filmscanners: Comparing the sharpness of scans

2001-11-12 Thread Rob Geraghty

Is anyone else interested in taking a couple of photos of a resolution target
to attempt to compare the sharpness of your lenses?  I won't be able to
compare the results of the photos I took last weekend until I finish the
roll in my own camera.  I just have to think of something to use 2/3 of
a roll of 100F on...

The photos from the Canon lenses look nice.  I've scanned a couple with
a SS4000 and they don't look amazingly sharper than photos from my own camera,
but I'll need to scan the photos I took with mine on the same scanner to
compare them side by side.  One thing I noticed was that it was much easier
to focus the big lenses because the viewfinder image was much brighter.

I just priced a 43mm Pentax prime as an import from Japan.  Much cheaper
that way for me, as the Australian prices are silly.  Now I just need to
find US$450...

Rob


Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com






RE: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images

2001-11-12 Thread Austin Franklin


> on 11/11/01 10:21 PM, Austin Franklin at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >> the limit of a 32bit PCI bus at 133MHz (but still in the limits of an
> >> Adaptec 29160 controller)
> >
> > The standard PCI bus is 33 MHz (or 66MHz), NOT 133MHz.  Perhaps you mean
> > 132M BYTES/sec?  Even at that, you can't get near %80 of that, if you're
> > lucky.  132M bytes/sec is the burst rate.  There is substantial
> overhead on
> > the PCI bus that lowers that substantially.
> >
> Actually, he did not say "standard", and the current PCI standard _is_ 133
> MHz. 33 MHz is ancient technology, 66 MHz is antique technology,
> 100 MHz is
> yesterday's news, and 133 MHz is the current defacto PCI standard.

Er, no.  The PCI bus is ONLY spec'd for 33Mhz, and 66Mhz, and 66MHz is
hardly ancient, as it's only in the past year that 66MHz slots have been
readily available on PCs.

It is PCI-X that is spec'd for higher speeds, currently 66/100MHz, and no
one has any 133MHz operation as far as I know.  The last time I looked, no
current system boards (from say Tyan, ASUS etc.) are available that support
PCI-X.  Also, the last time I looked at the Adaptec web site, they did NOT
have a PCI-X RAID card (or even a controller chip) available...that's how
"ancient" the technology is!

The Adaptec 29160 is certainly NOT PCI-X anyway, it is ONLY 64 bit/32 bit
PCI compatible.  That is what card was referenced above, and what was being
referred to.  The PCI-X product lines from Adaptec will be Ultra 320 at this
point, and I'd say they are about a year away.

And, yes, (I don't mean to sound obnoxious) I also know PCI very, very well
too.




filmscanners: Air cleaner

2001-11-12 Thread David Lewiston

A few days ago I came across a reference to an electronic air cleaner. I
thought it was in a post to this list, but now I can't find it.

I'd appreciate a pointer to the relevant website.

Thanks & salutations, David L




RE: filmscanners: SS4000 Problem

2001-11-12 Thread Hemingway, David J

No special  cleaning. The 120 sensor should not have the same problem, I am
told.
David

 -Original Message-
From:   Jeff Spirer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent:   Monday, November 12, 2001 6:11 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject:RE: filmscanners: SS4000 Problem

At 12:16 PM 11/12/01, Hemingway, David J wrote:
>If the carrier seemed to be constantly seeking you may have dirt in the
>sensor. There is a brush assembly that you can request, free, from Polaroid
>support.
>David

This brings up something I have wondered about since I  recently got my 
SS120.  There isn't a word about cleaning in the manual.  Are there any 
standard maintenance procedures that should be followed?  Is the same brush 
assembly available for the SS120?


>  -Original Message-
>From:   Stewart Musket [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent:   Monday, November 12, 2001 1:51 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject:filmscanners: SS4000 Problem
>
>I have been using the SS4000 successfully for two years.  However, last
>night I turned on the scanner and the flashing yellow light never became
>steady.  I tried rebooting, reseating the SCSI connectors, and several
other
>things, but with no result.  I would appreciate the advice of knowledgeable
>SS4000 users.
>
>Stewart Musket

Jeff Spirer
Photos: http://www.spirer.com
One People: http://www.onepeople.com/



RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: SS4000 Problem

2001-11-12 Thread Hemingway, David J

It has been included for a few months.
David

 -Original Message-
From:   Rob Geraghty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent:   Monday, November 12, 2001 5:55 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: SS4000 Problem

David wrote:
>If the carrier seemed to be constantly seeking you may have dirt in the
>sensor. There is a brush assembly that you can request, free, from Polaroid
>support.

David, maybe this is a dumb suggestion but why not add the brush to the
standard kit for the scanner?

Rob


Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com





Re: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images

2001-11-12 Thread Jim Snyder

on 11/11/01 10:21 PM, Austin Franklin at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>> the limit of a 32bit PCI bus at 133MHz (but still in the limits of an
>> Adaptec 29160 controller)
> 
> The standard PCI bus is 33 MHz (or 66MHz), NOT 133MHz.  Perhaps you mean
> 132M BYTES/sec?  Even at that, you can't get near %80 of that, if you're
> lucky.  132M bytes/sec is the burst rate.  There is substantial overhead on
> the PCI bus that lowers that substantially.
> 
Actually, he did not say "standard", and the current PCI standard _is_ 133
MHz. 33 MHz is ancient technology, 66 MHz is antique technology, 100 MHz is
yesterday's news, and 133 MHz is the current defacto PCI standard.




RE: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images

2001-11-12 Thread LAURIE SOLOMON

>Actually, both must be set up on the same IDE channel as masters.

How does one do that?  I thought that you could only have one master device
per channel; and it was the one that was connected to the end of the ribbon
cable and had its jumper set for master.

At any rate, I am off to check out the web site you mentioned and do some
further research.  Thanks for the reference.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jim Snyder
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 8:10 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images


on 11/12/01 12:22 AM, LAURIE SOLOMON at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> To Preben:
>
> Thanks for your response and patience.  The Abit board does permit JBOD;
but
> it does not provide RAID 5 as you have noted.  When I asked about what
> appeared to be a contradiction between what you suggested and what the
ABIT
> manual said I did not realize that there was a RAID 5 and that this was
what
> you were referring to.  I apologize for my ignorance; but I am not sorry I
> asked.  Out of my asking, I learned about RAID 5, which I would not have
> known about if I did not raise my question about the apparent
contradiction.
>
> To all who have posted on the subject of RAID:
>
> Thank you; it has been an education.  I have a few additional questions
that
> I need to be educated on and would appreciate any information that you
could
> provide me.
>
> (1) If one sets up a RAID 0 (striping)with two 60GB disks, must each hard
> drive be the master on a separate IDE channel or can they be set up as
> master-slave on the same IDE channel?

Actually, both must be set up on the same IDE channel as masters. There is a
procedure to follow before doing so, but this is the end result.
>
> (2) If one sets up a RAID 0 (striping)with two 60GB disks under WIN 98,
can
> one establish partitions for the array or must it be a single partition?
In
> formatting the drives to be used in a RAID array, how does one format each
> of the disks with Fdisk (each disk being a brand new disk) with respect to
> partitions?

Each is first done separately, but then there are steps to follow before
arriving at the end result. Check the website of www.storagereview.com for
details. They have a great article on setting up RAID arrays.
>
> (3)If one sets up a RAID 0 (striping)with two 60GB disks under WIN 98, can
> one use utilities such as ScanDisk and Disk Defragmenter on the RAID
array,
> on individual hard drive disks in the array, or - if logical partitions
are
> usable with the array or disks in the array - on the partitions?

Yes. Both disc are effectively one disk when properly set up. Remember, data
is being striped to both as if they are one disc.

