black points manually before scanning, and rescan. Otherwise, it sounds like it may need a trip to your friendly Nikon service facility, which will likely charge you close to the resale value of the scanner to clean it. ;-) Actually, I think they charge about $200 US. Like any optical products, (and most electronic, as well) having them in smoky environments is asking for functional problems down the road. Art [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi All > > We have been using the LS2000 for some time now and have been very pleased > with the results. Just recently however we have put through a batch of > slides > with subjects against black backgrounds. The scans have all got a hazy halo > round all the bright areas such that on an A4 print there is about 15 - > 20mm > around the bright area which is less than total black. > > Has anyone else experienced this? Does anyone have any idea what might be > causing this? > > Many thanks > Chris > > Chris Parks > Image Quest 3-D > The Moos > Poffley End > Witney > Oxon > OX8 5UW > England > Tel: +44 (0)1993 704050 > Fax: +44 (0)1993 779203 > Web: www.imagequest3d.com
Re: filmscanners: CD RW Deal
Lynn Allen wrote: > > > There was another significant reason listed: a lot of small companies geared up their factories and went "b*lls-out" to produce discs without purchase orders. Then they were stuck with inventories which they sold at bankruptcy prices (in fact the case with many companies). Hence, the 10-cent CD-R. > > PC World didn't speculate whether the "Three-times Increase" would be for the 10-cent discs, or across the board. We'll see. :-) > > Best regards--LRA I realize that CD-Rs are not directly a film scanner issue, but I'm sure we all are using them to store our images at this point, so I'd like to make a few other comments about the matter of CD-R quality. Some of us rely upon these disks to store our very precious data, some of which is literally irreplaceable. We use them to back up our computers, and to store our images, among other things. I think we all know that they don't last forever, and we also know that some storage method or media will come along and eclipse the CD format over the next 10-20 years, if not sooner. The comment about the small companies making CD-Rs and them going for $.10 each is important to consider. The number of CD-R manufacturers is far greater than the brands you see on the shelves. Why? Because many of those "branded" products are not made by the company on the label at all. The "brand" companies simply contract companies to produce disks which either meet their specifications, or at least have their name and logo on them. When someone says "I buy 'Maxmembatim' disks and they are good/bad, even when taking the issue of the burner, software and computer configuration they use out of the equation, usually the brand name is relatively meaningless. The reason is because these companies buy from whomever can meet their purchasing requirements at the time. I have in front of me 4 "brand name" disks which all have the same brand name on them. Every one of them is made with a different dye type and different reflective surface, and when I go into them with a little utility called CDR Identifier -downloadable freeware at: www.gum.de/it/download/english.htm that reads the name of the manufacturer, not one of them says it was made by the company whose name is on the disk and packaging, in fact all four are made by different companies. TWO stories, one short one long: I bought a 50 spindle of disks. I'll even mention the name on the outside label since they obviously have no pride as a company anyway. PINE Technology, sold by Samtack. It was one of my first CD-R purchases, and at the time disks were expensive, so I tried a basically unbranded product. The disks didn't even have a label on the non-recordable side, so one had to look carefully at both sides to know how to place them in the CD-R burner. The dye was almost clear, and the disks were silver. These were the first disks I burned, and of the 50, 12 failed. I thought the problem was either my software or my nice (and costly) Plextor drive. It wasn't until I spend some time with Plextor's chief engineer that we were able to determine, via the error codes, that all the problems were media related. Those disks came with a one year warranty, so I emailed the company and requested a refund on the 12 disks (that's nearly a 25% failure rate, and proved a big waste of my time to have to redo all those disks). They informed me that they didn't refund money, but would ship me replacement disks. And they did, by Fed-X no less. They asked me for the bad disks back, which I offered to ship them at their expense. Then they lost interest. The interesting part is the disks they sent me as warranty replacements. They were a different product completely, claiming "Ultra Speed 12X" on the label. They sent me 15 disks. Of them, 3 had visible defects in the reflective coating (I'm taking numerous holes varying from pin prick sized to paperclip wire diameter). So that's a 20% reject rate before even burning any). When I emailed the guy asking if he thought that was an acceptable rate of visible defects, and asking if the company even had a QC system... he ignored me. These disks are sold in Canada under the PINE (and other brands) at Radio Shack and Staples, and I wouldn't go near them again. The LON story: (Yes, the one above was the short one ;-)) I am, this very day, involved in a disagreement with a major CD-R "brand", which has been going on for over one month of calls, faxes, emails, etc. regarding the fact that when I bought these disks (in early 2000 -- I have about 500 stockpiled) I did so because they showed a gold disk on the box, and they indicated a "Lifetime Warranty" on outer packaging as well. It was only recently that I broke open one master pack and to my surprise, noticed the inner jewel case paperwork stated that the disk had a one year warranty from date of purchase (in other words, it had already passed). However, the Jewel case image
RE: filmscanners: open and control
Before we get into an argument that may be based in a) use of terms or b) the nature of laws in different countries, I agree with you on the specs you gave for copyrights. As for trademarks, I am not confusing them with copyrights; in the US they are two quite separate and distinct laws and legal entities. One does not copyright a trademark; one registers a trademark under the trademark laws. One uses two different notations for copyright and trademark designations. I am not questioning whether or not trademarks are forever or not; I am questioning the notion that your comments imply that trademarks are a form, type, or variation of copyright. I do not think this is the case in the world outside of the US; and I am sure it is not the case in the US. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of B.Rumary Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 8:45 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: open and control In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Laurie Solomon wrote: > currently copyrights in the US are valid for the > life of the originator even if assigned to someone else, I believe, and are > renewable for a limited length of time only once. > I think you may be confusing copyrights for an "artistic" works, such as a book or piece of music, and those for trademarks etc. In most of the world artistic copyright now extends to 70 years after the death of the author. The copyright can be sold or transferred to another person or a company, or passed to the authors descendants but it still only extends to the 70 years after the death of the original author or creator. Copyright on such things as the Coca-Cola trademark goes on for ever, or at least for as long as it is still in use. Brian Rumary, England http://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm
Re: filmscanners: Fast, decent, low res scans
Phil wrote: > Hello All, > > Two weeks ago I e-mailed the list to ask you all about making fast, decent > low res scans. > > I went ahead and purchased the Acer Scanwit 2740S. > > I spent the first half of this day struggling with SCSI drivers and Acer > scanning software. I could not get the scanner to work. Finally, I called > Acer. > > It turns out that the SCSI PCI card they include with the scanner only works > on PCs I can't use this scanner on my Mac G4 without paying almost $300 > additional for a new Mac compatible SCSI card. > This is just plain silly. I always thought a PCI card was a PCI card, and a Mac with PCI bus should follow the protocol, one would think. WHich Mac are you using? OK, the first question is: Is anyone on this list using an Acer 2720 or 2740 with a Mac? And if so, what are they doing about interfacing. Do you know just what the problem is? Do other PCI cards usually work in Multi-platform situations? Why are Mac SCSI cards so expensive (at least ones which work with the Acer) > I'm really really upset now. I'm struggling with Acer "Customer Service" on > the telephone. > Well, at least they answer the phone which is more than I can say for some companies... > I believe that Acer should indicate somewhere- on their website, in the > scanner's instruction manuals, anywhere at all, that their PCI SCSI card is > useless in a Mac. The "Customer Service" woman herself is telling me now > that "it should work!" This is because even at Acer itself, there is no > indication anywhere, on literature or electronically, that although the > 2740S is Mac "compatible," it can't use the Acer SCSI card included with the > scanner. The retailers don't know this either- but since retail sales > people often don't know much about technical specs anyway, they rely on the > information given to them by the manufacturer- i.e. Acer. I'm actually surprised to here this. I thought the Acer was Mac compatible as it comes out of the box, and that would make me assume the SCSI card would also work. > > I am very upset, and sorry to share this negative feeling with other human > beings. If someone has some Zen philosophy to share with me, I would > appreciate it. > Well, that depends... if you like the Nepalese style of Zen, I suppose you could murder the royal family to get yourself into power and then claim it was an "accident"... (sorry, I'm sure it isn't very funny for the people of Nepal, but it is certainly an odd situation occurring there). My form of Zen (which I studied, BTW, which just goes to prove it isn't always successful) ;-) : Z= Zonk someone (or your dog) either verbally or physically E= Eat comfort food until you are sick to your stomach N= Never give up Lick your wounds, repeat as needed. I usually wear down my opponent until they are either babbling incoherently or they hand me a blank check (or both) ;-) These techniques are particularly effective if you don't mind looking twice your age, and dying at 45 years of age. Lastly, I will remind anyone who has been on this (or was it the scan@leben?) group for a year or more, that I had a long drawn out debate with Austin Franklin about the problematic nature of SCSI implementation, due to a mixture of the many versions, the dozens of cables and adapters, the different protocols, and the general lack of industry standards. I have four SCSI adapters in 2 different computers, and as much as I like what they do (and when they work, they work well) configuring them took years off my life I'm never getting back! And, Oh yes, Try smiling! Art > Phil > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: filmscanners: CD RW Deal
