RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
As I have already said in earlier posts, my experience with ram greater than 512MB on two different Win 98 systems have been different in that I have been less likely to run out of system resources, get out of RAM messages, or find the additional RAM to be a waste or unused. Given my experiences being different from that of others and what has been written, I would suggest that you cannot accept at face value as a universal given that RAM above 512MB with WIN 98 will be a waste or unutilized; nor can you assume that it will create problems in WIN 98. You have to just get some additional RAM and try it on your system with your motherboard and chipset to see if it works and works well. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Julian Robinson Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 8:43 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows I understood and would like someone to confirm that the Windows resource meter had nothing to do with how much RAM you had, it was only a measure of usage of some stack or similar. When I increased my RAM I didn't notice any change, and I still regularly run out of resources because I seem to run some programmes that are heavy on resources (Eudora and Info Select) and because windows is just hopeless at managing resources, and because IE5 gets confused and refuses to release, until there are no more left. I have to reboot regularly just to regain resources. I'd also like to know if it is true as Tony suggests that aver 512MB or RAM is a waste, as I was thinking of getting more RAM on the weekend. Julian Win 98 non-SE 384MB RAM At 04:03 27/07/01, you wrote: >. I noticed in both systems that since >the addition of the RAM the Windows resources meter shows proportionately >less system resources being used than previously (ie., more system's >resources available), which is one thing which I take as an indication that >the additional RAM above 512 is being taken into account. Julian Robinson in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
I'm running Win 95 with 768 MB of Ram and I've never had a problem that I know of. I wonder if the problem is at all CPU dependent? I remember hearing about folks running 768 MB of RAM way back when that represented a huge investment. Regards, Ron Carlson - Original Message - From: "Rob Geraghty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 10:11 PM Subject: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows > I'm just about to plug another 256MB of RAM into my computer and I thought > I'd better check up on a bug I'd heard mentioned in relation to Windows > 98. In fact the bug applies to all versions of Windows other than those > in the NT class (NT 4.0 and Win2K), not just 98. I think Microsoft's suggested > workarounds on MSDN are hilarious. I wish I could move to Win2K, but I > am reasonably certain that the combination of hardware and software I have > will not work in that environment. So here's the warning in case you plan > to have more than 512MB RAM in your Windows 95, 98, 98SE or ME computer: > > >The Windows 32-bit protected-mode cache driver (Vcache) determines the > maximum > >cache size based on the amount of RAM that is present when Windows starts. > >Vcache then reserves enough memory addresses to permit it to access a cache > >of the maximum size so that it can increase the cache to that size if needed. > >These addresses are allocated in a range of virtual addresses from 0xC000 > >through 0x (3 to 4 gigabytes) known as the system arena. > > > >On computers with large amounts of RAM, the maximum cache size can be large > >enough that Vcache consumes all of the addresses in the system arena, leaving > >no virtual memory addresses available for other functions such as opening > >an MS-DOS prompt (creating a new virtual machine). > > > >WORKAROUND > >To work around this problem, use one of the following methods: > > > >Use the MaxFileCache setting in the System.ini file to reduce the maximum > >amount of memory that Vcache uses to 512 megabytes (524,288 KB) or less. > > > >For additional information about how to use the MaxFileCache setting, click > >the article number below to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge > Base: > > > >Q108079 32-Bit File Access Maximum Cache Size > >Use the System Configuration utility to limit the amount of memory that > Windows > >uses to 512 megabytes (MB) or less. > > > >For additional information about how to use the System Configuration utility, > >click the article number below to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge > >Base: > >Q181966 System Configuration Utility Advanced Troubleshooting Settings > > > > >Reduce the amount of memory that is installed in your computer to 512 MB > >or less. > > > Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://wordweb.com > > >
Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
People keep saying don't get more than 512M with W98, but having 768M does speed up Photoshop when working with large files on my old NEC Athlon system: W98SE, PS6.01, PS set to use 80% of free RAM: (in PS, 768M system has 569,607K, 512M system has 379443K) 1) resizing 20M TIFF to 200M: 768M system= 19 seconds; 512M = 19s 2) resizing 20M TIFF to 400M: 768M system= 42 seconds; 512M = 60s 3) resizing 20M TIFF to 500M: 768M system= 71 seconds; 512M = 87s 4) With/without Cacheman utility, 768M: no difference. Jon --- Julian Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I was trying to catch up by reading messages backwards, so didn't see > Rob's > original post. I think this answers my question - I should not > bother > with more than 512MB until I move up from Win98. > > Still not sure about what "resources" actually covers though. > > Like you Rob I would be using Win2000 today if it didn't mean I'd > have to > upgrade half my existing software and maybe hardware. > > Julian > > Julian Robinson > in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia > __ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
Re: filmscanners: SS4000, Win2K disappears!
--- "Steven N. Norvich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The SS4000 is, as far as I know, ONLY Firewire. Not sure if you just made a type but the SS4000 has only a SCSI interface. Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
Re: filmscanners: Silerfast questions
Insofar as comparing the Epsons (2) Agfa, and Microtek scanners I can be of no help. For me, for scanning film, I use the Nikon LS-30 filmscanner, and I have the Epson 1200U flatbed for prints etc., rated at 1200 dpi and maybe actually 1200dpi or not but it doesn't matter because I don't need 1200 dpi for prints anyway - it does an excellent job. As to Silverfast, they have a Silverfast SE available for many flatbeds which I bought for $49.95. It does not have all of the features available in the full program of course, but it's much better than the Epson TWAIN. On the other hand, I often find that Vuescan, designed for filmscanners, does an admirable job on prints on the Epson flatbed even as compared to Silverfast SE. Maris - Original Message - From: "Pat Perez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Filmscanners" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 8:22 PM Subject: filmscanners: Silerfast questions | Sometimes I feel as thick as a whale omelet. I am | considering a few different flatbed scannes for use | for scanning 120 film (6x6). I was thinking that | Silverfast *might* be something I want to add to the | equation. I looked at their website and noticed they | charge vastly different prices depending on which | scanner one owns. Can someone explain to me why this | is, other than that they can? | | I am looking at the Epson 1640 SU Photo, the Epson | Expression 1680, Agfa Arcus T1200, and Microtek 8700. | I am concerned with Epson's 1640 really only resolving | 800 dpi in practice (or so I have read) and would hope | the more expensive models in the above list, though | mostly rated at 1200, would result in better scans. I | note the Agfa and Microtek have glass-free scanning | for transparencies, so that *seems* a plus. In fact, | the Microtek and Agfa seem like the same scanner. | | I am purely a hobbyist, but darn it, I'd like to be | able to make scans suitable for big prints. That's why | I'm shooting 6x6 now. I have no interest in a | flatbed's capabilities with 35, as I am quite pleased | with my Scan Elite, so that isn't a factor. | | Does anyone have any food for my thoughts? | | Thanks, | | Pat | | __ | Do You Yahoo!? | Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger | http://phonecard.yahoo.com/ |
RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
At 11:42 AM 7/27/01 +1000, Julian wrote: >I'd also like to know if it is true as Tony suggests that aver 512MB or RAM >is a waste, as I was thinking of getting more RAM on the weekend. Buy it anyway. It's never been cheaper. Sooner or later it'll come in handy. Maybe use it in another PC in the meantime. rafe b.
Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
I was trying to catch up by reading messages backwards, so didn't see Rob's original post. I think this answers my question - I should not bother with more than 512MB until I move up from Win98. Still not sure about what "resources" actually covers though. Like you Rob I would be using Win2000 today if it didn't mean I'd have to upgrade half my existing software and maybe hardware. Julian Julian Robinson in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
I understood and would like someone to confirm that the Windows resource meter had nothing to do with how much RAM you had, it was only a measure of usage of some stack or similar. When I increased my RAM I didn't notice any change, and I still regularly run out of resources because I seem to run some programmes that are heavy on resources (Eudora and Info Select) and because windows is just hopeless at managing resources, and because IE5 gets confused and refuses to release, until there are no more left. I have to reboot regularly just to regain resources. I'd also like to know if it is true as Tony suggests that aver 512MB or RAM is a waste, as I was thinking of getting more RAM on the weekend. Julian Win 98 non-SE 384MB RAM At 04:03 27/07/01, you wrote: >. I noticed in both systems that since >the addition of the RAM the Windows resources meter shows proportionately >less system resources being used than previously (ie., more system's >resources available), which is one thing which I take as an indication that >the additional RAM above 512 is being taken into account. Julian Robinson in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
This is off topic, but several of Intel's recent chipsets have had memory addressability limitations. The 810 and it's variants, for instance cannot even address 1 gig (I forget the threshold, either 512 or 768). Pat - Original Message - From: "Steve Greenbank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > There are also large numbers of motherboards around which don't > > cache the memory above 512Mb (or an even lower limit). With those it may > > degrade overall performance to add more than 512 Mb. > > > > I can't think of any motherboards for Pentium II/III/IV,Celerons,Athlons or > Durons for which this will apply as they all have onboard 2nd level cache > with the exception of the early celerons (266 & 300 [plain 300]). The 266 & > 300 celerons were pathetic due to a complete lack of 2nd level cache. > > The only limit that I can remember is 64MB for Intel TX chipset which was > for Pentium I. > > Steve _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
> There are also large numbers of motherboards around which don't > cache the memory above 512Mb (or an even lower limit). With those it may > degrade overall performance to add more than 512 Mb. > I can't think of any motherboards for Pentium II/III/IV,Celerons,Athlons or Durons for which this will apply as they all have onboard 2nd level cache with the exception of the early celerons (266 & 300 [plain 300]). The 266 & 300 celerons were pathetic due to a complete lack of 2nd level cache. The only limit that I can remember is 64MB for Intel TX chipset which was for Pentium I. Steve
filmscanners: Silerfast questions
Sometimes I feel as thick as a whale omelet. I am considering a few different flatbed scannes for use for scanning 120 film (6x6). I was thinking that Silverfast *might* be something I want to add to the equation. I looked at their website and noticed they charge vastly different prices depending on which scanner one owns. Can someone explain to me why this is, other than that they can? I am looking at the Epson 1640 SU Photo, the Epson Expression 1680, Agfa Arcus T1200, and Microtek 8700. I am concerned with Epson's 1640 really only resolving 800 dpi in practice (or so I have read) and would hope the more expensive models in the above list, though mostly rated at 1200, would result in better scans. I note the Agfa and Microtek have glass-free scanning for transparencies, so that *seems* a plus. In fact, the Microtek and Agfa seem like the same scanner. I am purely a hobbyist, but darn it, I'd like to be able to make scans suitable for big prints. That's why I'm shooting 6x6 now. I have no interest in a flatbed's capabilities with 35, as I am quite pleased with my Scan Elite, so that isn't a factor. Does anyone have any food for my thoughts? Thanks, Pat __ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
- Original Message - From: "Laurie Solomon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 9:25 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows > >This is probably because you are usually using a process that is grabbing > >sufficient memory to prevent the file cache getting big enough to block > >every other process. > > You could be right. > > >File servers are the most likely machines to be afflicted with this > problem. > > But wouldn't file servers be using Windows NT or 2000 rather than Windows 98 > as their operating system? If so this appears to run counter to Rob's > comments: "In fact the bug applies to all versions of Windows other than > those in the NT class (NT 4.0 and Win2K)" Should have clarified this as the few PC file servers that run on Win 9x (usually small business) most normal setups use NT/2000 or Unix. Any setup that scans lots of file data without any active program occupying a large area of memory is likely to run into this problem on Win 9x/me. Steve
Re: filmscanners: Polaroid Rebate
I have an extended service agreement from Polaroid for my SS4000. I needed to use it and basically it worked OK. I got the higher-priced agreement that gets me a loaner scanner while they worked on mine, and I'm glad I did -- it took nearly three weeks from the time I shipped my scanner to them until I got it back. I was without a scanner for only two days because they shipped me the loaner FedEx Next Day Delivery. It cost $250/year so it's quite expensive compared to the new lower retail price of the SS4000. I'll look closely at the cost when it's time for me to re-up in October. --Dana -- From: Chris Hargens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: Polaroid Rebate Date: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 8:11 PM < big snip > (BTW, anyone have any experiences to share about Mack service agreements?)
