Re: filmscanners: ReSize, ReSample or ReScan ?
On Fri, 7 Sep 2001 07:01:59 -0500 Gordon Potter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > I have been told resampling is much more destructive to an image > then resizing. You were told wrong. Try it. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
RE: filmscanners: Nikon Scan & VS Negative dynamic range
On Sat, 8 Sep 2001 13:43:22 -0400 Austin Franklin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > That is just not true. F-stops are relative to the film, NOT to the > scanner. You can expand the exposure range on the film through exposure > and > development. PLEASE read the archives. You can express the range DMin-Dmax as F-stops, or as a log value (1 stop=~0.3) Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
Re: filmscanners: ReSize, ReSample or ReScan ?
If you define "resizing" to mean that the pixel dimensions don't change (you do that when you uncheck the "resample image" box under Image > Image Size in Photoshop), then resizing within Photoshop will have no affect on the image. A two-inch wide image at 300 ppi looks the same as far as the internal workings of Photoshop are concerned as a 4-inch wide image at 150 ppi. Resampling will either add pixels (up sampling) or remove pixels (down sampling) from the image and therefore will change it. In a message dated 9/23/2001 11:55:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Fri, 7 Sep 2001 07:01:59 -0500 Gordon Potter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > I have been told resampling is much more destructive to an image > then resizing. You were told wrong. Try it. Regards Tony Sleep
Re: filmscanners: ReSize, ReSample or ReScan ?
If you want to put a picture in your web with 500 pixels wide, what is better? Scan at full 4000 dpi and resample to adjust your image at this size (letting PS discard pixels) or scan at this size. I suppose the first choice but I am not very secure. ;-( Best regards, Dave Unofficial Olympus web page http://victorian.fortunecity.com/byzantium/656/index.html Unofficial Olympus Gallery http://www.taiga.ca/~gallery/subpages/irissari/irissari.html
Re: filmscanners: ReSize, ReSample or ReScan - 4Web ?
Hi Dave, If the only use of your picture is a 500 pixel web images, you can do as I do. I've been scanning with the Sprintscan 4000 for over a year and 95% of the time, my intended output is a 450 pixel jpeg. I scan at 1200 ppi so I have a 5 megabyte (approximate) image to work with. I like that file size because it gives me an adequate amount of information to work with. Then I work on the image in Photoshop after archiving the original scan. In general, my work flow goes something like this: Straighten the image Crop out the border created by the slide mount Save As a PSD and archive as the original scan Run whatever processing is necessary Resize to 72 PPI at 450 pixels (long dimension) Add copyright as an active text layer (usually 14 point with Technical font) Save As using the designated "450-" as a prefix Flatten and add a single pixel stroke in a complimentary color that the web page background will be (if the page is white I add a black stroke, if the page is black I add a white stroke) Unsharp mask Save For Web and my resulting file size is approximately 20k to 30k If the page background is to be white, just prior to adding unsharp mask, I open the folder of 450 pixel Photoshop files and do a batch drop shadow in PhotoImpact, saving as PSD's Then finish the operation in Photoshop again. The reason I use PhotoImpact for the drop shadow is because it's much easier and can give a uniform drop shadow in a batch operation and Photoshop can't: http://bermangraphics.com/tips/photoimpactds.htm Larry >If you want to put a picture in your web with 500 pixels wide, >what is better? Scan at full 4000 dpi and resample to adjust >your image at this size (letting PS discard pixels) or scan >at this size. I suppose the first choice but I am not very >secure. *** Larry Berman http://BermanGraphics.com ***
filmscanners: scanned files open larger than indicated
Can someone tell me why my TIF files open larger in Photoshop than their indicated size on the disk? A 25Mb file opens as 76Mb in Photoshops scratch size indicator A 130Mb file at around 205Mb A 330Mb somewhere about 410Mb what is going on? these are regular tiffs, I dont use LZW anymore. or any compression as far as I know. and the memory bloat is really annoying I have PS6 on W2K. thanks, Paul
filmscanners: Re: Emulsion flaws
At 8:37 PM -0400 9/23/01, Austin Franklin wrote: >I'm curious. Has anyone ever heard that this is a "problem" previously? I >mean, film has been around for decades...as well as exceptional cameras, >very good enlargers, and enlarging lenses...and people (including my self) >have made some very large printsbut never have I heard anyone, out of >hundreds of high end professionals and amateur photographers I know, ever >mention "emulsion bubbles" as being a problem... > >I've also not heard any of the high end scanner people I know (who use drum >scanners, Leafscans and Imacons) ever mention this issue either... Yeah, I know. I'm curious, too. I made Cibachrome prints for 25 years on a Durst using Schneider lenses and never saw any trace of them either. In fact, many of the older slides I'm seeing bubbles in now were the ones I printed. I think it is a matter of focus - when the emulsion is in focus, the bubbles are almost invisible. Curiously, one slide in particular (Ektachrome 64 from 1979), which I printed many times on Cibachrome and scanned using a Canon FS2710, showed no particular flaws. When I got a new Minolta Scan Dual II, I was shocked to