Lynn Allen wrote: > > > There was another signifficant reason listed: a lot of small companies geared up their factories and went "b*lls-out" to produce discs without purchase orders. Then they were stuck with inventories which they sold at bankrupcy prices (in fact the case with many companies). Hence, the 10-cent CD-R. > > PC World didn't speculate whether the "Three-times Increase" would be for the 10-cent discs, or across the board. We'll see. :-) > > Best regards--LRA I realize that CD-Rs are not directly a film scanner issue, but I'm sure we all are using them to store oure images at this point, so I;d like to make a few other comments about the matter of CD-R quality. Some of us rely upon these disks to store our very precious data, some of which is literally unreplacable. We use them to back up our computers, and to store our images, among other things. I think we all know that they don't last forever, and we also know that some storage method or media will come along and ecilpse the CD format over the next 10-20 years, if not sooner. The comment about the small companies making CD-Rs and them going for $.10 each is important to consider. The number of CD-R manufacturers is far greater than the brands you see on the shelves. Why? Because many of those "branded" products are not made by the company on the label at all. The "brand" companies simply contract companies to produce disks which eitehr meet their specificatiions, or at least have their name and logo on them. Whne someone says "I buy 'Maxmembatim' disks and they are good/bad, even taking the issue of the burner, software and computer configuration they use, usually teh brand name is relatively meaningless. The reason is because these companies by from whomever can meet their purchasing requirements at the time. I have in front of me 4 "brand name" disks whcih all have the same brand name on them. Every one of them is made with a different dye type and different reflective surface, and when I go into them with a little utioity that reads the name of the manufacturer, not one of them says it was made by the company whose name is on the disk and packaging, in fact all four are made by different companies. TWO stories, one short one long: I bought a 50 spindle of disks. I'll even mention the name since they obviously have no pride as a company anyway. PINE Technology, sold by Samtack. It was one of my first CD-R purchases, and at the time disks were expensive, so I tried a basically unbranded product. The disks didn't even have a label on the non-recordable side, so one had to look carefully at both sides to know how to place them in the CD-R burner. The dye was almost clear, and the disks were silver. These were the first disks I burned, and of the 50, 12 failed. I throught the problem was either my software or my nice (and costly) Plextor drive. It wasn't until I spend some time with Plextor's chief engineer that we were able to determine, via the error codes, that all the problems were media related. Those disks came with a one year warranty, so I emailed the company and requested a refund on the 12 disks (that's nearly a 25% failure rate, and proved a big waste of my time to have to redo all those disks). They informed me that they didn't refund money, but would ship me replacement disks. And they did, by Fed-X no less. They asked me for the bad disks back, which I offered to ship them at their expense. Then they lost interest. The interesting part is the disks they sent me as warranty replacements. They were a different product completely, claiming "Ultra Speed 12X" on the label. They sent me 15 disks. Of them, 3 had visible defects in the reflective coating (I'm taking numerous holes varying from pin price sized to paperclip wire diameter). So that's a 20% reject rate before even bruning any). When I emailed the guy asking if he thought that was an acceptable rate of visible defects, and asking if the company even had a QC system... he ignored me. These disks are sold in Canada under the PINE (and other brands) at Radio Shack and Staples, and I wouldn't go near them again. The LON story: (Yes, the one above was the short one ;-)) I am, this very day, involved in a disagreement with a major CD-R "brand", which has been going on for over one month of calls, faxes, emails, etc. regarding the fact that I bought these disks (in early 2000 -- I have about 500 stockpiled) and when I bought them, I did so becaus ethey showed a gold disk on the box, and they indicated a "Lifetime Warranty" on outer packaging as well. It was only recently that I broke open the master pack of one and to my surprise, the inner jewel case info stated that the disk had a one year warranty from date of purchase (in other words, it had already passed). However, the Jewel case image also showed a gold disk. Then I opened one up. Turns out iyts a silver disk (cold be aluminum or silver or who kn
Re: filmscanners: OT: Kodak RSF 3600 (was:The whole frame
Lynn Allen wrote: > > Advantix, it seems to me, is a perfect example of "over-reaching." It's a wonderful concept, but they have few "real" cameras to back it up--and established camera-makers are not *about* to forget 110 and The Disc. Their digital cameras and systems show similar disregard for important Real-World concepts. > > "And so it goes." :-) > > Best regards--LRA > Well, not to be argumentative... heck, yes, to be argumentative, why not.;-) I think there are more APS cameras on the market made by the major camera manufacturers, than there were 110 or disc cameras. Minolta, Nikon, Pentax, etc, all have APS models, and usually several to choose from. But you are absolutely correct that Kodak has a business plan involving introducing new formats when sales begin to drop. However, the idea of giving away 100 rolls of film to sell a scanner is a new one for them. Of course, they keep their lab clients happy, by providing them business, while selling them chemistry and papers (this stuff comes without processing, I'm quite sure). Art
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
Austin, All scanning software characterises film in some way as an attempt to get you near where you want to be. You can still use your individual artistic talents to effect the final product. In no scanner software of which I am aware will give you by default the raw data from the ccd. The raw data fom the scanner is processed through a matrix filter or profile. What you see on the CRT is NOT what the scanner. The goal of these profiles and matrix filters is to recover correctly as much information from the film as possible, removes the base, do general corrections based on what it knows about the ccd/scanner system and film. All of these tasks are done in the process of printing negatives. Not a whole lot different. David > -Original Message- > From: Austin Franklin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 8:14 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative > proile scheme > > > David, > > That is what I believed you would say, and I completely > disagree with that > philosophy. Films have certain characteristics that photographers use > particular films for. I don't want every film to give me the > same results! > People never did this in the darkroom, so why do it in digital? > > Just my opinion having been a professional photographer for > 20+ years... > Also note, no one ever used film profiles for the Leafscan, > which was one of > the most prolific high end scanner used for the past 10 > years, nor did they > ever ask for them. I don't know if they were ever used for any other > scanners, the SS4k was the first one I found that had them, > and I didn't > like them. > > Austin > > > Austin, > > Profiles are used to characterize a scanner/E6 film system > into a device > > independent space. There is very little difference in the > system response > > for E6 films so one profile per device works well. > > Negatives have several differences, one being the base changes > > form film to > > film and the negative is not the final product the prints is. These > > complications are why there are no "ICC" profiles for > negatives. Polaroid > > and others have developed profiles that help characterize > various specific > > negative films. Currently we have about 12 negative > profiles for the 120 > > scanner and more for the SS4000. We have found that these > profiles are > > either dead on or unusable in which case you would do a raw > scan. We are > > developing a "ring around" profiling scheme where each > profile will have > > several related profiles to address common exposure differences. > > All to get better scans quicker. > > David > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Austin Franklin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 7:25 PM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative > > > proile scheme > > > > > > > > > > > > > Polaroid is developing a new scheme for negative > profile's. I > > > > am looking > > > > for any Sprintscan 120 user who would like to help evaluate this > > > > new scheme. > > > > > > Perhaps you could explain exactly what you mean by "negative > > > profiles", and > > > why one would need them. > > > >
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
> Austin, > All scanning software characterises film in some way as an attempt to get > you near where you want to be. You can still use your individual artistic > talents to effect the final product. > In no scanner software of which I am aware will give you by > default the raw > data from the ccd. David, raw data has nothing to do with "film profiling". Setpoints have nothing to do with film profiling. > The raw data fom the scanner is processed through a > matrix filter or profile. What is a matrix filter? The raw data from the scanner is thresholded with the setpoints, then run through a LUT to correct for the non-linearity of the CCD, then LUT'd again for the tonal curve adjustments you make. You can do the non-linearity correction before or after the setpoints are applied, it doesn't matter. This is all done on high bit data. If you are getting 8 bit data, then the data is decimated from the full span of the data between the setpoints, down to 8 bit data. > The goal of these profiles and matrix filters is to recover correctly as > much information from the film as possible, removes the base, do general > corrections based on what it knows about the ccd/scanner system and film. Er, right. But you don't have to profile the film to do that. The CCD is already "profiled" in the firmware of the scanner. I still disagree with film profiling. How come the Leafscan has given perfect scans for the past 10+ years with no film profiles?