Jim Snyder




Re: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images

2001-11-12 Thread Jim Snyder

on 11/12/01 4:07 AM, Mike Bloor at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Preben,
> 
> At 12:34 11/11/01 +0100, you wrote:
> 
>> Lastly, these stand alone Raid cards - unlike raid solutions on
>> motherbords -  have their own processors on board which takes over all the
>> hard work, freeing up your system processor.
> 
> I knew that RAID in software (e.g. as part of Windows NT4) worked on the
> main CPU, but I thought that PC's with additional RAID hardware on the
> motherboard (such as many of the Dell servers) off loaded these tasks.
> 
They reduce the load, but do not completely offload it. The CPU is still the
master controller.

Jim Snyder




Re: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images

2001-11-12 Thread Jim Snyder

on 11/12/01 12:22 AM, LAURIE SOLOMON at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> To Preben:
> 
> Thanks for your response and patience.  The Abit board does permit JBOD; but
> it does not provide RAID 5 as you have noted.  When I asked about what
> appeared to be a contradiction between what you suggested and what the ABIT
> manual said I did not realize that there was a RAID 5 and that this was what
> you were referring to.  I apologize for my ignorance; but I am not sorry I
> asked.  Out of my asking, I learned about RAID 5, which I would not have
> known about if I did not raise my question about the apparent contradiction.
> 
> To all who have posted on the subject of RAID:
> 
> Thank you; it has been an education.  I have a few additional questions that
> I need to be educated on and would appreciate any information that you could
> provide me.
> 
> (1) If one sets up a RAID 0 (striping)with two 60GB disks, must each hard
> drive be the master on a separate IDE channel or can they be set up as
> master-slave on the same IDE channel?

Actually, both must be set up on the same IDE channel as masters. There is a
procedure to follow before doing so, but this is the end result.
> 
> (2) If one sets up a RAID 0 (striping)with two 60GB disks under WIN 98, can
> one establish partitions for the array or must it be a single partition?  In
> formatting the drives to be used in a RAID array, how does one format each
> of the disks with Fdisk (each disk being a brand new disk) with respect to
> partitions?

Each is first done separately, but then there are steps to follow before
arriving at the end result. Check the website of www.storagereview.com for
details. They have a great article on setting up RAID arrays.
> 
> (3)If one sets up a RAID 0 (striping)with two 60GB disks under WIN 98, can
> one use utilities such as ScanDisk and Disk Defragmenter on the RAID array,
> on individual hard drive disks in the array, or - if logical partitions are
> usable with the array or disks in the array - on the partitions?

Yes. Both disc are effectively one disk when properly set up. Remember, data
is being striped to both as if they are one disc.

Jim Snyder




Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: HP 7400c

2001-11-12 Thread John Rylatt

I have a Visioner 8820USB which will scan  up to 5x7 inch transparencies @ up to 
1200x1200
dpi. Costs about $130 US. It is rated 'well' in PCWorld.

It is not supported by VueScan as yet.

Regards, John.


Rob Geraghty wrote:
> 
> Ezio wrote:
> > The HP6200 is broken (I actually scanned 100 times max !!)
> > (150$ asked for a repair by the HP carry - in centre !!)
> > I have substituted the flatbed with an inexpensive Genius Kye 50$
> > worth ... and it produces good results for my purposes.
> > Ready to listen to people knowing better than me the 7400 , but I
> > won't buy this brand any more .. :-(((
> 
> I've had an HP Scanjet IIIc since 1995 and it is still going strong.  I've
> scanned a LOT of stuff with it.  However, I understand that much more recent
> models may not have the same quality.  Personally if I was going to buy
> another flatbed right now I'd get a Canon - for reflective scanning they're
> cheap and work very well.  For things that don't fit on the flatbed you
> can use stitching software to reassemble multiple scans.  But large transparencies
> are a problem.  "Better" options might be to look at Epson or Umax for small
> transparencies.  I don't know if there's anything "cheap" that will scan
> a large transparency well.
> 
> Rob
> 
> Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://wordweb.com



Re: filmscanners: Vuescan 7.2.3+ Filter|Grain reduction

2001-11-12 Thread Maris V. Lidaka, Sr.

Thanks for taking the time and trouble to run this test and to post the results.

To me it's clear that VueScan's 7.2.3+ grain-reduction filter is a substantial 
improvement over 7.1.23 and 7.1.25

Thanks, Ed, for the improvement.

Maris

- Original Message - 
From: "Bob Shomler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 6:13 PM
Subject: filmscanners: Vuescan 7.2.3+ Filter|Grain reduction


| Someone recently asked if there was any discernible difference among the 
|low-medium-high settings with Ed's improved grain reduction filter in vuescan 7.2.3.  
|I thought I'd try some small comparisons from a negative scan, a small crop of sky 
|and snow from a near-end-of daylight scene -- sky being a common area where grain 
|aliasing is noticeable and grain a reduction filter can assist with image quality.
| 
| I think differences are noticeable.  File sizes of almost same 200x200 pixel crop 
|are different: 28, 25, 23 and 21 KB for none, low, medium and high grain filter 
|setting (decreasing file size indicating a reduction in detail from the filter 
|action).
| 
| I also included the same crop processed by vuescan 7.1.23 and 7.1.25 (these exhibit 
|color differences too).  The negative was scanned on a LS-30 at full res (2700) using 
|white balance color and IR clean.  Six files are at
| 
|   www.shomler.com/vuescan/
| 
| v7203n.jpg, v7203l.jpg, v7203m.jpg, v7203h.jpg, v7125h.jpg and v7123h.jpg are 
|approximately the same crop using, respectively vuescan grain reduction filters 7.2.3 
|none. 7.2.3 low, 7.2.3 medium, 7.2.3 high, 7.1.25 high and 7.1.23 high. Scan was with 
|IR clean on.  There are some color differences between 7.1.23, 7.1.25 and 7.2.3.  
|Scans are 48-bit mode, reduced to 24bit in photoshop 6.0.1.  Jpeg is from photoshop, 
|compression maximum quality/12, color space AdobeRGB.
| 
| Complete image (September sunset on Mt. Shasta, California) may be seen at
| 
|   www.shomler.com/other/0011329.jpg
| 
| Crop is from upper right quadrant.
| 
| 
| --
| Bob Shomler
| http://www.shomler.com/gallery.htm
| 




filmscanners: Vuescan 7.2.3+ Filter|Grain reduction

2001-11-12 Thread Bob Shomler

Someone recently asked if there was any discernible difference among the 
low-medium-high settings with Ed's improved grain reduction filter in vuescan 7.2.3.  
I thought I'd try some small comparisons from a negative scan, a small crop of sky and 
snow from a near-end-of daylight scene -- sky being a common area where grain aliasing 
is noticeable and grain a reduction filter can assist with image quality.

I think differences are noticeable.  File sizes of almost same 200x200 pixel crop are 
different: 28, 25, 23 and 21 KB for none, low, medium and high grain filter setting 
(decreasing file size indicating a reduction in detail from the filter action).

I also included the same crop processed by vuescan 7.1.23 and 7.1.25 (these exhibit 
color differences too).  The negative was scanned on a LS-30 at full res (2700) using 
white balance color and IR clean.  Six files are at

  www.shomler.com/vuescan/

v7203n.jpg, v7203l.jpg, v7203m.jpg, v7203h.jpg, v7125h.jpg and v7123h.jpg are 
approximately the same crop using, respectively vuescan grain reduction filters 7.2.3 
none. 7.2.3 low, 7.2.3 medium, 7.2.3 high, 7.1.25 high and 7.1.23 high. Scan was with 
IR clean on.  There are some color differences between 7.1.23, 7.1.25 and 7.2.3.  
Scans are 48-bit mode, reduced to 24bit in photoshop 6.0.1.  Jpeg is from photoshop, 
compression maximum quality/12, color space AdobeRGB.