see hundreds of specks and small lines in the sky area. When I examined it under a dissecting microscope using oblique light, all the marks showed up clearly. Most of them were in the base side of the film rather than the emulsion side. This has nothing to do with the present "bubble" discussion except to point out that some things invisible to conventional enlargers do show up on some scanners. It also does nothing to explain why high-end scanners and huge enlargements don't show the bubbles, either. I expect someone out there will have an answer. I started my investigation in response to a list member who was getting hundreds of tiny spots in Polaroid SS4000 scans from slides that seemed dust-free. I still think the "bubbles" are too small to show up as discrete spots, but they may have an effect on the "grain-aliasing" phenomenon. Regards, Roger Smith
RE: filmscanners: Nikon Scan & VS Negative dynamic range
Julian, thanks for the VERY useful information - I had missed this contrast setting, too. This is really a saver on most images, and I find that it also definitely improves color balance, not only contrast. The only drawback is that often the resulting histogram is very narrow (sometimes it covers only about half the available range), and so you get the infamous combing as soon as you touch levels or curves to increase the contrast a bit. I'd really like to have a continuous control, rather than three fixed values, for contrast. There is, of course, the "Contrast" slider, but I understand from your post that this is just another post-scan tool, and therefore not as effective. Alex Pardi -Original Message- From: Julian Robinson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: venerdì 7 settembre 2001 06.44 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Nikon Scan & VS Negative dynamic range OK mystery solved at last. I looked at the manual for the first time (which must say something about ease of use of NS3.1!) and there it is - "Lo-contrast" is a facility only available on the LS2000 and the LS30. I attach the relevant page so that you can see (as a GIF 30k, I hope this doesn't exceed our list limit but I am sure it'll be chopped into bits and dropped into the sinners bin if so) . Incidentally, the manual also includes an excellently informative flow chart (p109) to show where different bits of processing are done, something I always wanted in the LS2000 manual, and something I never understood till now. This shows that the only adjustments that take effect at the scan level (as opposed to post-processing) are Scanner Extras functions, ICE and Analogue gain. Of these the only ones which affect exposure are 'Analogue gain' and 'prescan lo-contrast' so these are two very important functions. To lose the latter with the recent scanners is a bad move IMHO and means - use Vuescan. Unless there is something I've missed.
RE: filmscanners: SS4000 comments
One size fits all -Original Message- From: James Hill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2001 12:01 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: filmscanners: SS4000 comments Thanks for the info Wire. I have a question about the different platforms for this scanner. I ran across a site with prices very close to the ecost price, but the description read for MACs - no mention of PCs. Are there two different versions of this scanner or is the only difference in the installed software? (David??) I just unloaded my S20 and will be ordering the SS4000, I just want to be sure I get the right package. I am on PC system. Thanks in advance. James Hill Freelance Photographer Mebane, NC [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "Wire Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2001 11:36 PM Subject: filmscanners: SS4000 comments > Just got a SS4000 to replace an LS-2000. After a day of use I find the > SS4000 is not as convenient as the LS-2000, but the scans are first rate! A > significant improvement over the LS-2000. Here are some observations:
filmscanners: PolaColor Insight 5.5
Soon to be available primarily to support the SprintScan 4000 plus but with one new feature for all and one for SprintScan 120 users. * To improve images scanned at less than 4000 DPI the user has a choice of several decimation techniques. Nearest neighbor, mixed mode, bi-linear, and bi-cubic. * For Sprintscan 120 users a mode has been added that shows all the images on the strip of which any one can be selected to work on. This feature helps with the problem of greatly varying inter-image gaps on medium format film. This will be available soon , short weeks. Several new users have asked what software program they should use Insight or SilverFast. I view these as complimentary products with Insight easier to use but with less powerful features than Silverfast. Discussions of scanner software produce some very strong opinions each package with its advocates. The first versions of Insight, 2 years ago, were poor so it has been somewhat trendy to trash Insight but I assure you there are many who use it regularly and like it. Vuescan also has an enormous following with many satisfied users. My advice is to start with Insight to get your feet wet and up and running and try the others if you need something you cannot find in Insight. I think we are all fortunate to have such a robust selection of alternatives. David
RE: filmscanners: SS4000 comments
> - The SS4000 SCSI connectors are two different types: one DB-25 and one > Centronics (and odd combination). The DB25 is a Mac standard for external SCSI connections...and the Centronics type is a typical SCSI I connection. Not really odd, but definitely old technology.