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
Austin, I think we may be talking by each other a bit. ICC profiles do contain several LUTS including sophisticated 3d luts. These negative profiles will be similar wich "ring around" sub sets to correct for specific conditions such as over exposure, underexposure, high or low contrast, over and under saturation. The bottom line here is we are testing the concept to determine if it is of value. May be or may be not. I guess we will see. David P.S. we won't force anyone to use them :) > -Original Message- > From: Austin Franklin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 8:50 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative > proile scheme > > > > Austin, > > All scanning software characterises film in some way as an > attempt to get > > you near where you want to be. You can still use your > individual artistic > > talents to effect the final product. > > In no scanner software of which I am aware will give you by > > default the raw > > data from the ccd. > > David, raw data has nothing to do with "film profiling". > Setpoints have > nothing to do with film profiling. > > > The raw data fom the scanner is processed through a > > matrix filter or profile. > > What is a matrix filter? The raw data from the scanner is > thresholded with > the setpoints, then run through a LUT to correct for the > non-linearity of > the CCD, then LUT'd again for the tonal curve adjustments you > make. You can > do the non-linearity correction before or after the setpoints > are applied, > it doesn't matter. This is all done on high bit data. If > you are getting 8 > bit data, then the data is decimated from the full span of > the data between > the setpoints, down to 8 bit data. > > > The goal of these profiles and matrix filters is to recover > correctly as > > much information from the film as possible, removes the > base, do general > > corrections based on what it knows about the ccd/scanner > system and film. > > Er, right. But you don't have to profile the film to do > that. The CCD is > already "profiled" in the firmware of the scanner. > > I still disagree with film profiling. How come the Leafscan has given > perfect scans for the past 10+ years with no film profiles? >
Re: filmscanners: CD RW Deal
on 6/6/01 1:30 AM, Arthur Entlich at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Jim Snyder wrote: > >> on 6/5/01 7:01 AM, Larry Berman at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> >>> I just read in PC World Magazine (July issue page 58) that there is going >>> to be a shortage of CDRW's and prices will triple this summer by July. Buy >>> em while you can. >>> >> >> or wait until September when the first DVD+RW drives come out. >> > I believe they are already on sale. > I haven't seen any except for a pre-announcement. Jim Snyder
Re: filmscanners: Fast, decent, low res scans
>It turns out that the SCSI PCI card they include with the scanner only works >on PCs I can't use this scanner on my Mac G4 without paying almost $300 >additional for a new Mac compatible SCSI card. > > I can't use this scanner on my Mac G4 without paying almost $300 > additional for a new Mac compatible SCSI card. > >Ouch! I don't think that I, for one, realized that Phil's G4 wouldn't use >a standard SCISI card. Aparently, Acer didn't, either. I didn't even know that the G4 had a PCI bus. Stan === Photography by Stan McQueen: http://www.smcqueen.com
filmscanners: Nikon scanner and noice
I have tested 3 different LS4000 (for sharpness. se earlier messages) and one of them had a terrible sound and noice in the scanner mechanism. If you have that problem - return the scanner to Nikon. Mikael Risedal Photographer Lund Sweden _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
RE: filmscanners: RE: Nikon LS-40 Coolscan 4
About Nikon Scan V3.1. I have been using LS 4000 + NikonScan plugin 3.1 (version nr 3.2.0 1001) since april and it is not much better then 3.0 . lots of bugs and hopeless slow compare to Silverfast 5.2 (LS4000 demo). Something much better must come out from Nikon then a uppgrade to 3.1. (If its the same 3.1 I have and tryed to use) Still doing all my works on LS2000+ Silverfast 5.2 full version. Mikael Risedal Photographer Lund Sweden >From: "James Grove" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: RE: filmscanners: RE: Nikon LS-40 Coolscan 4 >Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 20:29:35 +0100 > >Nikon Scan V3.1 is out soon, dont worry the bugs are fixed, well most of >them anyway! > >-- >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 Jan Copier >Sent: 06 June 2001 19:18 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: filmscanners: RE: Nikon LS-40 Coolscan 4 > > >James, > >I don't know how a minolta sounds, but my first filmscanner was an LS-20 >and >that machine moves the complete filmstripholder in en out during the >scan >stage and was very noisy especially the focus machanism, the LS-40 >doesn't >make so much noise as far as I can hear. >I'm only complaining about the scansoftware (Nikonscan 3), it seems >rather >buggy > > >- Original Message - >From: "James Grove" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 10:44 AM >Subject: RE: filmscanners: RE: Nikon LS-40 Coolscan 4 > > > > Umm when the motors move i cant say its really noisey just loader than > > my Minolta was! You can here the motors whirring (is that a word?) >when > > you put the film adaptors in. > > > > I just want to know whether they are supposed to whirr?! > > > > -- > > 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 Jan Copier > > Sent: 05 June 2001 18:18 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: filmscanners: RE: Nikon LS-40 Coolscan 4 > > > > > > Hi James > > > > mine is'nt noisy, maybe you can be more specific. > > > > Jan > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "James Grove" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 12:23 PM > > Subject: 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
David, That is what I believed you would say, and I completely disagree with that philosophy. Films have certain characteristics that photographers use particular films for. I don't want every film to give me the same results! People never did this in the darkroom, so why do it in digital? Just my opinion having been a professional photographer for 20+ years... Also note, no one ever used film profiles for the Leafscan, which was one of the most prolific high end scanner used for the past 10 years, nor did they ever ask for them. I don't know if they were ever used for any other scanners, the SS4k was the first one I found that had them, and I didn't like them. Austin > Austin, > Profiles are used to characterize a scanner/E6 film system into a device > independent space. There is very little difference in the system response > for E6 films so one profile per device works well. > Negatives have several differences, one being the base changes > form film to > film and the negative is not the final product the prints is. These > complications are why there are no "ICC" profiles for negatives. Polaroid > and others have developed profiles that help characterize various specific > negative films. Currently we have about 12 negative profiles for the 120 > scanner and more for the SS4000. We have found that these profiles are > either dead on or unusable in which case you would do a raw scan. We are > developing a "ring around" profiling scheme where each profile will have > several related profiles to address common exposure differences. > All to get better scans quicker. > David > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Austin Franklin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 7:25 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative > > proile scheme > > > > > > > > > Polaroid is developing a new scheme for negative profile's. I > > > am looking > > > for any Sprintscan 120 user who would like to help evaluate this > > > new scheme. > > > > Perhaps you could explain exactly what you mean by "negative > > profiles", and > > why one would need them. > >
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
> Polaroid is developing a new scheme for negative profile's. I > am looking > for any Sprintscan 120 user who would like to help evaluate this > new scheme. Perhaps you could explain exactly what you mean by "negative profiles", and why one would need them.
Re: filmscanners: CD RW Deal
Larry, et al, it is my understanding that the 'tripling' of cost is from the 'fire-sale' prices currently in existence. However, that appears to also be primarily in the 'junk' CD-Rs now selling as low as 10¢ each. They might be useful for temporary storage. Tripling those numbers brings one back to ~30¢ each, which is still less than a year ago. Even at $1 each for quality stock still comes out to about 15¢ per Megabyte, and still very much a bargain, compared to Zip disks, etc. Hersch At 04:01 AM 06/05/2001, you wrote: I just read in PC World Magazine (July issue page 58) that there is going to be a shortage of CDRW's and prices will triple this summer by July. Buy em while you can. Larry *** Larry Berman http://BermanGraphics.com http://IRDreams.com http://ImageCompress.com ***
filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: RE: Nikon LS-40 Coolscan 4
James wrote: >Umm when the motors move i cant say its really noisey just loader than >my Minolta was! You can here the motors whirring (is that a word?) when >you put the film adaptors in. > I just want to know whether they are supposed to whirr?! Yes. The scanner is readjusting the mechanism for the new adaptor. My LS30 does the same thing. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: open and control
I think you might be talking about the Super Kodak 620, which was apparently the first automatic exposure camera. It had a big sensor array above the lens area. It was a folder, also. Very 'advanced', but died out before long. At 02:27 PM 06/04/2001, you wrote: 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: Low-end Scanner Roundup