Complete image (September sunset on Mt. Shasta, California) may be seen at

  www.shomler.com/other/0011329.jpg

Crop is from upper right quadrant.


--
Bob Shomler
http://www.shomler.com/gallery.htm



RE: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images

2001-11-12 Thread Austin Franklin

> ... The biggest increase in performance is from one to
> two drives,

Absolutely, and that's per channel, so a two channel system would greatly
benefit from four drives, two on each channel.

Moreno, thanks for your post, it was right on the money.




RE: filmscanners: SS4000 Problem

2001-11-12 Thread Jeff Spirer

At 12:16 PM 11/12/01, Hemingway, David J wrote:
>If the carrier seemed to be constantly seeking you may have dirt in the
>sensor. There is a brush assembly that you can request, free, from Polaroid
>support.
>David

This brings up something I have wondered about since I  recently got my 
SS120.  There isn't a word about cleaning in the manual.  Are there any 
standard maintenance procedures that should be followed?  Is the same brush 
assembly available for the SS120?


>  -Original Message-
>From:   Stewart Musket [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent:   Monday, November 12, 2001 1:51 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject:filmscanners: SS4000 Problem
>
>I have been using the SS4000 successfully for two years.  However, last
>night I turned on the scanner and the flashing yellow light never became
>steady.  I tried rebooting, reseating the SCSI connectors, and several other
>things, but with no result.  I would appreciate the advice of knowledgeable
>SS4000 users.
>
>Stewart Musket

Jeff Spirer
Photos: http://www.spirer.com
One People: http://www.onepeople.com/




RE: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images

2001-11-12 Thread Austin Franklin

> Seems like you have done everything and also know everything.

Not everything, but having been an engineer for 25 years, I have done many
projects including digital imaging systems, and SCSI systems...  What I do
know, I know, and what I don't know, I know I don't know.  I don't just make
things up.

> I don't
> know how your company  (or you) determined MTBF of a RAID0 system but
> most companies as Compaq, IBM, Sun, Adaptec, etc. say that MTBF will
> decrease.

There is only one article I have seen that says this, and I have had
discussions with the authors about this.  Do you have any reference to
articles/spec sheets that make this claim?

Interestingly enough, MTBF does not derate for adding a second CPU or for
adding more memory to the system...

> Exactly because of the reduced MTBF of a system with multiple
> HDs Berkeley has suggested the RAID system.

Is this "study" published anywhere?  If so, I'd like to see it.

> The RAID system is supposed
> to relax the impact of the reduced MTBF. That doesn't mean the MTBF
> becomes higher when a RAID system is deployed but it just makes it more
> likely that the failure can be repaired.

Failure recovery is entirely different from MTBF.

> I see though where your (company's) calculation might come from.

The company was Digital, BTW.  We had an entire department devoted to MTBF
testing...and specifically to storage MTBF assessment.

> You
> can determine MTBF for a certain device by testing for example 1
> drives for 1000 hours and then divide the total of 1*1000 hours by
> the number of failures.

That's not really how you determine MTBF.  MTBF is an average.  You are
right, you need a large sample to test though.

> Nevertheless, this calculation doesn't apply to RAID as a RAID system
> has to be considered as a single identity.

Exactly, and that is why you don't get any decrease in MTBF by adding
drives.  It's really simple.

> So you cannot claim that
> because you have 10 HDs your RAID system is working 10*1=10 hours in
> each single hour. Your RAID system is ONE identity and therefore is
> working only 1 hours each hour it is up. Therefore the MTBF decreases.

Why does the MTBF decrease?  You have a magical "therefore" that doesn't
follow.

If you tested 1000 drives by themselves, and you got an MTBF of 1,000,000
hours, let's say...take those 1000 drives, and make 500 RAID 0 systems, and
your MTBF will NOT decrease notably, if at all, from drive failure.  It may
from other factors like power supply or thermal, but not from drive failure.




filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: SS4000 Problem

2001-11-12 Thread Rob Geraghty

David wrote:
>If the carrier seemed to be constantly seeking you may have dirt in the
>sensor. There is a brush assembly that you can request, free, from Polaroid
>support.

David, maybe this is a dumb suggestion but why not add the brush to the
standard kit for the scanner?

Rob


Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com






filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: HP 7400c

2001-11-12 Thread Rob Geraghty

Ezio wrote:
> The HP6200 is broken (I actually scanned 100 times max !!)
> (150$ asked for a repair by the HP carry - in centre !!) 
> I have substituted the flatbed with an inexpensive Genius Kye 50$
> worth ... and it produces good results for my purposes.
> Ready to listen to people knowing better than me the 7400 , but I
> won't buy this brand any more .. :-(((

I've had an HP Scanjet IIIc since 1995 and it is still going strong.  I've
scanned a LOT of stuff with it.  However, I understand that much more recent
models may not have the same quality.  Personally if I was going to buy
another flatbed right now I'd get a Canon - for reflective scanning they're
cheap and work very well.  For things that don't fit on the flatbed you
can use stitching software to reassemble multiple scans.  But large transparencies
are a problem.  "Better" options might be to look at Epson or Umax for small
transparencies.  I don't know if there's anything "cheap" that will scan
a large transparency well.

Rob


Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com






Re: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images

2001-11-12 Thread Lawrence Smith


> 
> Seems like you have done everything and also know everything.

ROTFLMAO


--
Lawrence W. Smith Photography
http://www.lwsphoto.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--





filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 Problem

2001-11-12 Thread Rob Geraghty

Tom wrote:
>Happened to me too.  Call Polaroid and ask for the free cleaning kit.
>They'll send you a little brush gadget that attaches to your slide carrier.
>Follow the instructions. For 'most' people, that fixes the problem.

If the brush doesn't work, you can also try blowing the dust out of the
sensor with compressed air - but check whether opening the case of the scanner
voids the warranty.  If the scanner is under warranty and the brush doesn't
work, the best option may be a warranty repair.

Rob


Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com






RE: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images

2001-11-12 Thread Austin Franklin

> > No one uses narrow SCSI for RAID, and it doesn't have to be SSA.  SCSI
uses
> > four bits for SCSI ID, which makes SIXTEEN devices.

> The U-160 card I know (Adaptec 29160) allows the connection of 7 devices
> each controller while permitting 16 addresses.

A device IS the same as a SCSI address in this case.  Narrow SCSI can have 8
devices (three bits), one being the controller.  Wide SCSI, which is what
any RAID system is going to use (or why bother) has four bits, or 16
devices/addresses.

> Single SCSI card can connect up to 7 or 15 devices per channel

If you are using narrow devices, 7 is the number, wide devices, 15 is the
number.  As I said, it's not worth doing RAID on a narrow drive, since there
really aren't any SCSI 160 drives that are narrow that I know of...

> > A correct implementation of RAID 5 will write all at the same time.
RAID 5
> > is NOT slowed down because it has to do multiple writes, it's because,
> > sometimes, depending on stripe size, it has to read, calculate parity,
then
> > write.  RAID 5 is slowed down for reads, since the parity is distributed
> > across drives.

> RAID Level 5
> ...the performance for reads tends to be considerably lower...

As I said, but note that there was no penalty for writes.  Writes are cached
anyway.

> > > the benchmarks AREN'T running out of disk cache...that hardly tests
the
> > disk
> > > speed.  You'll be lucky to get even near 80, if even 60.

> I am meaning ... each disk runs at 35 or 30MB/s + SCSI architecture allows
parallel operations

True.

> then I can add them to have an aggregated transfer rate . It might be I
will never achieve 100% > real addition , but I believe the aggregated
transfer rate is close to the summary
> of the single aggregated transfer rates of each disk.

They DO increase, but not by direct addition, as you implied.

> Ultra160 uses double transition clocking to send 2 bits of data per clock
cycle instead of one,

Two BYTES of data per clock.