RE: filmscanners: ReSize, ReSample or ReScan ?
Since in reality these are really very different operations, I fail to see first how any comparison between the two is possible at all (apples and oranges) and second what definition and criteria of "destructive" is being used and with respect to what objective. If one rescales without resampling, one changes the effective resolution, is that destructive? If one resamples without rescaling, one changes the actual resolution, is that destructive? If one resamples and rescales, one has changed the actual resolution as well as the size of the image ( usually proportionately) so as to result in the equivalent to what one started with effectively, is that destructive? Is downward resampling more destructive than upward resampling or interpolation? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tony Sleep Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 1:46 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: ReSize, ReSample or ReScan ? On Fri, 7 Sep 2001 07:01:59 -0500 Gordon Potter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > I have been told resampling is much more destructive to an image > then resizing. You were told wrong. Try it. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
RE: filmscanners: scanned files open larger than indicated
There could be a number of reasons. First every time you open a file in Photoshop, a duplicate working file is opened in memory; if there were no such duplicate file one would not be able to have a "revert to" feature and maybe not even a history pallet. All adjustments and changes are made to the duplicate temporary version in memory until you actually save those changes to file whereupon they are made to the file in your designated folder on your hard drive. Second each time you make a layer, you are using more memory and hence more disk space in the scratch file, which unless you save the file with those layers does not get reflected in the file size in the designated hard drive folder. Thirdly, Photoshop itself has overhead which gets added to the file sizes when a file is opened up in Photoshop that is not reflected in the actual size of the file itself. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of PAUL GRAHAMSent: Monday, September 24, 2001 2:49 PMTo: Filmscanners@Halftone. Co. UkSubject: filmscanners: scanned files open larger than indicated Can someone tell me why my TIF files open larger in Photoshop than their indicated size on the disk? A 25Mb file opens as 76Mb in Photoshops scratch size indicator A 130Mb file at around 205Mb A 330Mb somewhere about 410Mb what is going on? these are regular tiffs, I dont use LZW anymore. or any compression as far as I know. and the memory bloat is really annoying I have PS6 on W2K. thanks, Paul
RE: filmscanners: scanned files open larger than indicated
Scratch Sizes in the status line in Photoshop 6 represent the amount of memory that is currently being used to display all images open in Photoshop. If you click the small triangle just to the right of Scratch Sizes, you can select Document Sizes and this ought to give you an accurate reading. For example, you can create a new file that is 11x14 inches at 240dpi. If you multiply the equivalent 2640x3360x3 you'll get 26,611,200 KBs or 26.6MBs--the right size. Then when you use Explorer to look at the file size, you see some slightly different number. To get a more accurate number, you can right-click on the file name in Explorer and select properties. That will give you the most accurate value. For some reason, Windows has always had this quirk of not giving the accurate file size. I once heard a plausible explanation but can't recall what it is. --- Gregory Georges Really Useful Content, Inc. Chapel Hill, North Carolina www.reallyusefulpage.com Author of Digital Camera Solutions & 50 Digital Photo Techniques -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of PAUL GRAHAM Can someone tell me why my TIF files open larger in Photoshop than their indicated size on the disk? A 25Mb file opens as 76Mb in Photoshops scratch size indicator A 130Mb file at around 205Mb A 330Mb somewhere about 410Mb what is going on? these are regular tiffs, I dont use LZW anymore. or any compression as far as I know. and the memory bloat is really annoying I have PS6 on W2K. thanks, Paul
Re: filmscanners: scanned files open larger than indicated