On Wed, 6 Jun 2001 12:36:44 Collin Ong wrote: >In response to a question posted on another forum from somebody wanting to >scan a lot of old slides, I wrote the following advice and roundup of >low-cost scanners. >Scanning 500-1000 negatives or slides will turn into a very time consuming >project. However, the time you spend doing this with a cheap 1800 dpi >scanner will be about the same you spend doing this with a quality 2700+ >dpi scanner. Amen! And I've done it! >The things that eat up the most time when batch scanning slides/negs: > >1) physically finding, sorting, selecting, cleaning, and loading all the >film. You'll have to do this whether you get a crappy scan or great scan >out of it. Makes sense to get a great scan, right? Ditto. >2) Cleaning dust spots and scratches off the scanned image. This will take >you about 5-15 minutes per image depending on how careful you are and the >nature of the defects. For example, dust is fairly easy to spot out using >the clone tool. A long scratch that goes through an important area will >take much more manual effort and in some cases cannot be fixed at all >manually if it goes through a detail area. A scanner with infra-red defect >removal will do this automatically, saving you tons of time. Collin, you underestimate the dedication of a Cheapskate! But you are largely right--it ain't worth the trouble, if you can afford to avoid it. :-) >3) Color-correcting the scanned images. A scanner (and associated >software) that can get the color as close to target as possible >automatically will save you tons of time screwing with levels and curves >in photoshop. For old slides, scanners with Applied Science Fiction's >ICE3's Restoration of Color (ROC) will help get the color back to normal. >Or, use VueScan's restore color option. Even with brand new negatives, its >hard to consistently get the exact color balance you want because the >orange mask on the negatives must be removed. Scanning new slides tends >to be easier in terms of color balance. Unfortunately, ASF has chosen to market its ROC only through selected hardware manufacturers. Not having the "chosen hardware," I've had to learn how to use several selected S/W Imaging Programs. It hurt a *lot* at the time, but I'm a better person for it! :-) >4) Changing film. If the scanner does not do batch scanning, you'll have to baby sit >it every minute to change film. Babysitters make a lot more than I do! But batching was out of the question, anyway. Processors hereabouts cut the film to fit in those little envelopes--which are shorter than my filmholders, by far! >But film scanner quality is not measured by DPI alone...there are many >issues like noise, grain aliasing, dust-scratch elimination which are >harder to quantify, but really affect the end result. You can make up for >some of these with effort in PhotoShop, but it'll take time, and with alot >of frames, you'll get sick of it soon. Verily, Collin, and so sayeth I to alla you: Listen To The Man! >So, what should you consider? Since I have what I have, now what I have is to *learn* what I have! ;-) Collin, this was an excellent piece, and I think it should be posted every month. Where were you when I needed you most? :-) Best regards--LRA Get 250 color business cards for FREE! http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
Re: filmscanners: CD RW Deal
You can get Kodak CD-R Ultima 80 (Gold/Silver 700MB, 80 Min) with InfoGuard (with printable surface) in 100 pack spindles for $59. $65 delivered. Sure others can quote equal to or better. From: "Lynn Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Mine are costing me about $1.50 (for CD-R's) to $3.50 (for RW's), >and if that triples, I'll be more prone to erasing and rewriting the >CD-RW's! I hope they've thought of that. :-) > >Best regards, and have a great Show!--Lynn > >> >>> >The shortages are blamed on three things: >>> >Soaring demands >>> >Consolidation among CD manufacturers >>> >High patent royalties >>> >>>There was another signifficant reason listed: a lot of small companies >>>geared up their factories and went "b*lls-out" to produce discs without >>>purchase orders. Then they were stuck with inventories which they sold at >>>bankrupcy prices (in fact the case with many companies). Hence, the >>>10-cent CD-R. >>> >>>PC World didn't speculate whether the "Three-times Increase" would be for >>>the 10-cent discs, or across the board. We'll see. :-) >> >> >>*** >>Larry Berman >> >>http://BermanGraphics.com >>http://IRDreams.com >>http://ImageCompress.com >> >>*** > > > > > > >Get 250 color business cards for FREE! >http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
Re: filmscanners: Fast, decent, low res scans
Phil wrote: > I can't use this scanner on my Mac G4 without paying almost $300 additional for a >new Mac compatible SCSI card. Ouch! I don't think that I, for one, realized that Phil's G4 wouldn't use a standard SCISI card. Aparently, Acer didn't, either. Phil, if I can apologize, I certainly do. Fortunately (I hope), you can return the Acer and replace it with a USB scanner. G**d**n*d electronics! Get your sabots to the ready, you Fellow Ludites! Best regards, and good luck--LRA -- On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 15:18:28 Phil wrote: >Hello All, > >Two weeks ago I e-mailed the list to ask you all about making fast, decent >low res scans. > >I went ahead and purchased the Acer Scanwit 2740S. > >I spent the first half of this day struggling with SCSI drivers and Acer >scanning software. I could not get the scanner to work. Finally, I called >Acer. > >It turns out that the SCSI PCI card they include with the scanner only works >on PCs I can't use this scanner on my Mac G4 without paying almost $300 >additional for a new Mac compatible SCSI card. > >I'm really really upset now. I'm struggling with Acer "Customer Service" on >the telephone. > >I believe that Acer should indicate somewhere- on their website, in the >scanner's instruction manuals, anywhere at all, that their PCI SCSI card is >useless in a Mac. The "Customer Service" woman herself is telling me now >that "it should work!" This is because even at Acer itself, there is no >indication anywhere, on literature or electronically, that although the >2740S is Mac "compatible," it can't use the Acer SCSI card included with the >scanner. The retailers don't know this either- but since retail sales >people often don't know much about technical specs anyway, they rely on the >information given to them by the manufacturer- i.e. Acer. > >I am very upset, and sorry to share this negative feeling with other human >beings. If someone has some Zen philosophy to share with me, I would >appreciate it. > >Phil >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Get 250 color business cards for FREE! http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
Re: filmscanners: [OT] Olympus P-400 printer ???
This is specious experience to say the least, but I looked at the output (in the form of the sample book, and what Olympus likely feels is flattering to the product) from the Olympus at the store the other day and I was seriously underwhelmed by the quality of it's output. Images were uniformly soft, in my opinion. Regardless of how one feels it compares against the Epson, it does not do credit to the Olympus name, and is no bargain at approximately $1000. Pat --- Nick Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sorry about the off topic post, but I think that > most everyone > that uses a film scanner also has some printer > experience. > > I'm considering a replacement for my Epson Stylus > Color 800 > inkjet printer. Two printers have been highly > recommended to > me, the Epson Photo Stylus 1280 and the Olympus > P-400. Does > anyone here have experience with either or both of > these > printers? I would appreciate any and all comments, > experiences, > suggestions, flames, etc. > > Thanks, > -Nick T. __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
RE: filmscanners: RE: Nikon LS-40 Coolscan 4
- Original Message - From: "James Grove" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 10:44 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: RE: Nikon LS-40 Coolscan 4 > Umm when the motors move i cant say its really noisey just loader than > my Minolta was! You can here the motors whirring (is that a word?) when > you put the film adaptors in. > Hi James - comparing these 4 scanners I took HP S20 as a standard, Minolta Elite much more quiet, Minolta Dual II - noisy (quick transport) noisier than S20 but less than Elite at normal scan, LS 40 between Elite and Dual II. Sounds for me it makes music using different modes Autofocus, exposure and normal scan which is pleasant to my ears. 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
RE: filmscanners: Device Profile in "VueScan"
Ramesh wrote: >I am not planning to use "Device RGB" as workingspace. I am new to this >scanning and >still in the process of finding out the workflow. Initially I was thinking >of archiving in >"Device RGB" and now this seems to impossible because I have negatives. I'm pretty sure to get in trouble for saying this, which is not a "new sensation" for me. ;-) If you're archiving, "Device RGB" would *not* be the color space to choose, because it reflects a device that may be broken and unserviceable or out of production in 1-10 years. By the same token, I would not use any of the current "choices" of color space, because they may also change or be discontinued in a matter of time. "Backward Mobility" in electonics and software might be a nice thought, but it's more observed in its absence than its adherence! I feel that sRGB, as limited as it's said to be, will be around a bit longer than many of the other standards, since there's been a lot of television commited to that particular standard (if "standard" is still a working word :-) ). I'm not Nostradamus, so my predictions are no more reliable than any other guy's--but I'd say that JPEG and sRGB will at least be *accesssible* for a while to come. TIFF, Gif and some other formats will be, too. Beyond that, cross your fingers and save your negatives! :-) I'm hoping that other--wiser!--heads will pop in here, and soon. It's not a small problem. Best regards--LRA Get 250 color business cards for FREE! http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
filmscanners: [OT] Olympus P-400 printer ???
Sorry about the off topic post, but I think that most everyone that uses a film scanner also has some printer experience. I'm considering a replacement for my Epson Stylus Color 800 inkjet printer. Two printers have been highly recommended to me, the Epson Photo Stylus 1280 and the Olympus P-400. Does anyone here have experience with either or both of these printers? I would appreciate any and all comments, experiences, suggestions, flames, etc. Thanks, -Nick T.
Re: filmscanners: [OT] Olympus P-400 printer ???