Re: filmscanners: Polaroid Rebate
You're right. I do have "tons" of B&W images to scan -- and also about 60 rolls of APX 25 to shoot. I'll probably continue to experiment with color, but because of my time contraints -- job and all -- I don't want to spread myself to thin. There's a whole black and white world out there to be photographed. Chris - Original Message - From: Alessandro Pardi To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 2:32 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Polaroid Rebate I do B&W mostly, too, yet I shoot color film, because you have more freedom once you start working on the image in Photoshop (you have 3 color channels available, it's more or less like having the same B&W picture shot with 3 different color filters). Of course you can have great results shooting B&W film, but this way you also get the advantage of not excluding infrared dust removal (the price is that you start working with a file which is 3 times larger). Then again, you may ignore all of this if you have tons of B&W images in the closet - or dozens of rolls of new film in the freezer... Alex Pardi -Original Message-From: Chris Hargens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: giovedì 26 luglio 2001 05.12To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: filmscanners: Polaroid Rebate I've sold most of my darkroom equipment. I've looked at the reviews of the new Canon FS4000US and compared them to what I've heard about the SprintScan 4000. If I shot a lot of color film/slides, I'd probably go for the Canon -- it's clearly a good deal. However, the bulk of my shooting is in B&W and I don't plan on changing to color in any significant way for some time. For that reason, the SprintScan with its Silverfast software and Vuescan support seem like the right way to go -- decisively so when I consider the $200 that is currently being offered. The only thing that keeps me from committing myself to the purchase is the current financial situation that Polaroid finds itself in. I don't want to send in the rebate and have to pester the company to get the money. I'm also somewhat concerned about the viability of an extended service contract, but that isn't decisive. (BTW, anyone have any experiences to share about Mack service agreements?) Anyway, I'm about to take the plunge, and right now, at the last minute, before I press the "Buy Now" button, I would appreciate any feedback, opinions, or experience the people on this list would be willing to offer. Chris Hargens
Re: filmscanners: Win2K: was Scanning and memory limits in Windows
Win2K may be here and stable, but the PostScript print driver is works even less well than that of Win95! If you have a page that has an image with a transparent background, the Win2K PostScript driver will make the transparent background opaque, while the Win9x PostScript driver will correctly show whatever is "behind" the image. I thought the proper way to handle this problem would be to connect the printer to the Win9x computer then send the page from the Win2K computer to the "network printer". Wrong: Win2K informed me that I didn't have the proper PostScript driver on the Win9x computer and offered to upgrade it for me. I respectfully declined the offer, especially since the Win9x driver is the one that prints the page properly and the Win2K does not. Also, I find the Win2K computer has only half the throughput over the network as compared to Win9x. This sems to be a "known problem" according to Microsoft. I wish I knew how to resolve it. --Dana -- From: Rob Geraghty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows Date: Thursday, July 26, 2001 4:58 AM "Lynn Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > of one upgrade. Some reporters are already giving Windows "X" glowing > reviews...but then, some give glowing reviews to everything just to keep the > free stuff flowing. XP aka Whistler looks OK, but Win2K is here and now and stable. Rob
filmscanners: SCSI card advice wanted
I'm going to replace my Adaptec 2902E card which came with my Epson Perfection 636 and I currently use with my Acer 2720s then daisy chained to the Epson so that I may use an internal SCSI hard drive as a dedicated Photoshop swap drive. A used one would be dandy, it needs to be 50 pin for the internal segment going to the hard disk and have a 25 pin external connector of the DB25 variety. Any model suggestions would be most appreciated! alan
Re: filmscanners: Astrophotographs
Jan Exner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >The 'White Point' seems to be important, Ed wrote me a similar mail, >he suggested 0.001% (One quick test yesterday was far better than the >grainy, partly over-exposed scans I did before). It was probably the >only setting I had not yet tried. Yes, play with that.. just use the scan memory button and examine the results in Photoshop.. you want a histogram that is not clipped anywhere.. > >As Lynn pointed out, I did not really describe my problem, so here it >comes: Scans from astronomical pictures on Kodak Royal 1000 or Kodak >Elite Chrome 200 turn out to be heavily over-exposed, even when I set >white balance to 'neutral' or 'none' and fiddle with the exposure >time. All this is using a ScanWit 2720S and VueScan7.1.3 (I just >downloaded the 7.1.7). Did you check out my website? , I use a lot of E200 for astro photography. I will assume the original slides or negs are not overexposed and something is messed up in the scan. There is no exposure time adjustment possible with the Scanwit, what are you fiddling with?.. perhaps you have set the "brightness" setting too high.. normally I set it between 1 to 2, mostly 1.5 with semi dark slides. If you want send me a screen capture of the histogram of one of your slides.. plus a copy of the Vuescan ini file with the settings you used. Herm Astropics http://home.att.net/~hermperez
RE: filmscanners: SS4000, Win2K disappears!
The Sprintscan 4 is SCSI only. The SS120 is firewire and SCSI. David > -Original Message- > From: Steven N. Norvich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 6:03 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000, Win2K disappears! > > > The SS4000 is, as far as I know, ONLY Firewire. The firewire > controller does > show up on device manager and is deemed "running normally" > and there is a > 75 gig disk running off of it that seems > to run just fine. I may have SCSI disks on the system > however but that > should not make a difference if the > other disk runs off firewire. For a while, everything was > just fine, then > one day it disappeared and won't > show up as a new device to be installed under W2K. > > Thanks, > Steve > > > > At 12:27 AM 7/26/01 +0100, you wrote: > >On Wed, 25 Jul 2001 15:03:21 -0500 Steven N. Norvich > >([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > > > Anyone have their scanner simply disappear > (logically)? Device > >manager > > > says it is > > > not there and although hooked up to a fireware connection > on my Dell > > > (not an installed card, > > > original installation), it is not discovered under new > devices to be > > > installed. Got any ideas > > > about why or how to fix it? > > > >First off, I didn't know the SS4000 was available with a Firewire > >interface, I thought they were all SCSI. > > > >Second, does the Firewire (if it really is:) card show up OK > in Device > >Mangler without conflicts? Do any other Firewire devices > work off the card > >OK? > > > >If it is really SCSI, do you have the rear panel terminator > switch set to > >'on', and what ID number is set? Do you have other devices > on the same bus? > > > >Regards > > > >Tony Sleep > >http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + > film scanner info > >& comparisons > > Best regards, > Steve > > Steve Norvich > Quentin Corners #114 > 853 N. Quentin Road > Palatine, Illinois 60067-0711 > > http://www.underwaterphotos.com > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
Re: filmscanners: SS4000, Win2K disappears!