Paul, you'd probably find it more useful to display "Document Sizes" rather than "Scratch Sizes" in Photoshop if you want to keep track of your image size as you manipulate it, etc. It's not all that important to know the scratch size, provided you have enough of it, of course. In a message dated 9/24/2001 10:56:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There could be a number of reasons. First every time you open a file in Photoshop, a duplicate working file is opened in memory; if there were no such duplicate file one would not be able to have a "revert to" feature and maybe not even a history pallet. All adjustments and changes are made to the duplicate temporary version in memory until you actually save those changes to file whereupon they are made to the file in your designated folder on your hard drive. Second each time you make a layer, you are using more memory and hence more disk space in the scratch file, which unless you save the file with those layers does not get reflected in the file size in the designated hard drive folder. Thirdly, Photoshop itself has overhead which gets added to the file! sizes when a file is opened up in Photoshop that is not reflected in the actual size of the file itself. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of PAUL GRAHAM Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 2:49 PM To: Filmscanners@Halftone. Co. Uk Subject: filmscanners: scanned files open larger than indicated Can someone tell me why my TIF files open larger in Photoshop than their indicated size on the disk? A 25Mb file opens as 76Mb in Photoshops scratch size indicator A 130Mb file at around 205Mb A 330Mb somewhere about 410Mb what is going on? these are regular tiffs, I dont use LZW anymore. or any compression as far as I know. and the memory bloat is really annoying I have PS6 on W2K. thanks, Paul
Re: filmscanners: Nikon LS IV/Nikoscan 3.0
James, is this still on your ftp site? I have two goes at downloading 3.1 from the Nikon site but it keeps bombing out. i would be *very* grateful if you could give me temp access to download it from your site instead? best regards Pete Cutter - Original Message - From: "James Grove" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "'Claudiu Falub'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 9:56 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Nikon LS IV/Nikoscan 3.0 > You can grab it from me by ftp at > > 62.31.210.174 username nikon password nikon > > > James Grove > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.jamesgrove.co.uk > http://www.mountain-photos.co.uk > ICQ 99737573 > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Claudiu Falub > Sent: 06 July 2001 09:29 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: filmscanners: Nikon LS IV/Nikoscan 3.0 > > > Hi! > > I've recently purchased a Nikon LS IV scanner. It was delivered with > Nikonscan 3.0. While the scanner is ok, I don't like the software, since > it crashes all the time and I have to restart my computer and I hate > that. I heard the new version 3.1 is better. How can I get it? The > salesman told me that new version could be downloaded from internet, but > he couldn't give more details. If so, where and how could I get this > program? My system is a Pentium III, 1 GHz, 512 Mb SDRAM, Matrox G450 32 > Mb. > > Thanks a lot in advance, > Claudiu > >
RE: filmscanners: Nikon Scan & VS Negative dynamic range
> > That is just not true. F-stops are relative to the film, NOT to the > > scanner. You can expand the exposure range on the film through > exposure > > and > > development. > > PLEASE read the archives. You can express the range DMin-Dmax as F-stops, > or as a log value (1 stop=~0.3) > > Regards > > Tony Sleep Tony, perhaps you are not understanding my point. The number of stops you captured on film had NO relationship to the dynamic range of the scanner. That's basic. I can have the EXACT same dynamic range in the scanner, yet have one film/exposure/development that covers 5 f-stops, and one film/exposure/development that covers 7 f-stops. This is because the film it self will both have the same dMin and dMax, but will contain more/less exposure latitude. I completely understand the relation between f-stops and dynamic range, but I believe it is erroneous and misleading to express the dynamic range of a scanner in f-stops.