on 6/6/01 5:55 PM, Nick Taylor at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I'm considering a replacement for my Epson Stylus Color 800 > inkjet printer. Two printers have been highly recommended to > me, the Epson Photo Stylus 1280 and the Olympus P-400. Does > anyone here have experience with either or both of these > printers? I would appreciate any and all comments, experiences, > suggestions, flames, etc. I can't compare the printers directly but I must say that Epsons seem to be the standard for photographers. (Including me). If nothing else you will find much more support, advice and expertise available to you in this and other forums if you choose the Epson. -- John Brownlow http://www.pinkheadedbug.com
RE: filmscanners: Device Profile in "VueScan"
Maris writes ... > I am not sure this has changed but I think so - > perhaps Ed will answer this. > It may have changed when he (not too long ago) added > "Device Profile" option to the color space the > menu for this very reason. I believe it picks up > the scanner's color profile selection because > I had set my Nikon LS-30 for ColorMatch > and Vuescan for "Device Profile" and scanned a > negative, and in some fashion I saw that the > image was profiled in ColorMatch (I don't have > PhotoShop so I'm somewhat at a loss to check for sure). I believe if you would have had Photoshop, you would have found no profile had been associated with the scanned image with "device RGB" chosen. (How did you determine "I saw that the image was profiled in ColorMatch"?) The RGB values are intended to belong to the device, but no profile is embedded (note the color space option does NOT refer to any profile ... the option is "device RGB"). I believe Ed added this option so that, with Photoshop, you could then "assign" the appropriate profile ... for example a device profile which may have shipped with your Nikon. You could then properly "convert" to a working space of your choice. However, I have found this doesn't work with negatives, because when subtracting the mask Vuescan unavoidably touches the RGB values with Ed's built-in device profile for the scanner ... therefore you can no longer use the Nikon device profile because it is different than the one Ed built-in. You CAN use the Nikon device profile if you scanned a slide because Ed's profile doesn't come into play. You almost have to have Photoshop to properly play with and evaluate this "device RGB" option. If you are using a different "non-profile savvy" image editor, you are probably better off choosing sRGB in Vuescan. shAf :o)
filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
Polaroid is developing a new scheme for negative profile's. I am looking for any Sprintscan 120 user who would like to help evaluate this new scheme. Please contact me directly OFF LIST Thank you David Hemingway [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: filmscanners: RE: Nikon LS-40 Coolscan 4
Define "soon" :-) Maris - Original Message - From: "James Grove" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 2:29 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: RE: Nikon LS-40 Coolscan 4 | Nikon Scan V3.1 is out soon, dont worry the bugs are fixed, well most of | them anyway! | | -- | 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 Jan Copier | Sent: 06 June 2001 19:18 | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Subject: Re: filmscanners: RE: Nikon LS-40 Coolscan 4 | | | James, | | I don't know how a minolta sounds, but my first filmscanner was an LS-20 | and | that machine moves the complete filmstripholder in en out during the | scan | stage and was very noisy especially the focus machanism, the LS-40 | doesn't | make so much noise as far as I can hear. | I'm only complaining about the scansoftware (Nikonscan 3), it seems | rather | buggy | | | - Original Message - | From: "James Grove" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 10:44 AM | Subject: RE: filmscanners: RE: Nikon LS-40 Coolscan 4 | | | > Umm when the motors move i cant say its really noisey just loader than | > my Minolta was! You can here the motors whirring (is that a word?) | when | > you put the film adaptors in. | > | > I just want to know whether they are supposed to whirr?! | > | > -- | > 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 Jan Copier | > Sent: 05 June 2001 18:18 | > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | > Subject: Re: filmscanners: RE: Nikon LS-40 Coolscan 4 | > | > | > Hi James | > | > mine is'nt noisy, maybe you can be more specific. | > | > Jan | > | > | > - Original Message - | > From: "James Grove" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | > Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 12:23 PM | > Subject: 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: CD RW Deal
I think that everyone here can see that this is another "Ooops!" I'm trying to sort out a new email address, since the last one crashed badly. "Mia Culpas" all around, and I'm sorry I helped clog your mail boxes. (and boy, my face is red--again!!) Best regards--LRA -- On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 10:27:32 Lynn Allen wrote: >Hi, Art-- > >This is a test, and actually has nothing to do with "CD RaW Deals." :-) > >You said my earlier msg was nearly unanswerable, because of the curious wrapping. In >my limited experience, Reply's generally follow the original formatting (e.g. if the >mode is set at Replace rather than Insert, I have to play games with the keyboard to >edit something I've typed). > >As yet, I haven't a clue as to how to correct the wrapping, but with my HP down I >have adequate time to "play" with it. With your help, I might be able to answer a few >minor questions. > >So see how this one replies. It *should* work identically to yours, but it *could* >refer back to Jim Snyder's formatting. Let's see how it plays. >> Get 250 color business cards for FREE! http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
Re: filmscanners: CD RW Deal
On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 09:17:36 Larry Berman wrote: >Hi Lynn, > >Do you live near Columbus? We'll be exhibiting at the Columbus Arts >Festival this week that starts tomorrow. > DARNIT! We'll be down that way in 2 weeks, (we're closer to Cleveland), and we have "immutable" plans for this weekend. Well, thanks for mentioning it, anyway. I'm sure our respective "Marys" would get along splendidly. :-) >The article did say that despite the rock bottom prices, the companies >still had to pay an 8.3 cents per CD royalty for every CD made. That pretty well puts the "kibosh" to anything close to 10-cents, doesn't it? :-) Mine are costing me about $1.50 (for CD-R's) to $3.50 (for RW's), and if that triples, I'll be more prone to erasing and rewriting the CD-RW's! I hope they've thought of that. :-) Best regards, and have a great Show!--Lynn > >> >The shortages are blamed on three things: >> >Soaring demands >> >Consolidation among CD manufacturers >> >High patent royalties >> >>There was another signifficant reason listed: a lot of small companies >>geared up their factories and went "b*lls-out" to produce discs without >>purchase orders. Then they were stuck with inventories which they sold at >>bankrupcy prices (in fact the case with many companies). Hence, the >>10-cent CD-R. >> >>PC World didn't speculate whether the "Three-times Increase" would be for >>the 10-cent discs, or across the board. We'll see. :-) > > >*** >Larry Berman > >http://BermanGraphics.com >http://IRDreams.com >http://ImageCompress.com > >*** > > Get 250 color business cards for FREE! http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
Re: filmscanners: VueScan information
On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 08:00:21 Marvin Demuth wrote: >I am picking up "bits and pieces" of information on getting started with >VueScan from reading the messages and the help file information. >Surely there is more efficient way to be introduced to VueScan. >Can anyone refer me to other VueScan information? > This is altogether too simplistic an answer, and I hesitate to even offer it--but when you load Vuescan, a message box somes up asking you whether you want to print the Help pages, or something to that effect (or used to, anyway). Like most computer users, I ignored that for my first few versions (Ed seems to update almost daily!);-)--but soon I said, "OK, why not?" Here's the thing: Ed is one helluva programmer, but as a "documentor" I'd have sent him back to college to hone his tech-writing skills, months ago! ;-) Be that as it may, after an hour or so of editing the Help pages--and eliminating the last several pages of largely irrelevant tech data--I turned it into a halfway-decent manual. I'd send it to you, but mine was version 5.9, and Ed's already on v.7.[something] now. Best thing to do, IMO (and I hate when people tell me to "read the manual"), is to do more or less what I did--edit the Help pages in your favorite word-processor so they make sense to you, then just sit down in front of the TV and during commercial breaks, hi-light what looks important to how you're going to be using it. Then, dedicate some hours to playing with the program. You can *try* to get some serious work done, but don't expect much at first. VS doesn't have a very useful index for zeroing in on a problem. (Yeah, as if *Photoshop* did!) :-| I'm not as dedicated a Vuescan fanatic as others on the filmscanners list, and I use the program mostly for problem scans--which is a primary reason why I'm not very expert at it. But it's pulled me out of hot water more than a few times, and for *that* it's worth every penny of the $40 I paid for it! :-) For specific problems, Ed is pretty good about support. That would be: [EMAIL PROTECTED] When you have a problem, be sure to have it pretty-well documented and laid-out, to get his best response. If you can include a small example (under 80kb), so much the better. Good luck & good scanning--Lynn Allen Get 250 color business cards for FREE! http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
Re: filmscanners: VueScan and Occam's Razor
In a message dated 6/6/2001 4:07:36 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Ed Hamrick wrote: > >I happen to live near Ockham > > Is that the same Ockham as the place William of Occam was born in? Yes, it's just down the road from where I live. I need to get a picture of me standing next to the town sign for my web site. Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: VueScan and Occam's Razor
Ed Hamrick wrote: >I happen to live near Ockham Is that the same Ockham as the place William of Occam was born in? Colin Maddock
Re: filmscanners: open and control
In a message dated 6/6/01 6:26:37 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << In most of the world artistic copyright now extends to 70 years after the death of the author. The copyright can be sold or transferred to another person or a company, or passed to the authors descendants but it still only extends to the 70 years after the death of the original author or creator. Copyright on such things as the Coca-Cola trademark goes on for ever, or at least for as long as it is still in use. Brian Rumary, England >> Dear Brian My bets are that copyright will keep on being extended to equal a period ten to twenty years more than the time since Walt Disney's death. Bob Croxford Cornwall England www.atmosphere.co.uk
Re: filmscanners: Fast, decent, low res scans
On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Phil wrote: > It turns out that the SCSI PCI card they include with the scanner only works > on PCs I can't use this scanner on my Mac G4 without paying almost $300 > additional for a new Mac compatible SCSI card. Sorry for your struggles. However, you can get SCSI cards for your Mac for much less that $300. Check out: http://eshop.macsales.com/Catalog_Page.cfm?Parent=96&Title=SCSI%20%26%20IDE%20Controllers&Template= for several options under $100, as low as $50. I personally use the Initio BlueNote PCI ($80 on this site) on my PowerMac G4 450DP (originally on my G3/300) and it works fine with my Canon FS2710 film scanner, UMAX 1200S flatbed, and an old SCSI CD-R drive. No drivers or extensions needed. It also worked with the Acer ScanWit 2720 and VueScan back on the G3, though I have not tried that combo on my G4 (I borrowed the ScanWit). -Collin
filmscanners: Low-end Scanner Roundup
In response to a question posted on another forum from somebody wanting to scan a lot of old slides, I wrote the following advice and roundup of low-cost scanners. I thought there are probably lurkers on this list that are looking for the same type of information, so I'm reposting it here, at the risk of being mauled and nit-picked. I'm open to corrections and feedback, but keep in mind the target audience. Perhaps this could be the beginning of a low-end scanner FAQ answer. Scanning 500-1000 negatives or slides will turn into a very time consuming project. However, the time you spend doing this with a cheap 1800 dpi scanner will be about the same you spend doing this with a quality 2700+ dpi scanner. The things that eat up the most time when batch scanning slides/negs: 1) physically finding, sorting, selecting, cleaning, and loading all the film. You'll have to do this whether you get a crappy scan or great scan out of it. Makes sense to get a great scan, right? 2) Cleaning dust spots and scratches off the scanned image. This will take you about 5-15 minutes per image depending on how careful you are and the nature of the defects. For example, dust is fairly easy to spot out using the clone tool. A long scratch that goes through an important area will take much more manual effort and in some cases cannot be fixed at all manually if it goes through a detail area. A scanner with infra-red defect removal will do this automatically, saving you tons of time. 3) Color-correcting the scanned images. A scanner (and associated software) that can get the color as close to target as possible automatically will save you tons of time screwing with levels and curves in photoshop. For old slides, scanners with Applied Science Fiction's ICE3's Restoration of Color (ROC) will help get the color back to normal. Or, use VueScan's restore color option. Even with brand new negatives, its hard to consistently get the exact color balance you want because the orange mask on the negatives must be removed. Scanning new slides tends to be easier in terms of color balance. 4) Changing film. If the scanner does not do batch scanning, you'll have to baby sit it every minute to change film. Even without the batch slide loader for the Nikon LS2000/LS4000 that others have mentioned, many scanners can load up a strip of 6 negatives or 4 slides, then you can go watch TV or do something else which it scans away for 15 minutes. Get an extra film/slide carrier so you can load it up which the other one is scanning. But film scanner quality is not measured by DPI alone...there are many issues like noise, grain aliasing, dust-scratch elimination which are harder to quantify, but really affect the end result. You can make up for some of these with effort in PhotoShop, but it'll take time, and with alot of frames, you'll get sick of it soon. So, what should you consider? Under $500: Acer ScanWit 2740S: SCSI, 2700 dpi, ICE3, batch scanning. Good scans but not the best for shadow detail and has grain-aliasing problems typical of scanners of this resolution. Mac driver support is new for them, but VueScan works well with this unit. Scanning is slow when using IR defect removal. Minolta Scan Dual II: ~$450, USB, 2820 dpi, batch scanning. Good scans, color tends to need some tweaking in saturation. Mac and PC driver support and works with VueScan. No IR dust removal and horizontal orientation of film tends to pick up falling dust while scanning. Batch scanning is slow, noisy, and very annoying in the inefficiency of its transport motion going back and forth for no reason. (its transport direction and scanning direction are inexplicably opposite). Meanwhile, you can observe dust falling onto the film. It's annoying enough that I want to smash this scanner whenever I use it with its included software. Apparently VueScan can help this scanner by reversing the order that frames are scanned in, but I haven't tried it yet. Canon 2710S: ~$400, SCSI, 2720 dpi, no batch scanning or IR defect removal. Good color with default values. Works with VueScan. Film must be manually advanced but is fairly quick and gives you the opportunity to blow off dust while you are advancing the film. Vertical orientation minimizes dust pickup during scanning though some is inevitable. Bonus: includes APS scanning adapter (manual advance) Under $1000: Nikon CoolScan IV: ~$900, USB, 2900 dpi, batch scanning, ICE3 IR defect removal. Have not used this personally but examples on web look good. Works with VueScan. Alternatives: Used/refurb Nikon Coolscan III or LS-2000. Minolta Dimage Scan Elite: ~$700, SCSI, 2820 dpi, batch scanning, IR defect removal (no color restoration. but VueScan can provide). Have not used. Older design than the CoolScan IV. Canon FS4000: ~$1000, USB+SCSI, 4000 dpi, batch scanning, IR defect removal (no color restoration. but VueScan can provide). Very new on market so I have not used and no reports on the net about this ye
Re: filmscanners: Device Profile in "VueScan"
I am not sure this has changed but I think so - perhaps Ed will answer this.