The SS4000 is, as far as I know, ONLY Firewire. The firewire controller does show up on device manager and is deemed "running normally" and there is a 75 gig disk running off of it that seems to run just fine. I may have SCSI disks on the system however but that should not make a difference if the other disk runs off firewire. For a while, everything was just fine, then one day it disappeared and won't show up as a new device to be installed under W2K. Thanks, Steve At 12:27 AM 7/26/01 +0100, you wrote: >On Wed, 25 Jul 2001 15:03:21 -0500 Steven N. Norvich >([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > Anyone have their scanner simply disappear (logically)? Device >manager > > says it is > > not there and although hooked up to a fireware connection on my Dell > > (not an installed card, > > original installation), it is not discovered under new devices to be > > installed. Got any ideas > > about why or how to fix it? > >First off, I didn't know the SS4000 was available with a Firewire >interface, I thought they were all SCSI. > >Second, does the Firewire (if it really is:) card show up OK in Device >Mangler without conflicts? Do any other Firewire devices work off the card >OK? > >If it is really SCSI, do you have the rear panel terminator switch set to >'on', and what ID number is set? Do you have other devices on the same bus? > >Regards > >Tony Sleep >http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info >& comparisons Best regards, Steve Steve Norvich Quentin Corners #114 853 N. Quentin Road Palatine, Illinois 60067-0711 http://www.underwaterphotos.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
If you have Win95 or Win 98 there is a little utility called SYSMON. It has a fantastic range of graphs it can show you, including Allocated RAM, Swapfile in Use, Disk Cache Size, Unused Physical RAM. Do a File Find for SYSMON. If you can't find it, search your Windows disk. Very handy in tweaking one's configuration (e.g. setting PS's memory). If you can't find it I can mail it to you... Jawed > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Laurie Solomon > Sent: 26 July 2001 19:03 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows > > > I have also been told that; but noone has ever suggested exactly how one > determines if it is being used or not. I noticed in both systems > that since > the addition of the RAM the Windows resources meter shows proportionately > less system resources being used than previously (ie., more system's > resources available), which is one thing which I take as an > indication that > the additional RAM above 512 is being taken into account. Since all my > heavy RAM use is with image editimg applications and they all use > either the > swap file in Windows or theirown scratch files, it is difficult > to determing > when they have stoped using actual RAM and switched over to virtual RAM. > Howver, you may be right; I just do not know how to tell. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tony Sleep > Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 10:39 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows > > > On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 01:18:23 -0500 LAURIE SOLOMON ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > wrote: > > > One of my systems has 758MB of RAM and > > the other has 640MB of RAM. Maybe I am just lucky. :-) > > Or maybe the extra RAM beyond 512Mb doesn't add any benefit, which is what > I have been told to expect. > > Regards > > Tony Sleep > http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film > scanner info > & comparisons > >
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan blue anomaly
Try "Levels" - *then* "Auto [levels]" - and then take it from there. You'll get a basic setting and can adjust from there without undoing the auto setting. Maris - Original Message - From: "Tony Sleep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 6:27 PM Subject: re: filmscanners: Vuescan blue anomaly | On Wed, 25 Jul 2001 15:35:20 -0400 rafeb ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: | | > "Auto Levels," IMHO, gives far too much freedom | > to the machine -- the freedom to screw up my photo. | > No thanks... | | :-) 9 times out of 10, I follow Auto Levels with Ctrl/Z. | | Regards | | Tony Sleep | http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info | & comparisons |
PS Auto Levels was: Re: filmscanners: Vuescan blue anomaly
re: the dreaded Auto Levels - for those who have limited knowledge of how to use curves, the Auto Levels can be a little less intimidating and still give satisfactory results. much better than doing nothing at all, at least. Choose the Levels option, hold down the Alt key and click Options, then you can adjust the clipping points and try various settings before giving the machine too much freedom. By adjusting the clipping points over a range and then clicking the Auto button, you can get a very good idea of what your image really looks like. This is of course not as fine as good curves adjustments, but some beginners don't even realize that they can change the settings that Auto Levels uses. It's also very good at getting rid of color casts once you find the right white clipping point. (this way you don't alter the color relationships by trying to correct with the color balance feature) --James Hill - Original Message - From: "Tony Sleep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 7:27 PM Subject: re: filmscanners: Vuescan blue anomaly > On Wed, 25 Jul 2001 15:35:20 -0400 rafeb ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > "Auto Levels," IMHO, gives far too much freedom > > to the machine -- the freedom to screw up my photo. > > No thanks... > > :-) 9 times out of 10, I follow Auto Levels with Ctrl/Z. > > Regards > > Tony Sleep > http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info > & comparisons
RE: filmscanners: autolevels was re: filmscanners: Vuescan blue anomaly
> >Of course you soon discover that curves are where it's at - but > Levels does > >things that Curves is a RPITA to do, e.g. set gamma! There's > nearly as much > >value in learning how to grapple with Curves as there is in > choosing PS in > >preference to something less functional (well, I say this, but I haven't > >used any other graphics editing software anything like as > seriously as I've > >used PS). > > > Jawed, I'm not sure how you mean that last paragraph, > but IMHO, the Curves tool is the single most powerful > tool for color correction. Period, end of story. Agreed. All I was saying is that if you specifically want to play with gamma, then Levels is the place to do it. The curve that a given gamma setting produces is not obvious. Once you've seen a gamma curve, you'll understand why the Curves tool is somewhat fiddlesome as it does <1 gamma OK, but it fights you if you want to do a >1 gamma. Also the histograms in Levels mean that it is much easier to choose where to aim at for the black/white points. The curves tool obviously supports setting black/white points, but you're driving in the dark with no lights on. I'm hoping Adobe realises that a histogram in the background of the Curves dialog (perhaps with Levels-like sliders, too, just like Nikon Scan has) is exceptionally useful and will add this functionality. The UI of PS is poor in many respects (like the Image menu, talk about a disaster!). e.g. Why can't we have an option to have a twice-size Curves dialog - it's fiddlesome trying to play with curves on a 1600x1200 screen... And boy, do I wish PS would get VBA (tee hee). Jawed
RE: filmscanners: Digital Copyright
I agree with you; but not everyone sees even traffic enforcement in that light. Many people tend to view laws and offical documents as being objective clear-cut, non-discretionary, absolutes and their enforcement as a mere turnkey operation which requires little effort, thought, deliberation, or costs to implement the enforcement of taffic laws or copyright laws. In short, many approach laws as black and white principles whose enforcement is more or less automatic rather than as pragmatic affairs whose enforcemetn is a practical matter. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 2:05 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digital Copyright LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: > > I am arguing that people should not get their expectations up as to the > nature of the protection that copyright registration provides, the ease of > enforcement, the extent of the costs of insuring against copyright > protection in terms of time and money, and what they anticipate by way of > punitive damages and regular damages or other sanctions from infringers. (much cut) I see copyright regulation and enforcement like traffic lights. You sort of hope everyone follow them because the consequences of not doing so could be very messy, and being the one in the right is no guarantee that you'll be any less harmed than the person in the wrong. Art
RE: filmscanners: Wet-mounting slides?
Hans, I see what you are saying; I just did not think of this when I wrote my reply. I was focused more on things like flatness of the negative, newtons rings, and troublesome inconveniance issues whicht he original post directed attention to when I said that I was not sure what the benefits were. As for evaporation and non-messiness of mounting oils, what you say may be truer of drum scanners where the oil is open to the circulating air as opposed to the Minolta film holders which sandwich the film between two sheets of glass where the chance of evaporation between scans and after scans is less efficient. It would seem in those circumstances one would have the bother of wiping down the two sheets of glass and the holder between scans and after one finishes with the holder; one would also have to be concerned with the effect that the oil and/or its leakage or dripping might have on the internal workings and parts of the Minolta film scanner which was not set up for wet mounting and may not have sufficentair circulation within the scanner to allow for evaporation of any excess oil that might find its way into the inner workings of the scanner. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Hans Rijnbout Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 7:04 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Wet-mounting slides? On 26-07-2001, LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: >I would think that what you propose would be as much of a pain in the butt >as what you are now doing with your glassless renovation of the original >Minolta holder and would be a lot more messy. I personally use the glass >holder and have had neither any trouble with such things as flatness or >Newton's Rings nor with it taking too much time to place and align >the film within the mask. I am not sure what benefits are to be >derived from a glassless version - let alone a wet mounted version. In theory wet mounting would have the advantage that scratches in the film and most dust particles become almost invisible, because their refractive index is close to that of the mounting oil. The glass plates should be so thick that the outside of the glass is sufficiently out of focus. A good mounting oil evaporates reasonably fast and leaves no residu. -- Hans Rijnbout Universiteit Utrecht, CBLE Postbus 80.054, NL-3508 TB UTRECHT tel: ++31 30 253 4567 fax: ++31 30 252 2478
RE: filmscanners: OT: Native intelligence
Guys, please take this harangue (and future ones) off list! At 05:55 AM 07/26/2001, you wrote: > > That hardly applies. Architecture, and art, are not engineering, and > > require no basic understanding of mechanics. > > > > Actually, I know a some architects whole would not only disagree, but > would be insulted by that statement. I didn't say that all architects didn't have an understanding of mechanical engineering, material science and physics...but it's not a requirement to draw an aesthetically pleasing structure. My understanding is most architects are NOT engineers. > > You also conveniently diverged, and avoided answering my question. > > No I didn't, I decided not to indulge your insulting tone and attitude, > there is a difference. What ever makes you feel better, but it's still avoiding answering my question. > I was referring to the tone and attitude > of your post which implied people who were uneducated (in an official > sense) in a certain field were unworthy of commenting, having opinions > or ideas about that area. You are mistaken. I never said anything like that at all. > Qualifications do not necessarily translate to brilliance or even > understanding; They certainly do translate into understanding, though possibly in a limited sense. > My personal experience has been that people who > are hardest on education are usually those most educated Perhaps it's just that they didn't agree with what you were trying to "educate" them about. > > I do believe that you don't understand some of the things we have talked > > about. I believe you have a "working knowledge" but not an > understanding. > > > > Is that the royal "we"? Personally, I'll more often take the opinion of > a good mechanic who works day in and out on real devices over an > engineers theoretical opinion, any day. But that's repair, not design. If the mechanic were able to design, he probably would be doing design instead. > If all engineers were so good > at what they do, most mechanics would have been out of work years ago. There are other factors besides the engineers. Anyone having any real product development experience knows this. > As for my personal lack of "understanding", let's just say that in my > "uneducated" and unwashed state, I have helped to redesign a number of > products in concert with manufacturers who first hired "engineers" to > come up with the original failed design. What product was this? What exactly did YOU redesign? > Unlike you, I won't make a > sweeping statement and malign "all" engineers. I haven't maligned any engineers at all. If you believe I wrote that, you misread what I wrote. > It's only some who are > incompetent. I can't disagree with that. > Many are simply brilliant at what they do, and probably > would have been even without their formal education. I don't know about many, but certainly some. > > If designed properly, that mechanism can easily last a > lifetime. Also, wear > > does not imply imprecision. > > I see :-) Isn't that true of pretty much most things that prematurely > break down? No. > Creating precision is usually costly. It requires tight tolerances all > the way around, including in manufacturing, often from many components > from a number of sources. It often means careful testing of dimensions > of parts along the manufacturing process, more advanced and precise > machinery and sometimes, better trained assembly workers, who may have > to also take more time in doing each step. No one is saying it can't be > done, it just is very difficult when corners are needing to be cut to > keep competitive. Er, no. > Getting back to scanners, why is it there is so much discussion of > "banding, banding, banding"... is it that manufacturers think we "want" > banding in our scans? But I don't believe it is a mechanical issue, at least in this case. It is more than likely an electrical issue. BTW, I have never had any banding in my scanner. > Or, yes, some might be software programming defects as > well. Does that change over temperature ;-)
RE: filmscanners: Re: autolevels was re: filmscanners: Vuescan blue anomaly
A specular reflection/bright light can easily represent 40% of the range of values in an image. When you look at the histogram, you will see a thin line between the edge of the "mountain" and 255. This happens, for example, when you have lots of very bright reflections, e.g. off water. Or a scene with lots of lightbulbs, but which is, overall, quite dark. As you bring down the white point, all of these bright points will seem to "grow" in size. It's a trade off you make, so that the rest of the picture doesn't look too dark or too washed out. An f-shaped curve (in Curves) that is tight at the top may be preferable to bringing down the white point in Levels. You have to choose. Jawed > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rob Geraghty > Sent: 26 July 2001 07:43 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: filmscanners: Re: autolevels was re: filmscanners: Vuescan blue > anomaly > > > Maris wrote: > > Sometimes you can't use anything - rather than using the > > eyedropper you just have to guestimate - trial and error - > > until the number for a near-white spot are near-white but > > not-quite-white numbers. > > OK, let me rephrase the question slightly - isn't the intention > of the black > and white point to define where the minimum and maximum brightness points > are? If so, why is a point of sun reflection in a photograph not a good > point to use for the white point? Because it's not representative of the > majority of the image? > > Rob > > > Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://wordweb.com > > > >
RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