> > > The standard PCI bus is 33 MHz (or 66MHz), NOT 133MHz.  Perhaps you
mean
> > > 132M BYTES/sec?  Even at that, you can't get near %80 of that, if
you're
> > > lucky.  132M bytes/sec is the burst rate.  There is substantial
overhead
> > on
> > > the PCI bus that lowers that substantially.
> > >
> >
> > YEP ! I can achieve the saturation of bus before achieving the
> > saturation of
> > the controller (Adaptec 29160 is a 64 bit adapter).

> Correct ... then I can achieve the saturation (80% of 132MB/s) of the bus
before
> saturating the max controller throughput  right ?

Yes.

> > 64 bit PCI is 264M bytes/sec for 33MHz PCI,
> > and 528M bytes/sec for 66MHz PCI...so there is NO way you are saturating
the
> > PCI bus especially with a 64 bit controller.  You previously said you
were
> > on a 32 bit PCI bus.

> No, no ! As far as I know the Intel PC has a 32bit PCI but Adaptec has
implemented
> a 64bit adpater over a 32bit bus ...

Absolutely not.  32 bit PCI IS only 32 bits wide.  Only 64 bit PCI is 64
bits wide.

> they are doubling the cycle and thus keeping the compatibility with
old-standard
> PCI-Intel systems while improving the speed and throughput of the adapter
> (compared with 32bit adapters).

A 32 bit 33MHz PCI bus only gives 132M byte/sec burst transfer speed.  If
you have a 64 bit device on a 32 bit PCI bus, it is acting as a 32 bit
device.  The upper 32 bits are not used.  There is no such thing as "cycle
doubling" on PCI.




filmscanners: Sprintscan120 Firmware Upgrade

2001-11-12 Thread Hemingway, David J

There is a firmware upgrade to address the possibility that the carrier can
move beyond the stop position rendering the scanner inoperative. This
firmware upgrade will be posted to www.polaroidwork.com
 .
Until it is posted I have made it available on the FTP site at:

ftp://ftp.polaroid.com/pub/imaging/input/SS120/
 

Regards
David





Re: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images

2001-11-12 Thread Moreno Polloni

>> No one uses narrow SCSI for RAID, and it doesn't have to be SSA.  SCSI
uses
>> four bits for SCSI ID, which makes SIXTEEN devices.

>The U-160 card I know (Adaptec 29160) allows the connection of 7 devices
each controller while permitting 16 addresses.

The 7 device limit applies if you connect narrow SCSI devices. If you are
using Ultra Wide devices or drives, then you can use up to the full 15
device limit.  The 29160 has only one controller (that's why it's called
"single channel").


> I am meaning ... each disk runs at 35 or 30MB/s + SCSI architecture allows
parallel operations then I can add them to have an > aggregated transfer
rate . It might be I will never achieve 100% real addition , but I believe
the aggregated transfer rate is> close to the summary of the single
aggregated transfer rates of each disk.

If you add a second, striped drive (Raid 0), you can usually expect disk
throughput to double. If you add a third drive, the performance will be less
than triple. The biggest increase in performance is from one to two drives,
then the additive performance benefits of each additional drive is
proportionately less. A six drive Raid 0 setup, for instance, will be fast,
but nowhere near the sum of the transfer rates of each individual disk.


> > 64 bit PCI is 264M bytes/sec for 33MHz PCI,
> > and 528M bytes/sec for 66MHz PCI...so there is NO way you are saturating
the
> > PCI bus especially with a 64 bit controller.  You previously said you
were
> > on a 32 bit PCI bus.

> No, no ! As far as I know the Intel PC has a 32bit PCI but Adaptec has
implemented a 64bit adpater over a 32bit bus
>  ... they are doubling the cycle and thus keeping the compatibility with
old-standard PCI-Intel systems while improving
> the speed and throughput of the adapter (compared with 32bit adapters).

Intel-based PC's can have either 32 bit or 64 bit PCI busses, it just
depends on the motherboard. Many server and workstation motherboards have
one or more 64 bit PCI slots; most desktops have 32 bit PCI slots only. The
Adaptec 29160 can run at either 32 or 64 bits. If you install the 29160 into
a 32 bit PCI slot, it will still run fine, but it will be running at the
slower 32 bits, not 64 bits.








RE: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images

2001-11-12 Thread Robert Meier

 > It *IS* more unsafe to use RAID0. And MTBF *IS* additive.
> 
> No and no.  I designed SCSI controllers and disk subsystems (for the
> storage
> division of one of the top computer manufacturers) for years, as well
> as
> tested disk subsystems.  I know how MTBF is determined.

Seems like you have done everything and also know everything. I don't
know how your company  (or you) determined MTBF of a RAID0 system but
most companies as Compaq, IBM, Sun, Adaptec, etc. say that MTBF will
decrease. Exactly because of the reduced MTBF of a system with multiple
HDs Berkeley has suggested the RAID system. The RAID system is supposed
to relax the impact of the reduced MTBF. That doesn't mean the MTBF
becomes higher when a RAID system is deployed but it just makes it more
likely that the failure can be repaired. That is not the case for
RAID-0 though which is why many people said that RAID0 does not really
belong to RAID which asks for redundant drives (which are obviously
non-existent in RAID0).

I see though where your (company's) calculation might come from. You
can determine MTBF for a certain device by testing for example 1
drives for 1000 hours and then divide the total of 1*1000 hours by
the number of failures. That way you don't have to test one drive for a
long time (it's lifetime and then replace it with a new one).
Nevertheless, this calculation doesn't apply to RAID as a RAID system
has to be considered as a single identity. So you cannot claim that
because you have 10 HDs your RAID system is working 10*1=10 hours in
each single hour. Your RAID system is ONE identity and therefore is
working only 1 hours each hour it is up. Therefore the MTBF decreases.

Nevertheless, the reliability of HDs are quite high these days and
therefore I wouldn't hesitate to have a RAID0 system with a couple of
HDs for my imaging purposes and adequate backup. As a matter of fact, I
am considering updating my computer system and in that case I am going
to setup a RAID0 system with two fast 80GB.
End of discussion on my side.

Robert

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Find a job, post your resume.
http://careers.yahoo.com



Re: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images

2001-11-12 Thread Ezio c/o TIN



Austin, we don't understand each other 
.
Sure it's my fault .
 
> > > > Thus in the case of SCSI where 
you cannot (by definition) overcome the> > > > number of 6 
devices x chain/controller,> > >> > > WHAT SCSI are 
you talking about?  Try 16. not 6.> > >> >> 
> How many addresses have you per controller ?> > from 0 to 6 = 7 
but 1 is the controller itself.> > SCSI is not IBM SSA . SCSI = 6 
devices x controller/chain ; SSA> > 16 devices x> > 
controller/loop> > No one uses narrow SCSI for RAID, and it 
doesn't have to be SSA.  SCSI uses> four bits for SCSI ID, which 
makes SIXTEEN devices.
 
The U-160 card I know (Adaptec 29160) allows the 
connection of 7 devices each controller while permitting 16 
addresses.
 