It may have changed when he (not too long ago) added the "Device Profile"
option to the color space menu for this very reason. I believe it picks up
the scanner's color profile selection because I had set my Nikon LS-30 for
ColorMatch and Vuescan for "Device Profile" and scanned a negative, and in
some fashion I saw that the image was profiled in ColorMatch (I don't have
PhotoShop so I'm somewhat at a loss to check for sure).
Maris
- Original Message -
From: "shAf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 12:22 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Device Profile in "VueScan"
| Maris writes ...
|
| > From: "Ramesh Kumar_C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| > | Maris V. Lidaka, wrote:
| > | Based on your statement, following is my understanding.
| > |
| > | Minolta will have provided a Profile file, which will be laying
| some where
| > | in my PC. Vuescan will use this profile when "Device RGB" is
| selected in
| > | "Color | Color Space".
| >
| > That is correct.
|
| Vuescan is not aware of any association any scanner has with any
| device profile located anywhere on your computer. When you choose
| "device RGB" it is up to you to find (or create) that profile and
| associate it with the scanned RGB values.
| Otherwise, if you choose one of the other color spaces, Vuescan
| will convert from the device profile (as determined by Ed Hamrick and
| built into Vuescan) to that color space. If you choose "device RGB",
| you need to be careful of whether the media chosen is negative,
| positive or image, before you will be able to appropriately associate
| ("assign") some device profile you may have. I believe "image" and
| "slide film" is straight-forward (assuming you have a manufacturer's
| device profile), ... "negative" film is not straight-forward because
| the RGB values are handled by Vuescan's own profile for the scanner.
| (my understanding goes back to experience and correspondence with
| early versions of VS v.7 ... has anything changed?)
|
| shAf :o)
|
| shAf :o)
|
|
|
Re: filmscanners: OT: Monitor compatability
No limitations whatsoever. Monitor cables same as on PC, on new Macs, and most monitor companies send along a DB15 adapter (DB15 to HDDB15) for earlier Macs. There are also some very interesting all digital monitor possibilities, which you can read up on the Apple website. But analog connections are there as well, which use the typical HDDB15 (3 rows of 5 pins) or Super VGA connection. If he is doing video film editing (versus slid/negative film) editing, the new Macs can also be equipped with DVD-CD_RW drives for video authoring in real time, complete with an authoring suite of software. The DVD-R drive lets you edit and save in DVD format. Of course there are the Adobe software packages such as Premiere - - The Mit Diamond Pro 920 is a great (analog CRT) monitor - The all digital monitors ( TF-LCD) will allow flicker free hi-rez video authoring in real-time. These systems eliminate the analog to digital type interface found on some so-called "digital" systems. >A stupid question no doubt but I have to be sure before I spend the money: > >I am in the PC world. My son the film student needs a Mac for film editing >so I'll get him a Power Mac G4 dual processor. Any concerns in monitor >compatibility - i.e. can we just pick the monitor and it will work or does >Apple have some proprietary mechanism limiting my choices? In case it >matters we're leaning toward the 19" Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 920. > >Maris
Re: filmscanners: Fast, decent, low res scans
Hello All, Two weeks ago I e-mailed the list to ask you all about making fast, decent low res scans. I went ahead and purchased the Acer Scanwit 2740S. I spent the first half of this day struggling with SCSI drivers and Acer scanning software. I could not get the scanner to work. Finally, I called Acer. It turns out that the SCSI PCI card they include with the scanner only works on PCs I can't use this scanner on my Mac G4 without paying almost $300 additional for a new Mac compatible SCSI card. I'm really really upset now. I'm struggling with Acer "Customer Service" on the telephone. I believe that Acer should indicate somewhere- on their website, in the scanner's instruction manuals, anywhere at all, that their PCI SCSI card is useless in a Mac. The "Customer Service" woman herself is telling me now that "it should work!" This is because even at Acer itself, there is no indication anywhere, on literature or electronically, that although the 2740S is Mac "compatible," it can't use the Acer SCSI card included with the scanner. The retailers don't know this either- but since retail sales people often don't know much about technical specs anyway, they rely on the information given to them by the manufacturer- i.e. Acer. I am very upset, and sorry to share this negative feeling with other human beings. If someone has some Zen philosophy to share with me, I would appreciate it. Phil [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: filmscanners: VueScan information
I think the "bits and pieces" you are picking up are primarily fine-tuning suggestions. Perhaps the easiest way to start is to just leave it at the default settings except the Color tab where you can select your film type, the Files Tab where you may wish to select the default folder for saving the scan, and the default viewer on the Prefs tab. Your results should be very good already. At that point you may wish to print out in full and read (as I did - it's not long) the Help file, and that will give you an overview of which 'tweaks' you may want to make for scans. There is an overview of the program at http://www.scantips.com/vuescan.html that you may want to read first. Maris - Original Message - From: "Marvin Demuth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 8:00 AM Subject: filmscanners: VueScan information | I am picking up "bits and pieces" of information on getting started with | VueScan from reading the messages and the help file information. | | Surely there is more efficient way to be introduced to VueScan. | | Can anyone refer me to other VueScan information? | | Marvin Demuth | |
RE: filmscanners: VueScan information
Hi I am also new to scanning and Vuescan. I used the "help" given with Vuescan software as documentation. These help files are very informative compared to what Minolta help gives. But there will be some issues un-addressed and this list has helped in clearing such issues. Please, let me know if you come across more extensive documentation about VueScan. "filmscanners"'s archive is a good place to hang-around at free time. Hope this helps. Bye Ramesh -Original Message- From: Marvin Demuth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 6:00 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: VueScan information I am picking up "bits and pieces" of information on getting started with VueScan from reading the messages and the help file information. Surely there is more efficient way to be introduced to VueScan. Can anyone refer me to other VueScan information? Marvin Demuth
filmscanners: VueScan and Occam's Razor
In a message dated 6/6/2001 12:28:18 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I have to defer to Ed's comment that Incompetence is more likely than
Malice--
> I can't quote Ed's exact text because an International Conspiracy ate my
> email-files! ;-)
I happen to live near Ockham, and have always liked Occam's Razor.
However, everytime I try to remove something from VueScan, people
scream (cf Long exposure pass) . I keep trying to figure out
ways of making VueScan simpler and easier to use, and I'm always
open to suggestions.
Occam's Razor is a useful principle in software design and is
a basic principle in science, with similar sayings from Leibnitz,
Newton, Einstein and Aristotle.
Information from:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/occam.html
Occam's (or Ockham's) razor is a principle attributed to the 14th century
logician and Franciscan friar; William of Occam. Ockham was the village in
the English county of Surrey where he was born.
The principle states that "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily."