>This is probably because you are usually using a process that is grabbing >sufficient memory to prevent the file cache getting big enough to block >every other process. You could be right. >File servers are the most likely machines to be afflicted with this problem. But wouldn't file servers be using Windows NT or 2000 rather than Windows 98 as their operating system? If so this appears to run counter to Rob's comments: "In fact the bug applies to all versions of Windows other than those in the NT class (NT 4.0 and Win2K)" -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Steve Greenbank Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 3:49 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows This is probably because you are usually using a process that is grabbing sufficient memory to prevent the file cache getting big enough to block every other process. File servers are the most likely machines to be afflicted with this problem. It may come and bite you anytime so unless your feeling really lucky you may wish to look at my post just above this one. Steve - Original Message - From: "LAURIE SOLOMON" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 7:18 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows > Funny, I have two systems with more than 512 MB of RAM installed on them and > using Win 98 and have not experienced any problems of the sort you describe. > I have experienced problems with the motherboard not being able to resolve > conflicts in timing between different types of 168 pin DIMMs but no > operating system related problems. One of my systems has 758MB of RAM and > the other has 640MB of RAM. Maybe I am just lucky. :-) > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rob Geraghty > Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 12:12 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows > > > I'm just about to plug another 256MB of RAM into my computer and I thought > I'd better check up on a bug I'd heard mentioned in relation to Windows > 98. In fact the bug applies to all versions of Windows other than those > in the NT class (NT 4.0 and Win2K), not just 98. I think Microsoft's > suggested > workarounds on MSDN are hilarious. I wish I could move to Win2K, but I > am reasonably certain that the combination of hardware and software I have > will not work in that environment. So here's the warning in case you plan > to have more than 512MB RAM in your Windows 95, 98, 98SE or ME computer: > > >The Windows 32-bit protected-mode cache driver (Vcache) determines the > maximum > >cache size based on the amount of RAM that is present when Windows starts. > >Vcache then reserves enough memory addresses to permit it to access a cache > >of the maximum size so that it can increase the cache to that size if > needed. > >These addresses are allocated in a range of virtual addresses from > 0xC000 > >through 0x (3 to 4 gigabytes) known as the system arena. > > > >On computers with large amounts of RAM, the maximum cache size can be large > >enough that Vcache consumes all of the addresses in the system arena, > leaving > >no virtual memory addresses available for other functions such as opening > >an MS-DOS prompt (creating a new virtual machine). > > > >WORKAROUND > >To work around this problem, use one of the following methods: > > > >Use the MaxFileCache setting in the System.ini file to reduce the maximum > >amount of memory that Vcache uses to 512 megabytes (524,288 KB) or less. > > > >For additional information about how to use the MaxFileCache setting, click > >the article number below to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge > Base: > > > >Q108079 32-Bit File Access Maximum Cache Size > >Use the System Configuration utility to limit the amount of memory that > Windows > >uses to 512 megabytes (MB) or less. > > > >For additional information about how to use the System Configuration > utility, > >click the article number below to view the article in the Microsoft > Knowledge > >Base: > >Q181966 System Configuration Utility Advanced Troubleshooting Settings > > > > >Reduce the amount of memory that is installed in your computer to 512 MB > >or less. > > > Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://wordweb.com > > > >
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Digital Copyright
In a message dated 07/23/2001 9:47:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << Stan wrote: >What remedies are available in those countries that have no concept of >copyright registration? AFAIK you simply have to be able to establish that you originated the work. With written material, a suggestion which I have received was to send a copy of the work to yourself by registered mail so that an "official" date is established. A cheaper and possibly less legally watertight method would be to send a copy to someone you trust and ask them to make sure they keep it. You then have some sort of corroboration to your claim from another party. Rob >> You would not have to send it certified, saving those postal fees. Just send it to yourself regular mail, but DON'T OPEN IT. If you ever need it, the contents can be proven with the postmark in an unopened and sealed state Ed
RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
Rob, Your explanation sounds like a very reasonable one. I am sure that your bringing up the issue is appreciated by all on the forum - some of whom might very well be effected. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rob Geraghty Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 1:57 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows Laurie wrote: > Funny, I have two systems with more than 512 MB of RAM > installed on them and using Win 98 and have not > experienced any problems of the sort you describe. The Q page on Microsoft's site says "...you *may* experience one or more of the following symptoms..." (my emphasis). The article doesn't enlighten as to why some systems might and others might not. My guess is that the hardware (eg. motherboard, what cards are plugged in etc) has a lot to do with it. The article also notes that the problem may occur "more readily" with AGP graphics adapters in the system. I simply thought "power users" of RAM in this forum might like to know about the issue. As I mentioned earlier - I'd upgrade to Win2K today if I knew all the devices and software would still work. I'm reasonably positive they wouldn't. If all I was doing was scanning and editing pictures, I would already be running Win2K. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Re: autolevels was re: filmscanners: Vuescan blue anomaly
- Original Message - From: Rob Geraghty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 11:43 PM Subject: filmscanners: Re: autolevels was re: filmscanners: Vuescan blue anomaly > Maris wrote: > > Sometimes you can't use anything - rather than using the > > eyedropper you just have to guestimate - trial and error - > > until the number for a near-white spot are near-white but > > not-quite-white numbers. > > OK, let me rephrase the question slightly - isn't the intention of the black > and white point to define where the minimum and maximum brightness points > are? If so, why is a point of sun reflection in a photograph not a good > point to use for the white point? Because it's not representative of the > majority of the image? > > Rob > Generally when using the eyedroppers in Levels or Curves they are set to output target values. The black point is generally short of absolute black and the actual number represents an ink limit based on the media planned for output. The white dropper is generally set to a point less than completely white (nothing printed). When you then use the white dropper, you are defining the level of that point to the preset values, and all whiter points will be completely blown out. Therefore if the white dropper is set to RGB 244 (for example) you don't want to select a bright reflection that should be RGB 255. Bob Wright
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan Bug?
At 11:20 AM 7/26/2001 -0600, you wrote: >I installed my new Epson 1640SU last night and started scanning with >Vuescan. It seemed to work great with negatives and transparencies. Then >my wife needed me to scan some line drawings for her. Since I hadn't >installed the Epson software yet, I decided to try Vuescan. It worked fine >for several scans, then Vuescan just locked up at the 99% scan complete >point. I had to reboot to clear it. When I resumed scanning, I was able to >get several scans again, then it again locked up. I tried turning on >"Release Memory" but that didn't help. By the way, if I killed Vuescan >with the Task Manager, I couldn't launch it again without rebooting. Here >are the details: > >System: W2K Professional >Physical Memory: 392,688 KB >Total Virtual Memory: 943,840 KB >Free Disk Space: 11.1 GB >Scanner: Epson 1640SU Photo >Scanning Mode: Reflective, 400dpi >Connected via: USB >Vuescan Version: 7.1.6 Forgot to mention I was saving to a 1-bit B/W Tiff file. Stan === Photography by Stan McQueen: http://www.smcqueen.com
filmscanners: Got FS4000 and FireWire SDK today
I got a loaner FS4000US film scanner from Canon today, and I also got the SDK I need from Apple to add support for FireWire scanners on Mac OS X. When it rains, it pours . I've done a preliminary assessment of what it will take to add support for the FS4000US to VueScan, and it doesn't look like it will be very difficult. It uses the same scsi-over-usb procotol that the Canon FB1210 uses, and I'm able to dump out these commands and reverse-engineer them. The scsi commands are quite similar to those used by the Canon FS2710, so I should be able to re-use a lot of this code. I also received an SDK from Apple that will let me add support for FireWire scanners on Mac OS X. This doesn't look like it will be very hard to add. I think I'll be able to get the FireWire support added by next week some time, and hopefully will be able to get FS4000 support in the following week. I'm going to have to temporarily unsubscribe from this list, since I'm going to Germany for a while. I'll have my laptop, but I'd appreciate it if people could defer e-mailed questions until mid-week next week. Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
Hi Rob, You can also overcome this problem by using a little memory management program called Cacheman. It is an excellent program. Go to http://www.outertech.com/ to take a look at it. Regards Geoff Murray www.geoffmurray.com http://www.ozimages.com.au/portfolio/gmurray.asp - Original Message - From: "Rob Geraghty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 3:11 PM Subject: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows > I'm just about to plug another 256MB of RAM into my computer and I thought > I'd better check up on a bug I'd heard mentioned in relation to Windows > 98. In fact the bug applies to all versions of Windows other than those > in the NT class (NT 4.0 and Win2K), not just 98. I think Microsoft's suggested > workarounds on MSDN are hilarious. I wish I could move to Win2K, but I > am reasonably certain that the combination of hardware and software I have > will not work in that environment. So here's the warning in case you plan > to have more than 512MB RAM in your Windows 95, 98, 98SE or ME computer: > > >The Windows 32-bit protected-mode cache driver (Vcache) determines the > maximum > >cache size based on the amount of RAM that is present when Windows starts. > >Vcache then reserves enough memory addresses to permit it to access a cache > >of the maximum size so that it can increase the cache to that size if needed. > >These addresses are allocated in a range of virtual addresses from 0xC000 > >through 0x (3 to 4 gigabytes) known as the system arena. > > > >On computers with large amounts of RAM, the maximum cache size can be large > >enough that Vcache consumes all of the addresses in the system arena, leaving > >no virtual memory addresses available for other functions such as opening > >an MS-DOS prompt (creating a new virtual machine). > > > >WORKAROUND > >To work around this problem, use one of the following methods: > > > >Use the MaxFileCache setting in the System.ini file to reduce the maximum > >amount of memory that Vcache uses to 512 megabytes (524,288 KB) or less. > > > >For additional information about how to use the MaxFileCache setting, click > >the article number below to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge > Base: > > > >Q108079 32-Bit File Access Maximum Cache Size > >Use the System Configuration utility to limit the amount of memory that > Windows > >uses to 512 megabytes (MB) or less. > > > >For additional information about how to use the System Configuration utility, > >click the article number below to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge > >Base: > >Q181966 System Configuration Utility Advanced Troubleshooting Settings > > > > >Reduce the amount of memory that is installed in your computer to 512 MB > >or less. > > > Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://wordweb.com > > > >
re: filmscanners: Vuescan blue anomaly
On Wed, 25 Jul 2001 15:35:20 -0400 rafeb ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > "Auto Levels," IMHO, gives far too much freedom > to the machine -- the freedom to screw up my photo. > No thanks... :-) 9 times out of 10, I follow Auto Levels with Ctrl/Z. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
Two of the suggestions amount to not installing your new memory - pretty dumb suggestions. So I'd definitely use: "Use the MaxFileCache setting in the System.ini file to reduce the maximum amount of memory that Vcache uses to 512 megabytes (524,288 KB) or less." Further I would suggest the bigger the file cache becomes the less efficient it becomes and in single user workstation environment it is likely to just hog lots of memory for little benefit. In your position I'd set it to about 2x your largest scan size (about 60Mb LS-30) + about 20Mb extra = 140MB. This will leave a minimum 600Mb for your applications. So convert to Kb 140 x 1024 = 143360 and add immediately under the line "[vcache]" in system.ini MaxFileCache=143360 You may like to try a little smaller or larger cache size to see if it is any better. The thing to consider is how you work. If you regularly re-open multiple files you have just closed then you may do better with a larger setting. Conversely if you never close files and immediately reopen them then smaller may be better but I wouldn't go below one big scan of cache as you always benefit from having enough file cache for the file output. This allows you to continue working in the shortest possible time when you save a file. If you save from Vuescan and then open in PSP then this will also come straight from the memory cache provided you have not done anything else in between and PSP is already open. You may also wish to consider setting "MinFileCache" to try to ensure that the last big file is always available from cache. After all PSP should be happy with 600Mb. Some people set MinFileCache to the same value they set for MaxFileCache so their machine does not waste it's time memory managing the cache. This is a dangerous policy on a low memory machine but with 600Mb to spare it is unlikely to cause you a problem. Steve - Original Message - From: "Rob Geraghty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 6:11 AM Subject: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows > I'm just about to plug another 256MB of RAM into my computer and I thought > I'd better check up on a bug I'd heard mentioned in relation to Windows > 98. In fact the bug applies to all versions of Windows other than those > in the NT class (NT 4.0 and Win2K), not just 98. I think Microsoft's suggested > workarounds on MSDN are hilarious. I wish I could move to Win2K, but I > am reasonably certain that the combination of hardware and software I have > will not work in that environment. So here's the warning in case you plan > to have more than 512MB RAM in your Windows 95, 98, 98SE or ME computer: > > >The Windows 32-bit protected-mode cache driver (Vcache) determines the > maximum > >cache size based on the amount of RAM that is present when Windows starts. > >Vcache then reserves enough memory addresses to permit it to access a cache > >of the maximum size so that it can increase the cache to that size if needed. > >These addresses are allocated in a range of virtual addresses from 0xC000 > >through 0x (3 to 4 gigabytes) known as the system arena. > > > >On computers with large amounts of RAM, the maximum cache size can be large > >enough that Vcache consumes all of the addresses in the system arena, leaving > >no virtual memory addresses available for other functions such as opening > >an MS-DOS prompt (creating a new virtual machine). > > > >WORKAROUND > >To work around this problem, use one of the following methods: > > > >Use the MaxFileCache setting in the System.ini file to reduce the maximum > >amount of memory that Vcache uses to 512 megabytes (524,288 KB) or less. > > > >For additional information about how to use the MaxFileCache setting, click > >the article number below to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge > Base: > > > >Q108079 32-Bit File Access Maximum Cache Size > >Use the System Configuration utility to limit the amount of memory that > Windows > >uses to 512 megabytes (MB) or less. > > > >For additional information about how to use the System Configuration utility, > >click the article number below to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge > >Base: > >Q181966 System Configuration Utility Advanced Troubleshooting Settings > > > > >Reduce the amount of memory that is installed in your computer to 512 MB > >or less. > > > Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://wordweb.com > > > >
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan Bug?