From ADAPTEC WEB site 
 
Performance 
 
Supports up to 160 MByte/sec transfer 
rates with Ultra160 SCSI Connects high-performance devices such as hard disk 
drives, CD-Recorders, and other high-speed peripherals to your PC 
 
Connectivity 
 
Connectivity for internal and 
external SCSI devices Single SCSI card can connect up to 7 or 15 devices per 
channel Backward compatible with earlier versions of SCSI 
 
The Newest SCSI Features
 
Features added with Ultra160 SCSI 
 
160 MByte/sec performance Cyclic 
Redundancy Checking (CRC) checks all transferred data, adding significantly to 
data integrity Domain Validation intelligently verifies system configuration 
and automatically sets reliable transfer speeds 
 
The Types of SCSI
 
SCSI Type Speed SCSI makes it easy to connect 
hot hard drives and cool peripherals Ultra160 SCSI (16-bit Wide) 160 MB/sec 
State-of-the-art hard drives Ultra2 SCSI (16-bit Wide) 80 MB/sec Hard drives 
Ultra Wide SCSI (16-bit Wide) 40 MB/sec Hard drives and tape drives 
Ultra SCSI (8-bit Narrow) 20 MB/sec CD-R, CD-RW, tape, removable storage 
(Jaz), and DVD drives SCSI-2, Fast SCSI (8-bit Narrow) 10 MB/sec Scanners, 
Zip drives, and CD-ROM 
 
Server Technology Comparison
 
> A correct implementation of RAID 5 will write 
all at the same time.  RAID 5> is NOT slowed down because it has to 
do multiple writes, it's because,> sometimes, depending on stripe size, 
it has to read, calculate parity, then> write.  RAID 5 is slowed 
down for reads, since the parity is distributed> across 
drives.
 
RAID Level 4 

RAID Level 4 stripes data at a block level across 
several drives, with parity stored on one drive. The parity information allows 
recovery from the failure of any single drive. The performance of a level 4 
array is very good for reads (the same as level 0). Writes, however, require 
that parity data be updated each time. This slows small random writes, in 
particular, though large writes or sequential writes are fairly fast. Because 
only one drive in the array stores redundant data, the cost per megabyte of a 
level 4 array can be fairly low. 
RAID Level 5 
This level is commonly referred to as striping with 
distributed parity. RAID Level 5 is similar to level 4, but distributes parity 
among the drives. No single disk is devoted to parity. This can speed small 
writes in multiprocessing systems. Because parity data must be distributed on 
each drive during reads, the performance for reads tends to be considerably 
lower than a level 4 array. The cost per megabyte is the same as for level 4. 

 
Then it costs in performances anyhow 

I personally estimate this in almost 20% (average) 
... but we can discuss about this amount , what I am thinking is : 
RAID 5 slowers the operations if compared with a no-RAID mode (stright 
mode). 
 
For me this is true by definition and by real 
mesurements. 
 
> > > the benchmarks AREN'T running out of 
disk cache...that hardly tests the> > disk> > > 
speed.  You'll be lucky to get even near 80, if even 60.
 
I am meaning ... each disk runs at 35 or 
30MB/s + SCSI architecture allows parallel operations then I can add them 
to have an aggregated transfer rate . It might be I will never achieve 
100% real addition , but I believe the aggregated transfer rate is 
close to the summary of the single aggregated transfer rates of each 
disk.
 
Ultra160 uses double transition 
clocking to send 2 bits of data per clock cycle instead of one, doubling 
Ultra2's data transfer rate of 80MB/s to 160 MB/s. As drive caches approach the 
2 MB range, Ultra160 will grow to meet demands much as its predecessors Wide 
Ultra and Ultra2 SCSI evolved over the last three years
 
> > > The standard PCI bus is 33 MHz (or 
66MHz), NOT 133MHz.  Perhaps you mean> > > 132M 
BYTES/sec?  Even at that, you can't get near %80 of that, if you're> 
> > lucky.  132M bytes/sec is the burst rate.  There is 
substantial overhead> > on> > > the PCI bus that lowers 
that substantially.> > >> >> > YEP ! I can 
achieve the saturation of bus before achieving the> > saturation 
of> > the controller (Adaptec 29160 is a 64 bit adapter).
 
Correct ... then I can achieve the saturation (80% 
of 132MB/s) of the bus before saturating the max controller throughput  
right 

Re: filmscanners: LS-40 & Vuescan

2001-11-12 Thread Julian Vrieslander

On 11/12/01 6:02 AM, Marc S. Fogel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, wrote:

>I use a Nikon Coolscan IV.  When I scan color negatives with Vuescan(7.2.4)
>the frame does not line up.  I will get part of two frames in the preview as
>well as in the scan.  I do not have this problem with Nikon Scan 3.1.
>Is there some way to adjust this in Vuescan to prevent this?

Device | Frame Offset.

--
Julian Vrieslander 




RE: filmscanners: SS4000 Problem

2001-11-12 Thread Hemingway, David J

If the carrier seemed to be constantly seeking you may have dirt in the
sensor. There is a brush assembly that you can request, free, from Polaroid
support.
David

 -Original Message-
From:   Stewart Musket [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent:   Monday, November 12, 2001 1:51 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:filmscanners: SS4000 Problem

I have been using the SS4000 successfully for two years.  However, last
night I turned on the scanner and the flashing yellow light never became
steady.  I tried rebooting, reseating the SCSI connectors, and several other
things, but with no result.  I would appreciate the advice of knowledgeable
SS4000 users.

Stewart Musket



Re: filmscanners: SS4000 Problem

2001-11-12 Thread Tom Scales

Ah, the dreaded dirty scanner problem.

Happened to me too.  Call Polaroid and ask for the free cleaning kit.
They'll send you a little brush gadget that attaches to your slide carrier.
Follow the instructions. For 'most' people, that fixes the problem.

For me, it didn't, and I had to send it in for warranty repair.

One suggestion:  Always keep it covered!  Dust is the enemy of an SS4000

Tom
- Original Message -
From: "Stewart Musket" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 12:51 PM
Subject: filmscanners: SS4000 Problem


> I have been using the SS4000 successfully for two years.  However, last
> night I turned on the scanner and the flashing yellow light never became
> steady.  I tried rebooting, reseating the SCSI connectors, and several
other
> things, but with no result.  I would appreciate the advice of
knowledgeable
> SS4000 users.
>
> Stewart Musket
>




Re: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images

2001-11-12 Thread Ezio c/o TIN

I'll take this off  list .

Sincerely.

Ezio

www.lucenti.com  e-photography site


- Original Message -
From: "Austin Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 4:50 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images


> > > > Thus in the case of SCSI where you cannot (by definition) overcome
the
> > > > number of 6 devices x chain/controller,
> > >
> > > WHAT SCSI are you talking about?  Try 16. not 6.
> > >
> >
> > How many addresses have you per controller ?
> > from 0 to 6 = 7 but 1 is the controller itself.
> > SCSI is not IBM SSA . SCSI = 6 devices x controller/chain ; SSA
> > 16 devices x
> > controller/loop
>
> No one uses narrow SCSI for RAID, and it doesn't have to be SSA.  SCSI
uses
> four bits for SCSI ID, which makes SIXTEEN devices.
>
> > > That's not true.  There is no "double write", both the data/parity is
> > > written at the same time.  Parity can easily be calculated on the fly.
> > >
> >
> > YEP !  and who does write it on the disk in a different area/zone/disk ?
>
> A correct implementation of RAID 5 will write all at the same time.  RAID
5
> is NOT slowed down because it has to do multiple writes, it's because,
> sometimes, depending on stripe size, it has to read, calculate parity,
then
> write.  RAID 5 is slowed down for reads, since the parity is distributed
> across drives.
>
> > > Run some benchmarks on your system and see for your self.
> > Also, make sure
> > > the benchmarks AREN'T running out of disk cache...that hardly tests
the
> > disk
> > > speed.  You'll be lucky to get even near 80, if even 60.
> >
> > My data are the output of a benchmark and not the theoretical max speed.
>
> What benchmark are you using?  I do not believe you are getting 134M
> bytes/sec, it is physically impossible.
>
> > Yes you can add because SCSI can parallelize the requests while
> > IDE cannot.
>
> IDE CAN parallelize, and as I said, you can't just add transfer rates, it
> doesn't work that way.
>
> > > The standard PCI bus is 33 MHz (or 66MHz), NOT 133MHz.  Perhaps you
mean
> > > 132M BYTES/sec?  Even at that, you can't get near %80 of that, if
you're
> > > lucky.  132M bytes/sec is the burst rate.  There is substantial
overhead
> > on
> > > the PCI bus that lowers that substantially.
> > >
> >
> > YEP ! I can achieve the saturation of bus before achieving the
> > saturation of
> > the controller (Adaptec 29160 is a 64 bit adapter).
>
> Now you're talking silly.  You said you had four disks.  The MAX media
> transfer rate from those disks is around 35M bytes/sec.  Even if they were
> able (which they are NOT) to sustain that over the SCSI/PCI bus at full
> speed, that's 140M bytes/sec.  64 bit PCI is 264M bytes/sec for 33MHz PCI,
> and 528M bytes/sec for 66MHz PCI...so there is NO way you are saturating
the
> PCI bus especially with a 64 bit controller.  You previously said you were
> on a 32 bit PCI bus.
>
>





filmscanners: SS4000 Problem

2001-11-12 Thread Stewart Musket

I have been using the SS4000 successfully for two years.  However, last
night I turned on the scanner and the flashing yellow light never became
steady.  I tried rebooting, reseating the SCSI connectors, and several other
things, but with no result.  I would appreciate the advice of knowledgeable
SS4000 users.