Sometimes it is quoted in one of its original Latin forms to give it an air
of authenticity.
"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate"
>From the hacker's dictionary:
Hanlon's Razor:
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, that reads "Never
attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." The
derivation of the Hanlon eponym is not definitely known, but a very similar
remark ("You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from
stupidity.") appears in "Logic of Empire", a classic 1941 SF story by Robert
A. Heinlein, who calls it the `devil theory' of sociology. Heinlein's
popularity in the hacker culture makes plausible the supposition that
`Hanlon' is derived from `Heinlein' by phonetic corruption.
Regards,
Ed Hamrick
RE: filmscanners: Device Profile in "VueScan"
Robert E wrote: >>There are two Minolta profiles on your system (c:\windows\color if using a >>PC).One for negative and one for positive images. Yes, there should be 2 profiles, I can see 2 profiles in PS6. >>The Vuescan help file states that "Device RGB" is only useful if you select >>"image" as the media type. >>From the Vuescan help file"...The "Device RGB" color space doesn't embed any >>ICC profile into the TIFF or JPEG files, and outputs images in the color >>space of the device. The "Device RGB" option is only useful when >>"Device|Media type" is set to "Image" >>Note that no profile is embedded. This I did not know, thanks for the information. I should have read help more carefully. >>I am not sure what you are trying to do, but suspect you would be best >>served to use Adobe RGB as you working space, select either image, slide, or I will be using the scanned output for a) Viewing b) Webpage I have not even thought of printing . I am not planning to use "Device RGB" as workingspace. I am new to this scanning and still in the process of finding out the workflow. Initially I was thinking of archiving in "Device RGB" and now this seems to impossible because I have negatives. Thanks Ramesh Thanks Ramesh
Re: filmscanners: OT: Monitor compatability
On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. wrote: > I am in the PC world. My son the film student needs a Mac for film > editing so I'll get him a Power Mac G4 dual processor. Any concerns in Great choice. The dual-processor really cranks through the video rendering. Look around for deals on the G4 450DP for around $1500-1600 as they have been spotted for around there lately. I got mine for $1700 from the Apple site. warehouse.com has it for $1600 right now with free additional 128MB RAM. > monitor compatibility - i.e. can we just pick the monitor and it will > work or does Apple have some proprietary mechanism limiting my choices? > In case it matters we're leaning toward the 19" Mitsubishi Diamond Pro > 920. All of the Apple PowerMacs (tower versions, I can't speak for the others) have had standard 15-pin mini-Dsub 'VGA' connectors since the G3 days. The timing is not different and no adapter is needed. I currently use a PowerMac G4 Dual 450Mhz with a Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 100e directly connected with the standard cable and it works beautifully. -Collin Ong p.s. to avoid inquiring emails, yes I work for Intel and yes I use Macs at home for creative work in photo and video. no, I am not speaking for Intel in this posting.
RE: filmscanners: RE: Nikon LS-40 Coolscan 4
Nikon Scan V3.1 is out soon, dont worry the bugs are fixed, well most of them anyway! -- 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 Jan Copier Sent: 06 June 2001 19:18 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: RE: Nikon LS-40 Coolscan 4 James, I don't know how a minolta sounds, but my first filmscanner was an LS-20 and that machine moves the complete filmstripholder in en out during the scan stage and was very noisy especially the focus machanism, the LS-40 doesn't make so much noise as far as I can hear. I'm only complaining about the scansoftware (Nikonscan 3), it seems rather buggy - Original Message - From: "James Grove" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 10:44 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: RE: Nikon LS-40 Coolscan 4 > Umm when the motors move i cant say its really noisey just loader than > my Minolta was! You can here the motors whirring (is that a word?) when > you put the film adaptors in. > > I just want to know whether they are supposed to whirr?! > > -- > 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 Jan Copier > Sent: 05 June 2001 18:18 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: filmscanners: RE: Nikon LS-40 Coolscan 4 > > > Hi James > > mine is'nt noisy, maybe you can be more specific. > > Jan > > > - Original Message - > From: "James Grove" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 12:23 PM > Subject: 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: OT: Monitor compatability
The connector for Macs and PCs is the same physically, but the pinout or timing is slightly different (think different!), but the good news is that almost all but the lowliest budget monitors come with the Macintosh connector adapter in the box. I am 99% certain the Mitsubishi would (and I really like their monitors, though I presently use a Sony). BTW, that isn't a stupid question. Any time one verifies thye are not wasting large amounts of money is a good question, in my book. Pat --- "Maris V. Lidaka, Sr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A stupid question no doubt but I have to be sure > before I spend the money: > > I am in the PC world. My son the film student needs > a Mac for film editing > so I'll get him a Power Mac G4 dual processor. Any > concerns in monitor > compatibility - i.e. can we just pick the monitor > and it will work or does > Apple have some proprietary mechanism limiting my > choices? In case it > matters we're leaning toward the 19" Mitsubishi > Diamond Pro 920. > > Maris > __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Re: filmscanners: VueScan information
Surely you can get a full working demo at: www.hamrick.com Well it does leave criss crosses on the scan till you buy it for a measly $40.00 Ira Ira Beckoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "Marvin Demuth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 9:00 AM Subject: filmscanners: VueScan information > I am picking up "bits and pieces" of information on getting started with > VueScan from reading the messages and the help file information. > > Surely there is more efficient way to be introduced to VueScan. > > Can anyone refer me to other VueScan information? > > Marvin Demuth >
RE: filmscanners: VueScan information
Unfortunately, I don't think there's a better way. The best thing is to play with all the settings, doing repeated previews from memory, until you get an understanding of how the system works and what all the choices do. Frankly, I've been using it for a couple of years now, and I just got comfortable with it in the last six months. I think the best thing you can do is standardize on one film for at least a while, and figure out how to get the best results out of the software. Jumping back and forth between slide, b&w and several colour neg emulsions is a recipe for frustration, especially at first. I also think the new help files are a lot more helpful than the previous versions (pre v7). Once I realized they had improved I went back and re-read them, and it helped a lot. Paul Chefurka -Original Message- From: Marvin Demuth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 9:00 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: VueScan information I am picking up "bits and pieces" of information on getting started with VueScan from reading the messages and the help file information. Surely there is more efficient way to be introduced to VueScan. Can anyone refer me to other VueScan information? Marvin Demuth
Re: filmscanners: RE: Nikon LS-40 Coolscan 4
James, I don't know how a minolta sounds, but my first filmscanner was an LS-20 and that machine moves the complete filmstripholder in en out during the scan stage and was very noisy especially the focus machanism, the LS-40 doesn't make so much noise as far as I can hear. I'm only complaining about the scansoftware (Nikonscan 3), it seems rather buggy - Original Message - From: "James Grove" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 10:44 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: RE: Nikon LS-40 Coolscan 4 > Umm when the motors move i cant say its really noisey just loader than > my Minolta was! You can here the motors whirring (is that a word?) when > you put the film adaptors in. > > I just want to know whether they are supposed to whirr?! > > -- > 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 Jan Copier > Sent: 05 June 2001 18:18 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: filmscanners: RE: Nikon LS-40 Coolscan 4 > > > Hi James > > mine is'nt noisy, maybe you can be more specific. > > Jan > > > - Original Message - > From: "James Grove" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 12:23 PM > Subject: 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 > > > > > >
filmscanners: High Capacity Storage (was CD RW Deal)
- Original Message - From: Arthur Entlich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 12:30 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: CD RW Deal > > > Jim Snyder wrote: > > > on 6/5/01 7:01 AM, Larry Berman at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > >> I just read in PC World Magazine (July issue page 58) that there is going > >> to be a shortage of CDRW's and prices will triple this summer by July. Buy > >> em while you can. > >> > > > > or wait until September when the first DVD+RW drives come out. > > > > Jim Snyder > > I believe they are already on sale. > > Art > DVD-Ram has been around for some time now in a few different formats. The most recent format is the 9.4 G double sided 5 1/4"disk format. The drives have finally gotten reasonable (around US$500) http://www.pcconnection.com/scripts/searchresults.asp?SR=1&ER=10&TR=0&ST=AS&; plattype=P&MarketID=240514&sortval=Price but the media is still quite expensive (about US$3-5/G) : http://www.pcconnection.com/scripts/searchresults.asp?SR=1&ER=10&TR=0&ST=AS&; plattype=P&MarketID=240471&sortval=Price Still, if you're scanning at 4000dpi it may be the storage medium of choice since a CD won't even hold one roll of film as TIFF files. When the price starts to drop on the media, DVD-ram will be awesome, although slow when compared to hard drives. Right now the best high capacity storage might be cheap IDE hard drives with a Dataport device to make them removable. http://www.hard-drive.com/cgi-bin/webstore.exe But then you need to be more concerned with data integrity and may want to include high capacity tape backup as an option. Either way, high resolution scanners seem to dictate high capacity storage needs. I'd be interested to hear how others are storing and archiving 4000dpi scans. Bob Kehl Bob Kehl
filmscanners: OT: Kodak RSF 3600 (was:The whole frame