I've used Vuescan to scan line-art on the Epson 1200U Photo, and to scan film and negatives at it's full 1200 dpi and have never had a problem. Maris - Original Message - From: "Stan McQueen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 12:20 PM Subject: filmscanners: Vuescan Bug? | I installed my new Epson 1640SU last night and started scanning with | Vuescan. It seemed to work great with negatives and transparencies. Then my | wife needed me to scan some line drawings for her. Since I hadn't installed | the Epson software yet, I decided to try Vuescan. It worked fine for | several scans, then Vuescan just locked up at the 99% scan complete point. | I had to reboot to clear it. When I resumed scanning, I was able to get | several scans again, then it again locked up. I tried turning on "Release | Memory" but that didn't help. By the way, if I killed Vuescan with the Task | Manager, I couldn't launch it again without rebooting. Here are the details: | | System: W2K Professional | Physical Memory: 392,688 KB | Total Virtual Memory: 943,840 KB | Free Disk Space: 11.1 GB | Scanner: Epson 1640SU Photo | Scanning Mode: Reflective, 400dpi | Connected via: USB | Vuescan Version: 7.1.6 | | Has anyone else observed anything like this? | | Stan | === | Photography by Stan McQueen: http://www.smcqueen.com |
RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
I have also been told that; but noone has ever suggested exactly how one determines if it is being used or not. I noticed in both systems that since the addition of the RAM the Windows resources meter shows proportionately less system resources being used than previously (ie., more system's resources available), which is one thing which I take as an indication that the additional RAM above 512 is being taken into account. Since all my heavy RAM use is with image editimg applications and they all use either the swap file in Windows or theirown scratch files, it is difficult to determing when they have stoped using actual RAM and switched over to virtual RAM. Howver, you may be right; I just do not know how to tell. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tony Sleep Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 10:39 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 01:18:23 -0500 LAURIE SOLOMON ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > One of my systems has 758MB of RAM and > the other has 640MB of RAM. Maybe I am just lucky. :-) Or maybe the extra RAM beyond 512Mb doesn't add any benefit, which is what I have been told to expect. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
RE: filmscanners: Polaroid Rebate
I do B&W mostly, too, yet I shoot color film, because you have more freedom once you start working on the image in Photoshop (you have 3 color channels available, it's more or less like having the same B&W picture shot with 3 different color filters). Of course you can have great results shooting B&W film, but this way you also get the advantage of not excluding infrared dust removal (the price is that you start working with a file which is 3 times larger). Then again, you may ignore all of this if you have tons of B&W images in the closet - or dozens of rolls of new film in the freezer... Alex Pardi -Original Message-From: Chris Hargens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: giovedì 26 luglio 2001 05.12To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: filmscanners: Polaroid Rebate I've sold most of my darkroom equipment. I've looked at the reviews of the new Canon FS4000US and compared them to what I've heard about the SprintScan 4000. If I shot a lot of color film/slides, I'd probably go for the Canon -- it's clearly a good deal. However, the bulk of my shooting is in B&W and I don't plan on changing to color in any significant way for some time. For that reason, the SprintScan with its Silverfast software and Vuescan support seem like the right way to go -- decisively so when I consider the $200 that is currently being offered. The only thing that keeps me from committing myself to the purchase is the current financial situation that Polaroid finds itself in. I don't want to send in the rebate and have to pester the company to get the money. I'm also somewhat concerned about the viability of an extended service contract, but that isn't decisive. (BTW, anyone have any experiences to share about Mack service agreements?) Anyway, I'm about to take the plunge, and right now, at the last minute, before I press the "Buy Now" button, I would appreciate any feedback, opinions, or experience the people on this list would be willing to offer. Chris Hargens
filmscanners: Vuescan Bug?
I installed my new Epson 1640SU last night and started scanning with Vuescan. It seemed to work great with negatives and transparencies. Then my wife needed me to scan some line drawings for her. Since I hadn't installed the Epson software yet, I decided to try Vuescan. It worked fine for several scans, then Vuescan just locked up at the 99% scan complete point. I had to reboot to clear it. When I resumed scanning, I was able to get several scans again, then it again locked up. I tried turning on "Release Memory" but that didn't help. By the way, if I killed Vuescan with the Task Manager, I couldn't launch it again without rebooting. Here are the details: System: W2K Professional Physical Memory: 392,688 KB Total Virtual Memory: 943,840 KB Free Disk Space: 11.1 GB Scanner: Epson 1640SU Photo Scanning Mode: Reflective, 400dpi Connected via: USB Vuescan Version: 7.1.6 Has anyone else observed anything like this? Stan === Photography by Stan McQueen: http://www.smcqueen.com
Re: filmscanners: ADMIN : VIRUS warning - Sircam worm
On Wed, 25 Jul 2001 13:24:31 -0600 Stan McQueen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Have your tried entering a question on Symantec's Support Feedback site > (http://www.symantec.com/feedback/)? Thanks - have posted there. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Wet-mounting slides?
On Wed, 25 Jul 2001 15:28:38 Jeffrey Goggin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Is it worth the added expense and hassle? Is Kami mounting fluid really > the hot setup these days? Inquiring minds need to know! I haven't tried it and don't plan to. The consequences of getting fluid inside are not worth it, self-evaporating or not. It is probably worth trying with any flatbeds+hoods which use a glass platen. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Scanning Kodachromes with LS30
I would be sure to clean them with PEC-12 or other film cleaner first. Use of the infrared channel is not out of the question - use it. The report from their representative to this list was that they found that *sometimes* ICE doesn't work on Kodachrome, so rather than field customer complaints their documentation just says that it doesn't work period. As to Vuescan v. Nikonscan I couldn't say - I have barely used Nikonscan at all. Maris - Original Message - From: "Bruce Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 2:10 AM Subject: filmscanners: Scanning Kodachromes with LS30 | I have never had to scan Kodachrome slides before (and never thought I' | have to!) but, as luck would have it, I have just been handed a huge | pile of them to scan. | | I am using VueScan 7.1.7 on a PC with an LS30. What is the generally | accepted best method for scanning these? Is use of the infrared channel | out? If it is better to use Nikon Scan 3.1 on these I can. | | Many of the slides are badly faded, quite dirty (fingerprints, dust) and | all of them are of an unknown size (to me). They are a square image | measuring about 22mm on a side. This pretty much buggers me for scanning | the whole image but the owner of the slides (family!) don't mind if I | forcibly have to crop due to the scanners limitations. | | Any suggestions on the best practice welcomed. | | Bruce Roberts. | |
Re: filmscanners: How to clean an LS30
On Wed, 25 Jul 2001 21:32:45 -0500 Andrew Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > I suppose sticking the > nozzle from a can of compressed air in the film slot and blasting away > is not the proper way. The proper way involves shipping to Nikon, and money. Try the air duster, but be very careful to keep the can upright so as not to squirt liquid propellant. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
Re: filmscanners: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re=3A=20autolevels=20was=20re=3A=20filmscanners=3
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 16:43:08 +1000 =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rob=20Geraghty?= ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > If so, why is a point of sun reflection in a photograph not a good > point to use for the white point? Because it's not representative of the > majority of the image? Yes, it is massively out of step with the brightness range of the rest of the image. If you set it as a white point, the rest of the histogram will likely be scrunched up to the left - better to clip the specular highlight and adjust for the rest. Or selectively mask and separately adjust two layers then recombine, if you want to keep some detail in the specular highlights. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
Re: filmscanners: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re=3A=20filmscanners=3A=20autolevels=20was=20re=3
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 13:21:51 +1000 =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rob=20Geraghty?= ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > But if that's the only area that could be described as white, what > *should* > you use? :-7 You can use any highlight, and it doesn't even need to be the brightest value. Simply double-click the dropper and use the colour-picker to select the target tone and colour you want the eyedropper-sampled area to become. This is a very powerful means of colour correction, used in combination with 3x3 or 5x5 dropper averaging, as has just been discussed here. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 15:11:40 +1000 =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rob=20Geraghty?= ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > >Reduce the amount of memory that is installed in your computer to 512 MB > >or less. Daft though this sounds, AIUI there really isn't any point to trying to use >512Mb RAM in a W98 machine. It just causes problems. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
Re: filmscanners: =?iso-8859-1?Q?autolevels=20was=20re=3A=20filmscanners=3A=20Vues
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 09:34:46 +1000 =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rob=20Geraghty?= ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Is there a > way to set an area for the dropper to use rather than a pixel? Options are on the options tab of the Navigator tool whilst the eyedropper is selected: 1 pixel, 3x3 or 5x5 average. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 01:18:23 -0500 LAURIE SOLOMON ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > One of my systems has 758MB of RAM and > the other has 640MB of RAM. Maybe I am just lucky. :-) Or maybe the extra RAM beyond 512Mb doesn't add any benefit, which is what I have been told to expect. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
RE: filmscanners: Scanning Kodachromes with LS30
How about that old Kodak favorite (??), 126 Instamatic? If I remember correctly, they were square negatives. Bob Reilly > I'm perplexed by the image size of your slides. 22mm square might be from > a > Robot camera? But you imply the image is too wide to scan -- have you > mixed up > your millimetres? Maybe these are slides on 127 (Vest Pocket) size film, > with an > image about 38mm square? From a Baby Rollei, or from a Brownie Starflash? >Sorry, more explicitly 22mm high and 22mm wide (32mm diagonal). I have >no idea camera what was used and the photographer is no longer with us >to find out. Regardless I will have to make do with what the scanner can >achieve. >Bruce.