Stewart Musket




Re: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images

2001-11-12 Thread Derek Clarke

Many motherboard RAID controllers don't have extra processing capacity, 
they just have the hardware controller and firmware for BIOS support.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Bloor) wrote:

> Preben,
> 
> At 12:34 11/11/01 +0100, you wrote:
> 
>  >Lastly, these stand alone Raid cards - unlike raid solutions on
>  >motherbords -  have their own processors on board which takes over 
> all the
>  >hard work, freeing up your system processor.
> 
> I knew that RAID in software (e.g. as part of Windows NT4) worked on 
> the main CPU, but I thought that PC's with additional RAID hardware on 
> the motherboard (such as many of the Dell servers) off loaded these 
> tasks.



Re: filmscanners: HP 7400c

2001-11-12 Thread Ezio c/o TIN



I made the same mistake when I bought (3 years ago) 
the 6200c and paid a fortune willing to have an HE flat bed capable of scanning 
films and slides (sometimes) 
BIG MISTAKE ! 
I don't want to tell you about the lousy quality of 
the product and the hassles of having it working under W98SE  I can write a 
very sad romance ... 
I want just to warn you ... if the 7400 it would be 
even close relative to the 6200c then ... you will never scan any film or 
any slide ! 
The quality of scans is so poor to make it almost 
useless.
 
I have wasted my money and 2 months later I have 
been obliged (after having accessed this forum while pilgrining on the net . 
looking for relief) to buy a film scanner (Nikon LS-30) . delightful machine 
indeed !
 
The HP6200 is broken (I actually scanned 100 times 
max !!) (150$ asked for a repair by the HP carry - in centre 
!!) 
I have substituted the flatbed with an 
inexpensive Genius Kye 50$ worth ... and it produces good results for my 
purposes.
 
Ready to listen to people knowing better than me 
the 7400 , but I won't buy this brand any more .. :-(((
 
Sincerely.
 
Ezio 
 
www.lucenti.com  e-photography 
site
 
 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Bernie 
  Kubiak 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 3:38 
  PM
  Subject: filmscanners: HP 7400c
  
  User reviews of the HP 7400c scanner would be 
  appreciated.  I'm looking to copy polaroid transfers (approx. 3" x 5" -- 
  from 669 color pack film) and to make distribution CD's of my B&W 
  work.  In additon, I'd like to be able to make scans of 35mm and 645 
  transparencies for proof prints and enlargements to 13"x19" size.  Yeah, 
  cost does matter.  This machine seems like a pretty good 
  compromise.  


Re: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images

2001-11-12 Thread Derek Clarke

But they don't!

I have a RAID0+1 array of four 30G IBM 7200 drives. 

At today's prices, those drives would cost £90 each inc VAT, making £360.

A single 73G 7200 SCSII drive costs £650! SCSII drives are restricted to 
18, 36 and 73G so I couldn't find a 60GB one to compare.

So a whole RAID array with the speed and safety advantages costs just 
more than half as much as a single SCSII drive of similar capacity.

All these prices were taken from www.insight.com/uk

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ezio c/o TIN) wrote:
> I really cannot understand why it would be needed such a complication 
> and
> dependancy from the controller vendor when the SCSI hard drives cost 
> almost
> the same (or 20% more max) of IDE hard drives !



Re: filmscanners: HP 7400c

2001-11-12 Thread Dick Chandler

Bernie

I responded to a more general question about flatbed scanners a couple of 
weeks ago with my 7400c experience.
I bought one to see how it would handle 4x5 transparencies;  it was to 
supplement my LS-8000.  The first one I had produced a faint blue line in 
the direction of the scan across the entire transparency, so I figured it 
had a faulty CCD array.  I returned that one, and the replacement scanner 
produced a  similar but better-defined line.  I took that one back, too, 
and didn't replace it.

Aside from the line, I was reasonably happy with the results.  I'm trying 
to decide now whether to wait to try the Epson 2450 when it appears or try 
another 7400 some time later.

Dick Chandler





RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and imag es

2001-11-12 Thread Shough, Dean

> > > PS Can someone confirm for me that all this discussion of IDE RAID is
> > > irrelevent
> > > to Mac users?  Are there IDE RAID solutions for Mac?
> >
> 
> Mac OS Z 10.1 has RAID capabilities built in.  I believe it works with
> SCSI,
> IDE, or FireWire drives.  The problem is that it can not be used as the
> boot
> disk and it is not usable from Mac OS 9.x.
>

Both problems are fixed with a hardware RAID system.  One mentioned by Bare
Feats ( http://www.barefeats.com/ ) is by ACARD Technologies (
http://www.acard.com/eng/product/safm/aec-6880m.html ) for $179 plus drives.
Same card works for both Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X.  Doubt very much if it will
work under Mac OS "Z" - blame my fat fingers for this typo.



RE: filmscanners: HP 7400c

2001-11-12 Thread Tim Atherton



we just got one 
at work, but I haven't had a proper chance to use it yet.
 
First, the HP 
software REALLY sucks - but we have it running on Vuescan 
now.
 
A quick look at 
some of the B&W neg scans (medium format) shows it to be doing a good job. 

 
In the next week 
I should be able to get my hands on it - so I'll let you 
know.
 
BTW - in the past 
I have scanned image transfers on an older Agfa 600dpi flatbed and got great 
results.
 
I also enlarged 
them in PS and printed on Arches (and some other watercolour) paper and got 
GREAT results. No I can run off numerous prints of them that look and feel darn 
close to the originals!
 
Tim 
A

  -Original Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bernie 
  KubiakSent: November 12, 2001 7:39 AMTo: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: filmscanners: HP 
  7400c
  User reviews of the HP 7400c scanner would be 
  appreciated.  I'm looking to copy polaroid transfers (approx. 3" x 5" -- 
  from 669 color pack film) and to make distribution CD's of my B&W 
  work.  In additon, I'd like to be able to make scans of 35mm and 645 
  transparencies for proof prints and enlargements to 13"x19" size.  Yeah, 
  cost does matter.  This machine seems like a pretty good 
  compromise.  


RE: filmscanners: creating correction curves from scanned calibration chart?

2001-11-12 Thread michael shaffer

Ned writes ...

> >From: Todd Flashner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >However, for a neutral gray they (RGB) SHOULD all be
> > the same number.
>
> no, total rubbish ... the profile defines the relationship
> between the value and the actual colour output

  Quite right, but we're talking about typical PS working spaces ... whereby
0,0,0 is "absolute" black, 255,255,255 is "absolute" white ... and "neutral"
grays all are defined by R=G=B.  They may not be "realistic", but we then
depend on device spaces for going to, or coming from, working space to
"reality".

shAf  :o)




RE: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images

2001-11-12 Thread Austin Franklin

> > > Thus in the case of SCSI where you cannot (by definition) overcome the
> > > number of 6 devices x chain/controller,
> >
> > WHAT SCSI are you talking about?  Try 16. not 6.
> >
>
> How many addresses have you per controller ?
> from 0 to 6 = 7 but 1 is the controller itself.
> SCSI is not IBM SSA . SCSI = 6 devices x controller/chain ; SSA
> 16 devices x
> controller/loop

No one uses narrow SCSI for RAID, and it doesn't have to be SSA.  SCSI uses
four bits for SCSI ID, which makes SIXTEEN devices.