Although I'm getting totally off-topic here (again!!), I think it's appropriate to mention that Kodak is a *film specialist* and has been since the 1880's. Their ventures into "hardware" have largely been to sell film, right from the git-go. If I've seemed hard on Kodak, it's because I love 'em (sorta). I have at least 50 of their cameras. :-) IMHO, Kodak's ventures into other venues (cameras, projectors, and now Imaging Systems and Film Scanners), has always been somewhat self-serving and consequently misdirected, vis-a-vis what they can produce vs. what the Working Photographer really wants and needs, either as "dedicated amateur" or professional. This may explain why Leitz, Rollei, Hasselblad, Nikon, Minolta *et al* do not make film! Whatever. :-) Advantix, it seems to me, is a perfect example of "over-reaching." It's a wonderful concept, but they have few "real" cameras to back it up--and established camera-makers are not *about* to forget 110 and The Disc. Their digital cameras and systems show similar disregard for important Real-World concepts. "And so it goes." :-) Best regards--LRA -- On Tue, 05 Jun 2001 22:29:50 Arthur Entlich wrote: > > >Dave Suurballe wrote: > >> Good idea; certainly worth considering... >> >> I'm scanning now with a Kodak RFS 3600, and it doesn't scan outside the >> standard frame dimensions. >> >> Dave > >Speaking of the RFS-3600, Kodak is again lowering prices on it. They >are now offering 3600 frames of film (100 rolls of 36 exp) Ektachrome or >T-Max or Tri-X or a couple of color neg films free with the purchase. >You have to acquire 10 rolls at a time, I believe. > >Art > > Get 250 color business cards for FREE! http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
Re: filmscanners: Used Nikon LS-20 for sale
Art wrote: >You have my sympathies. They must have international training for their service >people. Your story was repeated here by Nikon Canada in my dealings with them with >their camera service division. I'm not big on "International Conspiracy Theories," so I have to defer to Ed's comment that Incompetence is more likely than Malice--I can't quote Ed's exact text because an International Conspiracy ate my email-files! ;-) What remains is that there is *still a lot* to do in Customer Service, not only with filmscanners (which remains a nitch market) but in the electronics industry in general. I am positive that it's doable. I'm less confident that the Accountants will ever see its value. Best regards--LRA On Tue, 05 Jun 2001 22:24:29 Arthur Entlich wrote: > > >Karsten Petersen wrote: > >> Hi Art, >> >> >>> Can I ask you two silly questions? >>> >>> 1) Why did Nikon charge you DM351 to fix a scanner which was operating >>> within the normal "technical limitations" of the scanner? >> >> >> They claimed that they have cleaned it, and that it was working properly >> AFTER their action. I could not make out any difference in the results >> before and after, judging from test scans. >> >> >>> 2) Why would you spend DM351 to have a scanner serviced which you were >>> going to put on sale for less than the servicing cost? >> >> >> Simple: at the time I had it serviced, I had not intended to sell it, >> because I had hoped that the service would remedy the problem. I've had had >> an extended discussion with Nikon's service agant about the whole affair, >> but they were uncooperative. After that, I didn't pursue the matter further >> because I considered it a waste of time, nerves, and money. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Karsten > >Hi Karsten, > >You have my sympathies. They must have international training for their >service people. Your story was repeated here by Nikon Canada in my >dealings with them with their camera service division. > >I've also given up with them. > > >Art > > > Get 250 color business cards for FREE! http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
Re: filmscanners: open and control
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, wrote: > Studios were widespread throughout France and made a quick fortune. 400 > pounds a day was achieved which was a small fortune in the mid 1800s. Some > photographers are not able to charge that now! > 400 pounds a _year_ was a small fortune in those days! Are you sure this is the correct amount? Brian Rumary, England http://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm
Re: filmscanners: open and control
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Laurie Solomon wrote: > currently copyrights in the US are valid for the > life of the originator even if assigned to someone else, I believe, and are > renewable for a limited length of time only once. > I think you may be confusing copyrights for an "artistic" works, such as a book or piece of music, and those for trademarks etc. In most of the world artistic copyright now extends to 70 years after the death of the author. The copyright can be sold or transferred to another person or a company, or passed to the authors descendants but it still only extends to the 70 years after the death of the original author or creator. Copyright on such things as the Coca-Cola trademark goes on for ever, or at least for as long as it is still in use. Brian Rumary, England http://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm
filmscanners: OT: Monitor compatability
A stupid question no doubt but I have to be sure before I spend the money: I am in the PC world. My son the film student needs a Mac for film editing so I'll get him a Power Mac G4 dual processor. Any concerns in monitor compatibility - i.e. can we just pick the monitor and it will work or does Apple have some proprietary mechanism limiting my choices? In case it matters we're leaning toward the 19" Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 920. Maris
filmscanners: Hazy bleed in hi contrast blacks on LS2000
Hi All We have been using the LS2000 for some time now and have been very pleased with the results. Just recently however we have put through a batch of slides with subjects against black backgrounds. The scans have all got a hazy halo round all the bright areas such that on an A4 print there is about 15 - 20mm around the bright area which is less than total black. Has anyone else experienced this? Does anyone have any idea what might be causing this? Many thanks Chris Chris Parks Image Quest 3-D The Moos Poffley End Witney Oxon OX8 5UW England Tel: +44 (0)1993 704050 Fax: +44 (0)1993 779203 Web: www.imagequest3d.com
filmscanners: VueScan information
I am picking up "bits and pieces" of information on getting started with VueScan from reading the messages and the help file information. Surely there is more efficient way to be introduced to VueScan. Can anyone refer me to other VueScan information? Marvin Demuth
RE: filmscanners: RE: Nikon LS-40 Coolscan 4
Umm when the motors move i cant say its really noisey just loader than my Minolta was! You can here the motors whirring (is that a word?) when you put the film adaptors in. I just want to know whether they are supposed to whirr?! -- 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 Jan Copier Sent: 05 June 2001 18:18 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: RE: Nikon LS-40 Coolscan 4 Hi James mine is'nt noisy, maybe you can be more specific. Jan - Original Message - From: "James Grove" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 12:23 PM Subject: 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: VueScan Question
On Wed, 6 Jun 2001 02:29:20 EDT, you wrote: >This is controlled by the "Device|Bits per pixel" setting. If you can >with it set to "64 bit RGBI" (the default), there will be an infrared >channel in the raw scan file. Great, thanks: that answered my question perfectly.
Re: filmscanners: CD RW Deal
Hi Lynn, Do you live near Columbus? We'll be exhibiting at the Columbus Arts Festival this week that starts tomorrow. The article did say that despite the rock bottom prices, the companies still had to pay an 8.3 cents per CD royalty for every CD made. Larry > >The shortages are blamed on three things: > >Soaring demands > >Consolidation among CD manufacturers > >High patent royalties > >There was another signifficant reason listed: a lot of small companies >geared up their factories and went "b*lls-out" to produce discs without >purchase orders. Then they were stuck with inventories which they sold at >bankrupcy prices (in fact the case with many companies). Hence, the >10-cent CD-R. > >PC World didn't speculate whether the "Three-times Increase" would be for >the 10-cent discs, or across the board. We'll see. :-) *** Larry Berman http://BermanGraphics.com http://IRDreams.com http://ImageCompress.com ***
Re: filmscanners: CD RW Deal
Hi, Art-- This is a test, and actually has nothing to do with "CD RaW Deals." :-) You said my earlier msg was nearly unanswerable, because of the curious wrapping. In my limited experience, Reply's generally follow the original formatting (e.g. if the mode is set at Replace rather than Insert, I have to play games with the keyboard to edit something I've typed). As yet, I haven't a clue as to how to correct the wrapping, but with my HP down I have adequate time to "play" with it. With your help, I might be able to answer a few minor questions. So see how this one replies. It *should* work identically to yours, but it *could* refer back to Jim Snyder's formatting. Let's see how it plays. Best regards--Lynn -- On Tue, 05 Jun 2001 22:30:33 Arthur Entlich wrote: > > >Jim Snyder wrote: > >> on 6/5/01 7:01 AM, Larry Berman at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> >>> I just read in PC World Magazine (July issue page 58) that there is going >>> to be a shortage of CDRW's and prices will triple this summer by July. Buy >>> em while you can. >>> >> >> or wait until September when the first DVD+RW drives come out. >> >> Jim Snyder > >I believe they are already on sale. > >Art > > Get 250 color business cards for FREE! http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
Re: filmscanners: CD RW Deal
Larry wrote: >I can't be the only one with this magazine. > >The shortages are blamed on three things: >Soaring demands >Consolidation among CD manufacturers >High patent royalties There was another signifficant reason listed: a lot of small companies geared up their factories and went "b*lls-out" to produce discs without purchase orders. Then they were stuck with inventories which they sold at bankrupcy prices (in fact the case with many companies). Hence, the 10-cent CD-R. PC World didn't speculate whether the "Three-times Increase" would be for the 10-cent discs, or across the board. We'll see. :-) Best regards--LRA Get 250 color business cards for FREE! http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
Re: filmscanners: VueScan Question
In a message dated 6/5/2001 11:11:38 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I noticed a deep scratch in one of my negs, so I turned on Light Clean > in the Filter tab and scanned from Disk again. > > The scratch disappeared. Yes, this is what should happen. > So I suppose my question is: if Clean is None on the Filter tab, is > there any IR channel information in the raw scan? or did Vuescan > remove the scratch via its internal algorithims? This is controlled by the "Device|Bits per pixel" setting. If you can with it set to "64 bit RGBI" (the default), there will be an infrared channel in the raw scan file. Regards, Ed Hamrick