Re: filmscanners: Scanning Kodachromes with LS30
Are you sure the image size isn't 28x28mm? Those slides sound like 126 (the original Instamatic format) to me. [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote: > In a message dated 7/26/2001 2:21:09 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > I am using VueScan 7.1.7 on a PC with an LS30. What is the generally > > accepted best method for scanning these? Is use of the infrared > > channel > > out? If it is better to use Nikon Scan 3.1 on these I can. > > VueScan's infrared dust removal works fine with Kodachrome. It's > the ICE algorithm that doesn't work with Kodachrome. > > > Many of the slides are badly faded, quite dirty (fingerprints, dust) > > and > > all of them are of an unknown size (to me). They are a square image > > measuring about 22mm on a side. This pretty much buggers me for > > scanning > > the whole image but the owner of the slides (family!) don't mind if I > > forcibly have to crop due to the scanners limitations. > > You might also experiment with the "Filter|Restore colors" option. > > Regards, > Ed Hamrick > >
Re: filmscanners: Re: autolevels was re: filmscanners: Vuescan blue anomaly
It's a judgment call on your part and depends on the image. Using a reflection or glare may limit the contrast in the rest of the image more than you want, more than if you set the white point elsewhere than on the highlight. Other times the actual color of the highlight may be other than white, and the color balance in the rest of the image may be changed by using the reflection for a highlight. Or it may work out fine. Dan Margulis is the one who said not to use it, but his book doesn't go into too much detail as to why. Maris - Original Message - From: "Rob Geraghty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 1:43 AM Subject: filmscanners: Re: autolevels was re: filmscanners: Vuescan blue anomaly | Maris wrote: | > Sometimes you can't use anything - rather than using the | > eyedropper you just have to guestimate - trial and error - | > until the number for a near-white spot are near-white but | > not-quite-white numbers. | | OK, let me rephrase the question slightly - isn't the intention of the black | and white point to define where the minimum and maximum brightness points | are? If so, why is a point of sun reflection in a photograph not a good | point to use for the white point? Because it's not representative of the | majority of the image? | | Rob | | | Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://wordweb.com | | | |
RE: filmscanners: artificial light
> Negative film made into prints which was exposed to tungsten lighting, > without correction would come out "lemon yellow" What about B&W negative film or tungsten color film? ;-)
RE: filmscanners: SS4000, Win2K disappears!
And if it really is SCSI, here is what solved the problem for me and some others: "Thanks to the many Filmscanners who helped solve my problem(SS 4000 not recognized in Win 2K). Conclusion was: 1. Install new drivers for the AdvanSys ABP-3922-00 SCSI card from http://www.connectcom.net/downloads/fastultra.html. Connect.com is the new name for the AdvanSys site. This installed a driver called Fast Ultra Narrow SCSI, which then showed up properly in Device Manager. Win 2K itself had a driver for the AdvanSys card which loaded automatically on setup, but it was out-dated. 2. Install new NTASPI32 with the installer from http://advansys.com/support/ntwnaspi32.html. A trick here was that the Adaptec installer did not work(gave a message that there was no Adaptec card on my system). The Polaroid Support staff and some others advised me to use the Adaptec site, but that would never work for me. Also, the AdvanSys CD that originally came with my SS4000(December 1999) had outdated drivers. In this AdvanSys site, there was a choice of a GUI installer or a simple system where you just copy the NTASPI and WNASPI files to two different WIN NT folders. I used the GUI and it was all automatic. 3. Now I had the right drivers and ASPI layer, but the scanner was still not recognized. I had to physically remove the AdvanSys card and reboot with the card out of the system(no longer showed up in the Device Manager). Then I shut down, put the AdvanSys card back in, and started up again. Voila! Works pefectly so far with the SS4000 using either Vuescan or PolaColor Insight. I still have a problem with Win2K system freezes when using Windows Explorer, and my USRobotics modem is not working. But all applications like Photoshop 6 and ThumbsPlus are working better than they did on Win 98 or Me. Dual Boot with Win Me working fine. I'll solve the other problems, but I couldn't have solved the ASPI problem without your help. Thanks Bill Twieg" *** -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tony Sleep Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 4:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000, Win2K disappears! On Wed, 25 Jul 2001 15:03:21 -0500 Steven N. Norvich ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Anyone have their scanner simply disappear (logically)? Device manager > says it is > not there and although hooked up to a fireware connection on my Dell > (not an installed card, > original installation), it is not discovered under new devices to be > installed. Got any ideas > about why or how to fix it? First off, I didn't know the SS4000 was available with a Firewire interface, I thought they were all SCSI. Second, does the Firewire (if it really is:) card show up OK in Device Mangler without conflicts? Do any other Firewire devices work off the card OK? If it is really SCSI, do you have the rear panel terminator switch set to 'on', and what ID number is set? Do you have other devices on the same bus? Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
RE: filmscanners: My replacement 8000 is banding like the first one :-(
> > Thanks, Ed! I learned something about hardware from you today ;-) > I wonder if Ed is a Mechanical Engineer or not? Maybe you shouldn't > trust him? ;-) > > Art I don't care if Ed is a burger flipper at McDonald's, he know what he's talking about ;-)
RE: filmscanners: OT: Native intelligence
> > That hardly applies. Architecture, and art, are not engineering, and > > require no basic understanding of mechanics. > > > > Actually, I know a some architects whole would not only disagree, but > would be insulted by that statement. I didn't say that all architects didn't have an understanding of mechanical engineering, material science and physics...but it's not a requirement to draw an aesthetically pleasing structure. My understanding is most architects are NOT engineers. > > You also conveniently diverged, and avoided answering my question. > > No I didn't, I decided not to indulge your insulting tone and attitude, > there is a difference. What ever makes you feel better, but it's still avoiding answering my question. > I was referring to the tone and attitude > of your post which implied people who were uneducated (in an official > sense) in a certain field were unworthy of commenting, having opinions > or ideas about that area. You are mistaken. I never said anything like that at all. > Qualifications do not necessarily translate to brilliance or even > understanding; They certainly do translate into understanding, though possibly in a limited sense. > My personal experience has been that people who > are hardest on education are usually those most educated Perhaps it's just that they didn't agree with what you were trying to "educate" them about. > > I do believe that you don't understand some of the things we have talked > > about. I believe you have a "working knowledge" but not an > understanding. > > > > Is that the royal "we"? Personally, I'll more often take the opinion of > a good mechanic who works day in and out on real devices over an > engineers theoretical opinion, any day. But that's repair, not design. If the mechanic were able to design, he probably would be doing design instead. > If all engineers were so good > at what they do, most mechanics would have been out of work years ago. There are other factors besides the engineers. Anyone having any real product development experience knows this. > As for my personal lack of "understanding", let's just say that in my > "uneducated" and unwashed state, I have helped to redesign a number of > products in concert with manufacturers who first hired "engineers" to > come up with the original failed design. What product was this? What exactly did YOU redesign? > Unlike you, I won't make a > sweeping statement and malign "all" engineers. I haven't maligned any engineers at all. If you believe I wrote that, you misread what I wrote. > It's only some who are > incompetent. I can't disagree with that. > Many are simply brilliant at what they do, and probably > would have been even without their formal education. I don't know about many, but certainly some. > > If designed properly, that mechanism can easily last a > lifetime. Also, wear > > does not imply imprecision. > > I see :-) Isn't that true of pretty much most things that prematurely > break down? No. > Creating precision is usually costly. It requires tight tolerances all > the way around, including in manufacturing, often from many components > from a number of sources. It often means careful testing of dimensions > of parts along the manufacturing process, more advanced and precise > machinery and sometimes, better trained assembly workers, who may have > to also take more time in doing each step. No one is saying it can't be > done, it just is very difficult when corners are needing to be cut to > keep competitive. Er, no. > Getting back to scanners, why is it there is so much discussion of > "banding, banding, banding"... is it that manufacturers think we "want" > banding in our scans? But I don't believe it is a mechanical issue, at least in this case. It is more than likely an electrical issue. BTW, I have never had any banding in my scanner. > Or, yes, some might be software programming defects as > well. Does that change over temperature ;-)
Re: filmscanners: OT: Native intelligence
At 11:51 PM 7/25/01 -0700, Art wrote: >Getting back to scanners, why is it there is so much discussion of >"banding, banding, banding"... is it that manufacturers think we "want" >banding in our scans? Of maybe it has to do with problems is design >(gee, could that be engineers who made errors?... no, couldn't be)... > >Or maybe, there is lack of precision in the components? Changes in >dimensions due to temperature?, or changes of electronic component >characteristics? Or, yes, some might be software programming defects as >well. Actually, it's been a couple of days since there was any mention at all of banding. I'm looking, at this instant, at a datasheet for a Toshiba CCD (TCD-2901D) freely available on the internet. There is a spec for non-uniformity across the array: TYP: 15%, MAX: 20%. So, in a way, it's amazing these CCD scanners work at all. What makes them work is white-point and black-point compensation. The base measurement has to be done as often as possible - typically just before each scan. The corrections are applied on a pixel-by-pixel basis, for every pixel in the resulting image. Of course, the calibration presumes that the light source is also constant over the course of a scan. If that assumption fails, all bets are off. This is why scanners with cold- cathode tubes often have annoyingly long lamp-warmup times. And of course, there are 2nd-and 3rd-order effects, some of which have been mentioned earlier in this thread. Eg., line-frequency noise, poor grounding (to explain the periodic banding in the 8000 ED) and maybe a host of mechanical issues as well. The yellow/brown streaking (not quite banding) that I saw occasionally on my SprintScan and Microtek scanners may also be due to poor sensitivity in the blue channel. Again, the datasheets tell the story -- the blue channel has about 1/2 the sensitivity of the red and green channels. >My point, very simply is that your assumption that mechanical engineers, >by nature of their diplomas automatically make they more capable of >understanding or implementing design is only partially true, and if they >were all so good at it, we'd like in a world where things held up a lot >better than they do. The difference between Austin and you, or me and you, is that we *are* engineers. So, rather than talk generalities, we look for root causes. I've cited one case (just above) where one can learn a good deal just by looking at data sheets for typical CCD arrays. rafe b.
filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
At 7/26/2001 04:57 PM +1000, you wrote: >The Q page on Microsoft's site says "...you *may* experience one or more >of the following symptoms..." (my emphasis). The article doesn't enlighten >as to why some systems might and others might not. My guess is that the >hardware (eg. motherboard, what cards are plugged in etc) has a lot to do >with it. The article also notes that the problem may occur "more readily" >with AGP graphics adapters in the system. > >I simply thought "power users" of RAM in this forum might like to know about >the issue. As I mentioned earlier - I'd upgrade to Win2K today if I knew >all the devices and software would still work. I'm reasonably positive >they wouldn't. If all I was doing was scanning and editing pictures, I >would already be running Win2K. This is a common problem with many motherboards. They either can't use more than 512 megabytes of memory, or peripheral device cards may use the memory space allocated for memory above 512k for their working space. There are also large numbers of motherboards around which don't cache the memory above 512Mb (or an even lower limit). With those it may degrade overall performance to add more than 512 Mb. - Rick Housh -
RE: filmscanners: Wet-mounting slides?