> > That's not true.  There is no "double write", both the data/parity is
> > written at the same time.  Parity can easily be calculated on the fly.
> >
>
> YEP !  and who does write it on the disk in a different area/zone/disk ?

A correct implementation of RAID 5 will write all at the same time.  RAID 5
is NOT slowed down because it has to do multiple writes, it's because,
sometimes, depending on stripe size, it has to read, calculate parity, then
write.  RAID 5 is slowed down for reads, since the parity is distributed
across drives.

> > Run some benchmarks on your system and see for your self.
> Also, make sure
> > the benchmarks AREN'T running out of disk cache...that hardly tests the
> disk
> > speed.  You'll be lucky to get even near 80, if even 60.
>
> My data are the output of a benchmark and not the theoretical max speed.

What benchmark are you using?  I do not believe you are getting 134M
bytes/sec, it is physically impossible.

> Yes you can add because SCSI can parallelize the requests while
> IDE cannot.

IDE CAN parallelize, and as I said, you can't just add transfer rates, it
doesn't work that way.

> > The standard PCI bus is 33 MHz (or 66MHz), NOT 133MHz.  Perhaps you mean
> > 132M BYTES/sec?  Even at that, you can't get near %80 of that, if you're
> > lucky.  132M bytes/sec is the burst rate.  There is substantial overhead
> on
> > the PCI bus that lowers that substantially.
> >
>
> YEP ! I can achieve the saturation of bus before achieving the
> saturation of
> the controller (Adaptec 29160 is a 64 bit adapter).

Now you're talking silly.  You said you had four disks.  The MAX media
transfer rate from those disks is around 35M bytes/sec.  Even if they were
able (which they are NOT) to sustain that over the SCSI/PCI bus at full
speed, that's 140M bytes/sec.  64 bit PCI is 264M bytes/sec for 33MHz PCI,
and 528M bytes/sec for 66MHz PCI...so there is NO way you are saturating the
PCI bus especially with a 64 bit controller.  You previously said you were
on a 32 bit PCI bus.





Re: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images

2001-11-12 Thread Pat Perez

It of course depends on the motherboard. Several
manufacturers in the retail market (e.g. Tyan,
Supermicro) do make motherboards with SCSI raid
options in which the raid controller handles the
processing. The IDE based raid options, to the best of
my knowledge, do not handle the processing. I should
add that for the purposes described here specifically
(fast read/writes for photo editing) this should not
be an issue; even if the host cpu gets 'bogged down'
while writing, it is at a time when you most likely
aren't depending on it for something else. It becomes
more important as you demand more simultaneous work
from the computer. In my experience, I rarely do
anything else on my PC when I am editing pictures (ok,
maybe playing a CD).

In my opinion, SCSI's performance advantages on
anything up to a true workstation class computer are
long since gone. Advances in the IDE standard and it's
drives make it far more attractive. SCSI doesn't
become a good option until one is performing multiple 
simultaneous read/writes. A single SCSI drive in a PC
doesn't make much sense to me. IDE are larger and
transfer data at the same speed.

Pat

--- Mike Bloor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Preben,
> 
> At 12:34 11/11/01 +0100, you wrote:
> 
>  >Lastly, these stand alone Raid cards - unlike raid
> solutions on
>  >motherbords -  have their own processors on board
> which takes over all the
>  >hard work, freeing up your system processor.
> 
> I knew that RAID in software (e.g. as part of
> Windows NT4) worked on the 
> main CPU, but I thought that PC's with additional
> RAID hardware on the 
> motherboard (such as many of the Dell servers) off
> loaded these tasks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mike Bloor


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Find a job, post your resume.
http://careers.yahoo.com



Re: filmscanners: LS-40 & Vuescan

2001-11-12 Thread Maris V. Lidaka, Sr.

In addition to Simon's suggestion, I sometimes have to invert the film strip, and 
sometimes - when the film is cut poorly - even have cut some of the between-frame 
blank space at the end of the strip.

I like Simon's suggestion better, though.

Maris

- Original Message - 
From: "Marc S. Fogel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Scanner List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 5:02 AM
Subject: filmscanners: LS-40 & Vuescan


| I use a Nikon Coolscan IV.  When I scan color negatives with Vuescan(7.2.4)
| the frame does not line up.  I will get part of two frames in the preview as
| well as in the scan.  I do not have this problem with Nikon Scan 3.1.
| Is there some way to adjust this in Vuescan to prevent this?
| 
| Thanks
| 
| Marc S. Fogel
| http://www.fogel.net
| 
| 




RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and imag es

2001-11-12 Thread Shough, Dean

> > PS Can someone confirm for me that all this discussion of IDE RAID is
> > irrelevent
> > to Mac users?  Are there IDE RAID solutions for Mac?
>

Mac OS Z 10.1 has RAID capabilities built in.  I believe it works with SCSI,
IDE, or FireWire drives.  The problem is that it can not be used as the boot
disk and it is not usable from Mac OS 9.x.



RE: filmscanners: Vuescan - filenames

2001-11-12 Thread Shough, Dean

> On a related note - I kind if wish Vuescan didn't leave it so easy to
> overwrite a file, since it doesn't ask you if you want to overwrite
> the file of the same name.  I've had to rescan a couple when I forgot
> to go into files and change the name.  This is such a given in most
> Windows apps, I wonder why Ed didn't set it up this way?  Or am I
> missing something?
>

It is also standard on Macs to ask before overwriting files.  Yes, I know
about using  in the file name, but I would much prefer to have
VueScan ask before overwriting files.



filmscanners: HP 7400c

2001-11-12 Thread Bernie Kubiak



User reviews of the HP 7400c scanner would be 
appreciated.  I'm looking to copy polaroid transfers (approx. 3" x 5" -- 
from 669 color pack film) and to make distribution CD's of my B&W 
work.  In additon, I'd like to be able to make scans of 35mm and 645 
transparencies for proof prints and enlargements to 13"x19" size.  Yeah, 
cost does matter.  This machine seems like a pretty good compromise.  



RE: filmscanners: LS-40 & Vuescan

2001-11-12 Thread Marc S.. Fogel

Interesting.  I may try that.

> -Original Message-
> From: Simon Lamb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 8:06 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: LS-40 & Vuescan
> 
> 
> Although this does not specifically answer your question, I 
> normally mount negatives in slide holders which I find keep 
> the film flatter.  It of course depends on whether you wish 
> to cut your negative strips.
> 
> Simon
> 
> Marc S. Fogel wrote:
> 
> > I use a Nikon Coolscan IV.  When I scan color negatives with
> Vuescan(7.2.4)
> > the frame does not line up.  I will get part of two frames in the 
> > preview
> as
> > well as in the scan.  I do not have this problem with Nikon 
> Scan 3.1. 
> > Is there some way to adjust this in Vuescan to prevent this?
> >
> 
> 
> 



Re: filmscanners: Pre scan viewer?

2001-11-12 Thread Ian Jackson

Art,

So do you think it might be possible to rig up a low cost equivalent
using a web camera?

Ian
- Original Message -
From: "Arthur Entlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 12:32 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Pre scan viewer?