RE: filmscanners: Nikon LS IV/Nikoscan 3.0
Same access just don't use IE or Passive mode for transfers -- James Grove [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.jamesgrove.co.uk www.mountain-photos.co.uk ICQ 99737573 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Pete Cutter Sent: 24 September 2001 20:29 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon LS IV/Nikoscan 3.0 James, is this still on your ftp site? I have two goes at downloading 3.1 from the Nikon site but it keeps bombing out. i would be *very* grateful if you could give me temp access to download it from your site instead? best regards Pete Cutter - Original Message - From: "James Grove" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "'Claudiu Falub'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 9:56 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Nikon LS IV/Nikoscan 3.0 > You can grab it from me by ftp at > > 62.31.210.174 username nikon password nikon > > > James Grove > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.jamesgrove.co.uk > http://www.mountain-photos.co.uk > ICQ 99737573 > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Claudiu Falub > Sent: 06 July 2001 09:29 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: filmscanners: Nikon LS IV/Nikoscan 3.0 > > > Hi! > > I've recently purchased a Nikon LS IV scanner. It was delivered with > Nikonscan 3.0. While the scanner is ok, I don't like the software, > since it crashes all the time and I have to restart my computer and I > hate that. I heard the new version 3.1 is better. How can I get it? > The salesman told me that new version could be downloaded from > internet, but he couldn't give more details. If so, where and how > could I get this program? My system is a Pentium III, 1 GHz, 512 Mb > SDRAM, Matrox G450 32 Mb. > > Thanks a lot in advance, > Claudiu > >
filmscanners: Scanner Buying Dilemma
I had been considering buying either the Nikon 8000 or the Polaroid Sprintscan 120. The Nikon has not been readily available while the Polaroid has. Each have had positive and negative things said about them. However, the Nikon's banding issue and Polaroid's financial situation makes a decision about either difficult. Very recently I read about the Minolta Dimage Multi Scan Pro and have been impressed with its very impressive specifications. However, I have not been able to find any independent reviews or commentary about it anywhere. Of the three which one would the scanning experts on this list choose? Why? I look forward to read your suggestions and thoughts about each. I am anxiously looking forward to scan my inventory of 35mm and 2 1/4 slides and negatives. Hopefully then being able to get a few prints worthy of being framed for the few empty spaces on the walls of my home :-). Thanks Peter Palmer
RE: filmscanners: Scanner Buying Dilemma
Peter - I believe the polaroid scanners are made by microtek - so the financial aspect of your decision (if you are concerned with polaroid going belly up) could be removed by changing the name plate. __ Gordon Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Nashville, TN 37215 USA >
RE: filmscanners: Silverfast or Polarscan
I'd be curious to know if you tried SilverFast 5.5 or the new PolarColor software. They made a huge difference for me. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Barbara & Martin > Greene > Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2001 2:54 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: filmscanners: Silverfast or Polarscan > As for the SS 4000, go with Vuescan. > Using both Polarscan and Silverfast, I got terrible results. Using the > latest version of Vuescan with some help from those on the forum who are > proficient with it, I've gotten great scans with excellent color > and detail.
Re: filmscanners: Silverfast or Polarscan
As for the SS 4000, go with Vuescan. > Using both Polarscan and Silverfast, I got terrible results. You might wish to try version 5.5. Both Insight and SilverFast will produce excellent scans. Insight is VERY easy to use and whilst SilverFast is initially quite complex it has the capacity to produce scans from the SS4000 that VueScan users can only dream about (that's not a criticism of VueScan) Ian Lyons http://www.computer-darkroom.com
Re: filmscanners: Re: Emulsion flaws
Roger Smith wrote: > It also does nothing to explain why high-end scanners and > huge enlargements don't show the bubbles, either. I expect someone > out there will have an answer. I suspect that the resolving power of enlarging lenses are not as high as the resolving power of better scanners But I don't have an answer regarding the very high end scanners. Could this be a ccd vs drum issue? Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC
RE: filmscanners: Re: Emulsion flaws
> I suspect that the resolving power of enlarging lenses are not as > high as the resolving power of better > scanners I would completely disagree with that!
RE: filmscanners: Mac users
> "Hemingway, David J" wrote: > > > > Any Mac users considering purchasing a SS4000?? > > David > Yes, why do you ask? I am currently considering either the Polaroid or Nikon scanners. Not quite happy with either and will probably wait several months for something better. The Minolta Scan Multi PRO with 4800 dpi, ICE^3, and diffuse illumination comes closest to what I want. I don't need medium format and it's twice what I am willing to pay. Almost decided to get the SS4000 at around $500 after rebate. If it had ICE or ICE^3 I would get the SS4000 Plus.
Re: filmscanners: [OT] Best digital projector?