>In theory wet mounting would have the advantage that scratches in the >film and most dust particles become almost invisible, because their >refractive index is close to that of the mounting oil. This is the main reason I've been exploring alternatives to the Minolta carrier. Despite my best efforts to keep dust and dirt off the glass and film, I *still* end up doing a lot of spotting in PS and it's *very* time consuming. >The glass plates should be so thick that the outside of the glass is >sufficiently out of focus. A good mounting oil evaporates reasonably >fast and leaves no residu. The Kami mounting fluid I'm considering trying is claimed to evaporate from the both the film and glass and need little or no cleanup afterwards. Jeff Goggin Scottsdale, AZ
RE: filmscanners: Scanning Kodachromes with LS30
> If you haven't already, I suggest you read Dane Kosaka's step by step > guide to > scanning Kodachromes with Nikon scanners using Nikonscan software: > http://www.marginalsoftware.com/LS2000Notes/casestudyI/scanning_kodachro me > _on_th > e_nikon_caseI.htm Thanks, I will read that with great interest. > I'm perplexed by the image size of your slides. 22mm square might be from > a > Robot camera? But you imply the image is too wide to scan -- have you > mixed up > your millimetres? Maybe these are slides on 127 (Vest Pocket) size film, > with an > image about 38mm square? From a Baby Rollei, or from a Brownie Starflash? Sorry, more explicitly 22mm high and 22mm wide (32mm diagonal). I have no idea camera what was used and the photographer is no longer with us to find out. Regardless I will have to make do with what the scanner can achieve. Bruce. > - Original Message - > From: "Bruce Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > I have never had to scan Kodachrome slides before (and never thought I' > > have to!) but, as luck would have it, I have just been handed a huge > > pile of them to scan. > > > > I am using VueScan 7.1.7 on a PC with an LS30. What is the generally > > accepted best method for scanning these? Is use of the infrared channel > > out? If it is better to use Nikon Scan 3.1 on these I can. > > > > Many of the slides are badly faded, quite dirty (fingerprints, dust) and > > all of them are of an unknown size (to me). They are a square image > > measuring about 22mm on a side. This pretty much buggers me for scanning > > the whole image but the owner of the slides (family!) don't mind if I > > forcibly have to crop due to the scanners limitations. >
Re: filmscanners: Re: autolevels was re: filmscanners: Vuescan blue anom aly
At 04:43 PM 7/26/01 +1000, Rob Geraghty wrote: >OK, let me rephrase the question slightly - isn't the intention of the black >and white point to define where the minimum and maximum brightness points >are? If so, why is a point of sun reflection in a photograph not a good >point to use for the white point? Because it's not representative of the >majority of the image? I think the presumption is that these catchlights are blown out, and therefore not representative of any real measurements. rafe b.
Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
"Lynn Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > of one upgrade. Some reporters are already giving Windows "X" glowing > reviews...but then, some give glowing reviews to everything just to keep the > free stuff flowing. XP aka Whistler looks OK, but Win2K is here and now and stable. Rob
RE: filmscanners: Wet-mounting slides?
On 26-07-2001, LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: >I would think that what you propose would be as much of a pain in the butt >as what you are now doing with your glassless renovation of the original >Minolta holder and would be a lot more messy. I personally use the glass >holder and have had neither any trouble with such things as flatness or >Newton's Rings nor with it taking too much time to place and align >the film within the mask. I am not sure what benefits are to be >derived from a glassless version - let alone a wet mounted version. In theory wet mounting would have the advantage that scratches in the film and most dust particles become almost invisible, because their refractive index is close to that of the mounting oil. The glass plates should be so thick that the outside of the glass is sufficiently out of focus. A good mounting oil evaporates reasonably fast and leaves no residu. -- Hans Rijnbout Universiteit Utrecht, CBLE Postbus 80.054, NL-3508 TB UTRECHT tel: ++31 30 253 4567 fax: ++31 30 252 2478
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: autolevels was re: filmscanners: Vues can blue anomaly
At 01:21 PM 7/26/01 +1000, Rob Geraghty wrote: >Rafe wrote: >>With white point, it's important *not* to use >>a specular highlight -- eg., a reflection of >>the sun off of a shiny surface. > >But if that's the only area that could be described as white, what *should* >you use? :-7 Find the next-whitest thing, and make appropriate allowances. When you set white/black points with the droppers, you can make the RGB value anything you want to. This is not a huge problem in practice. I can almost always find a decent black point and white point in every image. This is actually a notion that predates digital imaging by many decades. rafe b.
Re: filmscanners: SS4000, Win2K disappears!
On Wed, 25 Jul 2001 15:03:21 -0500 Steven N. Norvich ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Anyone have their scanner simply disappear (logically)? Device manager > says it is > not there and although hooked up to a fireware connection on my Dell > (not an installed card, > original installation), it is not discovered under new devices to be > installed. Got any ideas > about why or how to fix it? First off, I didn't know the SS4000 was available with a Firewire interface, I thought they were all SCSI. Second, does the Firewire (if it really is:) card show up OK in Device Mangler without conflicts? Do any other Firewire devices work off the card OK? If it is really SCSI, do you have the rear panel terminator switch set to 'on', and what ID number is set? Do you have other devices on the same bus? Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Scanning Kodachromes with LS30
In a message dated 7/26/2001 2:21:09 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I am using VueScan 7.1.7 on a PC with an LS30. What is the generally > accepted best method for scanning these? Is use of the infrared channel > out? If it is better to use Nikon Scan 3.1 on these I can. VueScan's infrared dust removal works fine with Kodachrome. It's the ICE algorithm that doesn't work with Kodachrome. > Many of the slides are badly faded, quite dirty (fingerprints, dust) and > all of them are of an unknown size (to me). They are a square image > measuring about 22mm on a side. This pretty much buggers me for scanning > the whole image but the owner of the slides (family!) don't mind if I > forcibly have to crop due to the scanners limitations. You might also experiment with the "Filter|Restore colors" option. Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan newbie question
In a message dated 7/25/2001 9:42:28 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I would like to start using Vuescan with my Nikon LS30. However, when I > try to scan a negative, the image comes out washed out. Scanning the > same image with NikonScan 2.5, the colors look fine. Anyone know what > I'm doing wrong? Try decreasing the "Color|Gamma" option, and try setting "Color|White point (%)" and "Color|Black point (%)" to "5". Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: Digital Copyright
LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: > > I am arguing that people should not get their expectations up as to the > nature of the protection that copyright registration provides, the ease of > enforcement, the extent of the costs of insuring against copyright > protection in terms of time and money, and what they anticipate by way of > punitive damages and regular damages or other sanctions from infringers. (much cut) I see copyright regulation and enforcement like traffic lights. You sort of hope everyone follow them because the consequences of not doing so could be very messy, and being the one in the right is no guarantee that you'll be any less harmed than the person in the wrong. Art
RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
Rob wrote: >If all I was doing was scanning and editing pictures, I >would already be running Win2K. >From what I've read here and in various computer mags, maybe you should wait for the next "New and Improved" Windows version, if only for saving the cost of one upgrade. Some reporters are already giving Windows "X" glowing reviews...but then, some give glowing reviews to everything just to keep the free stuff flowing. Maybe I'm a repressed Ludite, but I think I'll stick to Win98 until it's really, *really* obsolete. ;-) Best regards--LRA _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Re: filmscanners: Scanning Kodachromes with LS30
Bruce If you haven't already, I suggest you read Dane Kosaka's step by step guide to scanning Kodachromes with Nikon scanners using Nikonscan software: http://www.marginalsoftware.com/LS2000Notes/casestudyI/scanning_kodachrome_on_th e_nikon_caseI.htm Most of what Dane recommends can be done with Vuescan as well as with Nikonscan. Since the slides are faded, Vuescan's "restore color" filter might be worth trying. Generally, Digital ICE (or the Vuescan equivalent) does not work well with Kodachrome. You can look forward to a lot of rubber stamping to get rid of the dust and grunge. I'm perplexed by the image size of your slides. 22mm square might be from a Robot camera? But you imply the image is too wide to scan -- have you mixed up your millimetres? Maybe these are slides on 127 (Vest Pocket) size film, with an image about 38mm square? From a Baby Rollei, or from a Brownie Starflash? Peter Marquis-Kyle - Original Message - From: "Bruce Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I have never had to scan Kodachrome slides before (and never thought I' > have to!) but, as luck would have it, I have just been handed a huge > pile of them to scan. > > I am using VueScan 7.1.7 on a PC with an LS30. What is the generally > accepted best method for scanning these? Is use of the infrared channel > out? If it is better to use Nikon Scan 3.1 on these I can. > > Many of the slides are badly faded, quite dirty (fingerprints, dust) and > all of them are of an unknown size (to me). They are a square image > measuring about 22mm on a side. This pretty much buggers me for scanning > the whole image but the owner of the slides (family!) don't mind if I > forcibly have to crop due to the scanners limitations.