> There are some quite fast professional scanners, and also screen
> resolution doesn't require very high resolution scans, but if it is
very
> fast, or immediate, most likely it is simply using a video camera.
>
> When showing negative film, the video camera does an inversion.
>
> The orange mask can be removed by a filter which is of the opposite
> color to the mask.  I sometimes use my older video camera for this.
It
> has the inversion circuitry built in, and I just have to place a cyan
> filter in front that come close to being the color complement to the
> orange mask.
>
> Art
>
> Ian Jackson wrote:
>
>   > When I visit my local processor he has an imaging camera which
displays
>   > a colour or B& W negative as a positive image on a monitor.   This
>   > appears to be a much more convenient and quicker way of previewing
negs
>   > than using a scanner preview.
>   >
>   > How does this equipment manage to make a colour positive and at
the same
>   > time remove the orange mask?
>   >
>   > Ian
>   >
>   > .
>   >
>   >
>
>
>
>
>




Re: filmscanners: LS-40 & Vuescan

2001-11-12 Thread Simon Lamb

Although this does not specifically answer your question, I normally mount
negatives in slide holders which I find keep the film flatter.  It of course
depends on whether you wish to cut your negative strips.

Simon

Marc S. Fogel wrote:

> I use a Nikon Coolscan IV.  When I scan color negatives with
Vuescan(7.2.4)
> the frame does not line up.  I will get part of two frames in the preview
as
> well as in the scan.  I do not have this problem with Nikon Scan 3.1.
> Is there some way to adjust this in Vuescan to prevent this?
>





Re: filmscanners: Pre scan viewer?

2001-11-12 Thread Arthur Entlich

There are some quite fast professional scanners, and also screen
resolution doesn't require very high resolution scans, but if it is very
fast, or immediate, most likely it is simply using a video camera.

When showing negative film, the video camera does an inversion.

The orange mask can be removed by a filter which is of the opposite
color to the mask.  I sometimes use my older video camera for this.  It
has the inversion circuitry built in, and I just have to place a cyan
filter in front that come close to being the color complement to the
orange mask.

Art

Ian Jackson wrote:

  > When I visit my local processor he has an imaging camera which displays
  > a colour or B& W negative as a positive image on a monitor.   This
  > appears to be a much more convenient and quicker way of previewing negs
  > than using a scanner preview.
  >
  > How does this equipment manage to make a colour positive and at the same
  > time remove the orange mask?
  >
  > Ian
  >
  > .
  >
  >








filmscanners: LS-40 & Vuescan

2001-11-12 Thread Marc S. Fogel

I use a Nikon Coolscan IV.  When I scan color negatives with Vuescan(7.2.4)
the frame does not line up.  I will get part of two frames in the preview as
well as in the scan.  I do not have this problem with Nikon Scan 3.1.
Is there some way to adjust this in Vuescan to prevent this?

Thanks

Marc S. Fogel
http://www.fogel.net




Re: Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images

2001-11-12 Thread steve

Just thought I would add that on single user systems dedicating memory slightly 
greater than scan size to file cache will give as near instant write response as your 
software and processor is capable of achieving  (even non-raid). In fact during write 
opertions raid 0 on a memory handicapped machine will be slower than a single drive 
machine with loads of memory. Read operations will be quicker with raid 0 unless the 
data you're loading is still in file cache.

Adding memory is much cheaper than raid drive systems as 256MB of top quality 
SDRAM/DDR ram available for less than £30. 

If you have a smart raid 1 solution (stripes when reading) and lots of available 
memory for disk cache then performance for a single user doing scanning/PS will be 
indistinguishable from raid 0. But you do lose disk space in exchange for reliability. 

Steve


___
Never pay another Internet phone bill!
Freeserve AnyTime, for all the Internet access you want, day and night, only £12.99 
per month.
Sign-up at http://www.freeserve.com/time/anytime





Re: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images

2001-11-12 Thread Mike Bloor

Preben,

At 12:34 11/11/01 +0100, you wrote:

 >Lastly, these stand alone Raid cards - unlike raid solutions on
 >motherbords -  have their own processors on board which takes over all the
 >hard work, freeing up your system processor.

I knew that RAID in software (e.g. as part of Windows NT4) worked on the 
main CPU, but I thought that PC's with additional RAID hardware on the 
motherboard (such as many of the Dell servers) off loaded these tasks.







Mike Bloor



filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images

2001-11-12 Thread Rob Geraghty

Ezio wrote:
>Congratulations for the professional results Rob !  :-)

Thanks!  Now if I can get articles printed in mags where I get *paid* for
it...

> I have 3 U160 IBM 1rpm and NO FANS at all
> while the box is a cheap box I have assembled
> on my own with a 350W power supply ( 20$ the
> power supply at any shop) and a cage costing
> 30$ at any shop.

Do you have airconditioning in the room where the computer is located, and
do the summertime conditions reach 36C and 90+% humidity?  Or let's be more
realistic - night time temps of 28C and 90% humidity?  I don't get to use
my home computer during the day much other than weekends!

Seriously though - could you please email me (off list) the address of the
company you are buying the drives from?  It would be nice to have a fast
SCSI drive to stream data to and from.  My motherboard has a U2W interface
(LVD).

I'd be impressed if the shipping costs to Oz were similar.

Thanks,
Rob


Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com






Re: filmscanners: Kodak Grand Central Diorama (Was: the 10 foot print from 35mm...)

2001-11-12 Thread Arthur Entlich

Frank,

Thanks for the correction on this.  It did seem working from 35mm would 
have been "a stretch", obviously more a stretch than reasonable at the 
best.  I can't recall the subject matter of the ones I saw, just that 
they were pretty impressive, and very large!  Do you recall what the 
enlargement ratio was from the 9" x 18" film image to  _??

Art

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> The Grand Central Station transparencies were made from large format 
> originals. Some were shot with 9 x 18 inch aerial cameras; the one 
> featuring the U.S. Navy "Blue Angels" flying formation over (I forget -- 
> it was either Niagara Falls or Mt. Rushmore), for example. That one was 
> the subject of a Kodak "documentary" film made at the time and used for 
> promotional purposes. Showed pretty much the whole complex production 
> process for the huge transparencies.
> 
> All the best,
> Frank Peele
> Pacific Photographic
> Redlands, CA






Re: filmscanners: Re: the 10 foot print from 35mm...

2001-11-12 Thread Arthur Entlich



SKID Photography wrote:

> Yes, but the Kodak image in Grand Central Station could only be viewed from very far 
>away, not unlike a
> billboard, whereas at National Geographic you could walk right up to them, and view 
>the photos up close and
> personal in all their glory.


I have been corrected and informed that the source material for the 
Grand Central Station images were 9" x 18" film frames.

> 
> Did Geographic go through all sorts of machinations (probably including at least 2 
>internegatives and contrast
> masks), most likely.  Does that make the final 8x10 foot images from 35 mm originals 
>any less valid?  No, I
> think not.


I've never quite understood the interneg logic.  The things I can see 
the interneg doing are possibly altering contrast ratios, softening of 
hardening the edges of the image, and breaking down each large grain or 
dye cloud on the original into a lot of variations of smaller grains/dye 
clouds to smooth out the image by making compound "noise".

I suppose all of this might allow the printer more latitude by 
optimizing the image for special use, but it seems to me it might also 
degrade some aspects of the imerge.  After all, the extra generations 
can't add something that isn't in the original other than more "noise", 
can it?

Art

> 
> Harvey Ferdschneider
> partner, SKID Photography, NYC
> 
> Arthur Entlich wrote:
> 
> 
>>I know Kodak did this some years back with an image in Grand Central
>>Station in NYC which was just huge.  I believe it was made from a series
>>of 35mm Kodachromes (it was a very long image), but it was just amazing.
>>
>>I also know of a number of exhibits where 35mm frames were used to
>>produce huge prints.  They used a lot of tricks to get there, like a
>>liquid gate enlarger.  Back then it was all photographically reproduced
>>without the aide of any digital magic.
>>
>>Art
>>