Hi Tom: I've done more than my share of research on this very topic and i have decided to buy an NEC LT156, which is a sub 6lb wonder. It is about $3000 for a refurb and it's pixels are invisible.The Epson 710c/715c also get great ratings. The issues to connsider are: price resolution XGA will be better than SVGA, but more expensive. DVI input needed? That means that you can hook up a DVI computer and get incredible text and DVD. warranty- Some companies offer 3years with free replacement within 24 hours if there are any problems. Projectorcentral.com is a great resource. Good luck! -Andy Darlow >[OT] Best digital projector? > >Hi, > >I realise it's a bit off-topic, but does anyone out there have some >experience showing photos on a digital projector? My photo club is >buying one. > >What should we look for, and why? > >How is it best set up (we have a 9-foot (3m) square screen.)? > >Any interesting tips or experiences ? > > >Thanks, Tom >Abacurial-Information-Management-Consultants http://abacurial.com >Tom A. Trottier, President ICQ:57647974 > 415-400 Slater St. Ottawa ON Canada K1R 7S7 > +1 613 291-1168 fax:594-5412 N45.418 W75.703 > >(after 2001 Oct 14)758 Albert St, Ottawa ON Canada K1R 7V8 > +1 613 860-6633 fax:231-6115 N45.412 W75.715 --
Re: filmscanners: [OT] Best digital projector?
If portability is an issue, you should check out (surprisingly) IBM's MicroPortable. http://commerce.www.ibm.com/cgi-bin/ncommerce/ProductDisplay?prrfnbr=1947327 &cntrfnbr=1&prmenbr=1&cntry=840&lang=en_US That probably wraps, so cut and paste it. I've seen it in action and lust after it. 3 pounds. -- not much bigger than a hardback book. XGA (1024x768) 1100 lumens It has a USB connection to the PC to control a slide presentation with the included remote. Even includes keystone correction, which is unusualy in the ultraportables. $4200. I first saw it an an IBM event and they were using it in a pretty bright demo area. The brightness startled me. Tom - Original Message - From: "Andy Darlow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 6:34 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: [OT] Best digital projector? > Hi Tom: > > I've done more than my share of research on this very topic and i > have decided to buy an NEC LT156, which is a sub 6lb wonder. It is > about $3000 for a refurb and it's pixels are invisible.The Epson > 710c/715c also get great ratings. The issues to connsider are: > > price > > resolution XGA will be better than SVGA, but more expensive. > > DVI input needed? That means that you can hook up a DVI computer and > get incredible text and DVD. > > warranty- Some companies offer 3years with free replacement within 24 > hours if there are any problems. > > Projectorcentral.com is a great resource. > > Good luck! > > -Andy Darlow > > > >[OT] Best digital projector? > > > >Hi, > > > >I realise it's a bit off-topic, but does anyone out there have some > >experience showing photos on a digital projector? My photo club is > >buying one. > > > >What should we look for, and why? > > > >How is it best set up (we have a 9-foot (3m) square screen.)? > > > >Any interesting tips or experiences ? > > > > > >Thanks, Tom > >Abacurial-Information-Management-Consultants http://abacurial.com > >Tom A. Trottier, President ICQ:57647974 > > 415-400 Slater St. Ottawa ON Canada K1R 7S7 > > +1 613 291-1168 fax:594-5412 N45.418 W75.703 > > > >(after 2001 Oct 14) 758 Albert St, Ottawa ON Canada K1R 7V8 > > +1 613 860-6633 fax:231-6115 N45.412 W75.715 > > > --
Re: filmscanners: Silverfast or VueScan
Ian Lyons wrote: >...whilst SilverFast is initially quite complex it has the capacity to produce >scans from the SS4000 >that VueScan users can only dream about (that's not a criticism of VueScan) What specifically can be better in the final result then, please Ian? Colin Maddock
RE: filmscanners: Nikon Scan & VS Negative dynamic range
Alex - glad it helped - I was beginning to wonder if anyone read any of this. About the combing, are you using 12-bit? I always scan in 12-bit and I have not noticed this being a problem except for outrageous manipulations (which I must admit I seem to need too much of the time). I presume you do this too. If some of yours only cover half the histogram range then things are getting squeezed a bit. I agree it would be nice to get more control over scan contrast, but AFAIK there is absolutely no way of setting the white and black points to 0 which is really what we want to do. Pre-scan I mean, not post-processing. I wrote to Nikon about this, they (Nikon USA) directed me to Australia Nikon, who won't answer my emails. Surprise! Julian At 18:56 24/09/01, you wrote: >Julian, > >thanks for the VERY useful information - I had missed this contrast setting, >too. This is really a saver on most images, and I find that it also >definitely improves color balance, not only contrast. The only drawback is >that often the