Re: filmscanners: OT: Copyright Registration
Dear Terry, As a regular reader and contributor to this list, I wish to thank you for providing this very useful, helpful, and concisely written information. Terry Carroll wrote: > > > In the US, as in most countries, you get a copyright in the work as soon > as you create the work; technically the test is that it has to be "fixed > in a tangible medium of expression." Exposing the film is probably > enough, even if it's not yet developed, although I don't know any cases > on this in the real world, since you can't copy a photo from undeveloped > film. I think the point of the undeveloped film being protected under copyright is so that an unscrupulous lab or film processor might otherwise attempt to claim copyright on a clients film images, and it might otherwise be difficult for the photographer to claim ownership of the latent images if no copyright existed prior to the development of the images. As a further twist, I understand Allied Science Fiction has a process which allows them to scan an image prior to completion of development. Art
filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> I seem to get odd effects when scanning B&W negs using ICE on my Nikon 4000 - like >posterization . I vaguely remember someone once telling me this happened - can > someone tell me why and if theirs a way around it other than just not using ICE >on B&W negs? > Thanks , > Steve Digital ICE cannot work on silver B&W images (as opposed to B&W images made on color based films like the XP Ilford series) simply because silver in the film emulsion is opaque to IR. IR therefore cannot distinguish between a scratch, dust or film emulsion. Art
Re: filmscanners: artificial light
Negative film made into prints which was exposed to tungsten lighting, without correction would come out "lemon yellow" since tungsten lighting is indeed quite lacking in the blues due to having a much lower Kelvin temperature than true daylight. During printing (through photographic means) the neg is color corrected through filtration to give you a properly color balanced image. The same process can also be accomplished via digital color balancing, in fact, with careful adjustment, the results might even be more accurate than the photographic version. Art Tomasz Zakrzewski wrote: > > How filmscanners get away with negatives exposed in tungsten halogen light? > I do a lot of stage photography and during the printing process I get quite > neutral prints but is this the case with filmscanners? Having made recently > contact sheets from my negs on ,y new flatbed I noticed that a frame exposed > in tungsten lighting is totally lemon yellow on the scan. Is it coorrectable > as in standard photographic process? > > Regards > Tomasz Zakrzewski > > online portfolio > www.zakrzewski.art.pl
Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
This is probably because you are usually using a process that is grabbing sufficient memory to prevent the file cache getting big enough to block every other process. File servers are the most likely machines to be afflicted with this problem. It may come and bite you anytime so unless your feeling really lucky you may wish to look at my post just above this one. Steve - Original Message - From: "LAURIE SOLOMON" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 7:18 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows > Funny, I have two systems with more than 512 MB of RAM installed on them and > using Win 98 and have not experienced any problems of the sort you describe. > I have experienced problems with the motherboard not being able to resolve > conflicts in timing between different types of 168 pin DIMMs but no > operating system related problems. One of my systems has 758MB of RAM and > the other has 640MB of RAM. Maybe I am just lucky. :-) > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rob Geraghty > Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 12:12 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows > > > I'm just about to plug another 256MB of RAM into my computer and I thought > I'd better check up on a bug I'd heard mentioned in relation to Windows > 98. In fact the bug applies to all versions of Windows other than those > in the NT class (NT 4.0 and Win2K), not just 98. I think Microsoft's > suggested > workarounds on MSDN are hilarious. I wish I could move to Win2K, but I > am reasonably certain that the combination of hardware and software I have > will not work in that environment. So here's the warning in case you plan > to have more than 512MB RAM in your Windows 95, 98, 98SE or ME computer: > > >The Windows 32-bit protected-mode cache driver (Vcache) determines the > maximum > >cache size based on the amount of RAM that is present when Windows starts. > >Vcache then reserves enough memory addresses to permit it to access a cache > >of the maximum size so that it can increase the cache to that size if > needed. > >These addresses are allocated in a range of virtual addresses from > 0xC000 > >through 0x (3 to 4 gigabytes) known as the system arena. > > > >On computers with large amounts of RAM, the maximum cache size can be large > >enough that Vcache consumes all of the addresses in the system arena, > leaving > >no virtual memory addresses available for other functions such as opening > >an MS-DOS prompt (creating a new virtual machine). > > > >WORKAROUND > >To work around this problem, use one of the following methods: > > > >Use the MaxFileCache setting in the System.ini file to reduce the maximum > >amount of memory that Vcache uses to 512 megabytes (524,288 KB) or less. > > > >For additional information about how to use the MaxFileCache setting, click > >the article number below to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge > Base: > > > >Q108079 32-Bit File Access Maximum Cache Size > >Use the System Configuration utility to limit the amount of memory that > Windows > >uses to 512 megabytes (MB) or less. > > > >For additional information about how to use the System Configuration > utility, > >click the article number below to view the article in the Microsoft > Knowledge > >Base: > >Q181966 System Configuration Utility Advanced Troubleshooting Settings > > > > >Reduce the amount of memory that is installed in your computer to 512 MB > >or less. > > > Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://wordweb.com > > > >
filmscanners: Scanning Kodachromes with LS30
I have never had to scan Kodachrome slides before (and never thought I' have to!) but, as luck would have it, I have just been handed a huge pile of them to scan. I am using VueScan 7.1.7 on a PC with an LS30. What is the generally accepted best method for scanning these? Is use of the infrared channel out? If it is better to use Nikon Scan 3.1 on these I can. Many of the slides are badly faded, quite dirty (fingerprints, dust) and all of them are of an unknown size (to me). They are a square image measuring about 22mm on a side. This pretty much buggers me for scanning the whole image but the owner of the slides (family!) don't mind if I forcibly have to crop due to the scanners limitations. Any suggestions on the best practice welcomed. Bruce Roberts.
Re: filmscanners: Astrophotographs
Herm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I use vuescan, in 48bit mode, and export mostly raw scans to > photoshop.. there I do a proper levels adjustment.. You will not get > good results with any auto software on astrophotos. True. It's nice to have a hobby that will likely keep me busy for at least _some_ time... :-) > for slides I do not use any color correction, for negatives I set > color correction in Vuescan to auto white balance, black point set > at 0% and white point set at 0.01% The 'White Point' seems to be important, Ed wrote me a similar mail, he suggested 0.001% (One quick test yesterday was far better than the grainy, partly over-exposed scans I did before). It was probably the only setting I had not yet tried. As Lynn pointed out, I did not really describe my problem, so here it comes: Scans from astronomical pictures on Kodak Royal 1000 or Kodak Elite Chrome 200 turn out to be heavily over-exposed, even when I set white balance to 'neutral' or 'none' and fiddle with the exposure time. All this is using a ScanWit 2720S and VueScan7.1.3 (I just downloaded the 7.1.7). > here is a link to proper astrophotography levels adjustments: > http://www.aa6g.org/Astronomy/Articles/levels.html Hm... nice, thank you! -- Jan Exner · [EMAIL PROTECTED] · 0x9E0D3E98 · http://www.jan-exner.de/ 'Von mir aus können sie ihre Raumschiffe mit Klafter und Ellen messen' (Peter Hellinger in de.sci.astronomie)
filmscanners: OT: Native intelligence
Austin Franklin wrote: > > > > Are you a mechanical engineer? > > > > > > Many of the true marvels produced by man were made by people considered > > uneducated or unskilled in the profession they achieved in. Gaudi had no > > formal training in architecture, yet he designed and built some of the > > most memorable architecture in Spain. > > That hardly applies. Architecture, and art, are not engineering, and > require no basic understanding of mechanics. > Actually, I know a some architects whole would not only disagree, but would be insulted by that statement. In the case of Gaudi, he died before one of his building designs was built, and they are still trying to figure out how to put it together so it will stand. Maybe it was just his "last joke" (they are building it, slowly, BTW), but I doubt it. > You also conveniently diverged, and avoided answering my question. No I didn't, I decided not to indulge your insulting tone and attitude, there is a difference. > > > Some people are just born with a > > native understanding that often far exceeds anything education can > > provide. > > I do not feel you are one of these such people. Luckily, what you "feel' is irrelevant. I also never stated I was referring to myself, in fact, I was referring to the tone and attitude of your post which implied people who were uneducated (in an official sense) in a certain field were unworthy of commenting, having opinions or ideas about that area. Though there are people > that do have innate understanding of some things, that doesn't mean an > education doesn't give you certain qualifications, understandings and > abilities. Most people who put education down, don't usually have one...and > of course, that makes sense. Qualifications do not necessarily translate to brilliance or even understanding; they do look good, however, and often get one increased income and prestige. My personal experience has been that people who are hardest on education are usually those most educated, who can see the many flaws of formal education from their own lengthy experiences with the institutions. > > Some "kitchen inventors" have come up with concepts with no > > training in the field they excel within. I wouldn't expect you to > > understand, however. > > Ah, but I do understand that completely. I also know enough in this > field to know >when someone doesn't understand what it is they are talking about. > I see :-) > > My concern in the use of plastic carriers is the interfacing of the > > carrier and the stepper motor or oter movement method. Gearing between > > plastic and plastic or metal and plastic is likely to produce wear over > > time, and result in imprecision. > > I do believe that you don't understand some of the things we have talked > about. I believe you have a "working knowledge" but not an understanding. > Is that the royal "we"? Personally, I'll more often take the opinion of a good mechanic who works day in and out on real devices over an engineers theoretical opinion, any day. If all engineers were so good at what they do, most mechanics would have been out of work years ago. Barely a week goes by that a manufacturer isn't forced into a recall of some product due to design flaws leading to safety issues. If they had to also recall due to 'just damn stupid design', the list would be never-ending. As for my personal lack of "understanding", let's just say that in my "uneducated" and unwashed state, I have helped to redesign a number of products in concert with manufacturers who first hired "engineers" to come up with the original failed design. Unlike you, I won't make a sweeping statement and malign "all" engineers. It's only some who are incompetent. Many are simply brilliant at what they do, and probably would have been even without their formal education. > If designed properly, that mechanism can easily last a lifetime. Also, wear > does not imply imprecision. I see :-) Isn't that true of pretty much most things that prematurely break down? > > > Regarding the SS4000, although it does not apparently need > > multi-scanning, due to the quality of the CCD which limits noise, I > > understand that multi-scanning is not as precise due to some aspect of > > the carrier or positioning design. > > That could very well be, but if designed properly, that need not be. The > "unmentionable" scanner IS a three pass scanner, and has NO registration > problems between scans. Creating precision is usually costly. It requires tight tolerances all the way around, including in manufacturing, often from many components from a number of sources. It often means careful testing of dimensions of parts along the manufacturing process, more advanced and precise machinery and sometimes, better trained assembly workers, who may have to also take more time in doing each step. No one is saying it can't be done, it just is very difficult when corners are needing to be cut to keep competi
filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
Laurie wrote: > Funny, I have two systems with more than 512 MB of RAM > installed on them and using Win 98 and have not > experienced any problems of the sort you describe. The Q page on Microsoft's site says "...you *may* experience one or more of the following symptoms..." (my emphasis). The article doesn't enlighten as to why some systems might and others might not. My guess is that the hardware (eg. motherboard, what cards are plugged in etc) has a lot to do with it. The article also notes that the problem may occur "more readily" with AGP graphics adapters in the system. I simply thought "power users" of RAM in this forum might like to know about the issue. As I mentioned earlier - I'd upgrade to Win2K today if I knew all the devices and software would still work. I'm reasonably positive they wouldn't. If all I was doing was scanning and editing pictures, I would already be running Win2K. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: My replacement 8000 is banding like the first one :-(
Austin Franklin wrote: > > > > I thought the Polaroid SprintScan 4k that I had used > > > the plastic teeth in the carrier to move the film...but you > > are saying it > > > only positions the film with those teeth, I assume then locks > > the carrier > > > somehow, and uses an other mechanism (lead screw perhaps) to > > move the film > > > during scanning. > > > > Yes - this is exactly what it does. If you shine a flashlight into the > > front while it's scanning you can see this. > > > > Regards, > > Ed Hamrick > > Thanks, Ed! I learned something about hardware from you today ;-) I wonder if Ed is a Mechanical Engineer or not? Maybe you shouldn't trust him? ;-) Art
filmscanners: Re: autolevels was re: filmscanners: Vuescan blue anomaly
Maris wrote: > Sometimes you can't use anything - rather than using the > eyedropper you just have to guestimate - trial and error - > until the number for a near-white spot are near-white but > not-quite-white numbers. OK, let me rephrase the question slightly - isn't the intention of the black and white point to define where the minimum and maximum brightness points are? If so, why is a point of sun reflection in a photograph not a good point to use for the white point? Because it's not representative of the majority of the image? Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