resulting histogram is very narrow (sometimes it covers only >about half the available range), and so you get the infamous combing as soon >as you touch levels or curves to increase the contrast a bit. I'd really >like to have a continuous control, rather than three fixed values, for >contrast. There is, of course, the "Contrast" slider, but I understand from >your post that this is just another post-scan tool, and therefore not as >effective. > >Alex Pardi > > >-Original Message- >From: Julian Robinson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: venerdì 7 settembre 2001 06.44 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: filmscanners: Nikon Scan & VS Negative dynamic range > > >OK mystery solved at last. I looked at the manual for the first time >(which must say something about ease of use of NS3.1!) and there it is - >"Lo-contrast" is a facility only available on the LS2000 and the LS30. I >attach the relevant page so that you can see (as a GIF 30k, I hope this >doesn't exceed our list limit but I am sure it'll be chopped into bits and >dropped into the sinners bin if so) . > > > >Incidentally, the manual also includes an excellently informative flow >chart (p109) to show where different bits of processing are done, something >I always wanted in the LS2000 manual, and something I never understood till >now. This shows that the only adjustments that take effect at the scan >level (as opposed to post-processing) are Scanner Extras functions, ICE and >Analogue gain. Of these the only ones which affect exposure are 'Analogue >gain' and 'prescan lo-contrast' so these are two very important >functions. To lose the latter with the recent scanners is a bad move IMHO >and means - use Vuescan. Unless there is something I've missed.
Re: filmscanners: Scanner Buying Dilemma
Buy the SS120. I have one and I like it. The Nikon is probably a fine scanner if you could find one, but is reported to have problems keeping medium format film in focus at the edges due to the type of light source it uses, which also evidently accentuates dust which means you need to use ICE with it. You're evidently aware of these differences, so you can make up your own mind on those issues. As far as Polaroid's financial health, I doubt the company is going to disappear anytime soon. An as was mentioned in another post, Microtek can repair the Polaroid scanner as they build them for Polaroid. I don't know anything about the Minolta. But the Polaroid has been around for a few months now and has a bit of a track record, so I see no reason to look around for something else if you like the Polaroid's features and specifications. Whatever you get, be aware that files size with medium format film are huge (approaching 600 mb for 6x7 at 48-bit color depth) and you'll need a lot of RAM in your computer to make it work efficiently. In a message dated 9/24/2001 1:23:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I had been considering buying either the Nikon 8000 or the Polaroid Sprintscan 120. The Nikon has not been readily available while the Polaroid has. Each have had positive and negative things said about them. However, the Nikon's banding issue and Polaroid's financial situation makes a decision about either difficult. Very recently I read about the Minolta Dimage Multi Scan Pro and have been impressed with its very impressive specifications. However, I have not been able to find any independent reviews or commentary about it anywhere. Of the three which one would the scanning experts on this list choose? Why? I look forward to read your suggestions and thoughts about each. I am anxiously looking forward to scan my inventory of 35mm and 2 1/4 slides and negatives. Hopefully then being able to get a few prints worthy of being framed for the few empty spaces on the walls of my home :-). Thanks Peter Palmer
Re: filmscanners: Silverfast or Polarscan
I agree. Anyone who can't get good scans with Insight or SilverFast probably haven't learned how to use them. In the case of SilverFast, I can understand that. Vuescan isn't all that easy to use either, from what I've seen on this list. In a message dated 9/24/2001 2:11:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As for the SS 4000, go with Vuescan. > Using both Polarscan and Silverfast, I got terrible results. You might wish to try version 5.5. Both Insight and SilverFast will produce excellent scans. Insight is VERY easy to use and whilst SilverFast is initially quite complex it has the capacity to produce scans from the SS4000 that VueScan users can only dream about (that's not a criticism of VueScan) Ian Lyons
Re: filmscanners: Re: Emulsion flaws
Ok Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC Austin Franklin wrote: > > I suspect that the resolving power of enlarging lenses are not as > > high as the resolving power of better > > scanners > > I would completely disagree with that!
