[filmscanners] Re: Slightly OT: Hard Drive Speed

[Moreno Polloni]

>>I understand, also, that RPM is more important that which version ATA your
internal drives are. That is to say ATA66 (if you don't have ATA100) is
probably fine with a 7200 RPM drive, because the disk is more likely to be
the bottleneck than the interface.<<

It depends on a few factors, but basically you're on the right track.

If the computer is more than a couple of years old, the onboard IDE
interface may not even support ATA66. The newest IDE drives are now Ultra
ATA133, but their performance has nowhere near twice the throughput of an
Ultra ATA66 drive.

The newer and larger 7200 rpm drives typically have a larger cache than the
older drives, and this would provide a larger performance gain than going
from an Ultra ATA 66 to Ultra ATA 100. Also, larger hard drives usually
perform better than smaller identical drives.





Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: Slightly OT: Hard Drive Speed

[Moreno Polloni]

>>SCSI hard disk drives is the answer.
Faster than any IDE , multiple access at the same time and greater number of
units for the same number of controllers.
Price is NOT a problem ... I have already bought 4 x 18.2 IBM 10,000rpm
SCSI-3 for 95$ each (on eBay) <<

Putting eBay aside, if you buy from a legit dealer, you can expect to pay
four to five times as much, per gigabyte of storage, when you choose SCSI
over IDE.

There was a time when SCSI performance was much higher than IDE, but that
gap has narrowed considerably over the last few years. A 100mb Photoshop meg
file takes about 4 seconds to open with a pair of striped IDE drives. A pair
of SCSI drives may do it in 3.5 seconds, but is it worth 4x the cost? Or
would you rather have 4x the storage for the same amount of money?





Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] RE: Slightly OT: Hard Drive Speed

[Mark Otway]

PLEASE - we did this whole raid/striping, ide vs scsi thing about 3
months ago. 

Do we have to go through it all again?!?!

:-(

Mark


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: Scanning old Lantern Slides (Off Topic)

[John Prokos]

Art,

I know I asked for opinions and I am truly grateful for yours! However I
have to respond to your statements. How much has film changed since the time
people used 8" floppies and 12" Bernoulli disk? Digital moves on and film
moves on and people update their tools. I am sounding very pro digital here
but my feelings are more centered around the benefits of digital for this
particular purpose.
The process of storage and reproduction you mention are very expensive and
time consuming. I think digital is the way to go. From what I have read
about CDR longevity it's best to stay away from the cheap discs that use
cyan dyes and go with the gold disks i.e. Kodak Ultima brand - these are
reported to last a minimum of 100 years in archival conditions. Sorry to
move this discussion off topic. Again, thanks for your input. And I like
your idea of using tricolor filters and black and white film, but how to do
it with a coated glass transparency?

Regards,

John


on 02/05/02 11:36 PM, Arthur Entlich at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Regarding archiving... I don't wish to open the can of worms up fully,
> but there is a good question as to if digital is a better method of
> archiving than film.
>
> Current film dyes are quite stable, especially if care is taken during
> processing with archiving in mind.  After that, keep the film in an
> acid-free, dark, low humidity and cool temperature, away from abnormal
> gases (ozone, CO, hydrocarbons) will keep the film safe for many years
> to come.
>
> No standard currently available digital storage system is truly
> archival.  Not MO, not PD, and certainly not CDR.  They all are damaged
> by some environmental influence.  CDR uses dyes, not so dissimilar to
> film.
>
> Further, small damage can make a file completely useless, and also, file
> types change and storage media changes every two weeks.  Try finding a
> drive to read a 8" floppy or a 10 meg 12" Bernoulli disk.  Heck, it's
> hard to find a Syquest 44 drive these days, and that was a "standard".
>
> Actually, one of the best methods of storage is using true black and
> white (silver based) color separations.  But this requires 3 frames of
> black and white per image and someone good at recreating color from B&W
> color separations.
>
> Art
>
>
> John Prokos wrote:
>
>> Charles,
>>
>> The problem with that approach right now is that they want to archive the
>> images, and the dyes in color negative film are relatively unstable. A
>> digital file is good for a lot longer - as long as it is stored on good
>> media like MO disks or high quality CDR. Thank you for your suggestion.



Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Finally, I can talk about the SS4000+ (LONG)

[Arthur Entlich]

Some of you might have noticed that I haven't been complaining much
about my film scanner lately.  Those same people probably know I'm not
easy to please...

So, did my Minolta Dual II suddenly get fixed, or was it replaced with a
new one that worked "like butter"?

No such luck.

What did happen is that over the last few months I have had what I can
honestly call "the pleasure" of testing the new Polaroid SS4000+
scanner. In spite of the "storm", Polaroid has been pretty busy
working on new projects like the SS4000+. new versions of Insight, and
other goodies, ignoring any "doom and gloom" being reported about their
future.

I was under non-disclosure until now to discuss the unit while
Polaroid was busy working out a few minor bugs in the software and
firmware, which, as far as I can determine, are now eradicated.

Since I have never had a SS4000 I cannot directly compare it.  But I can
compare it to the other film scanner I have owned, so here's the rundown.

The SS4000+ I had, came in what appears to be the same shell as the
SS4000. I don't know yet if the production units will look like that or
not, since I've yet to see them on "the street".

As anyone who has been reading this forum knows, the SCSI interfacing is
gone from the SS4000+.  This unit has both USB and firewire.  My
pre-production unit came with a firewire card included, but I don't know
if that is standard packaging. Unfortunately, since my computer is
running WIN 98SE, I was told I should use USB v1.1, which is slower than
the firewire.

The first thing I noticed, is the unit is pretty large and substantial.
I guess I'd call it "solid".  After seeing and feeling the heft of the
SS4000+, the HP S-10, S-20 and Minolta Dual II I've used previously seem
somewhat like toys.

Installation:

My computer system subscribes to the concept of the "if anything can
possibly go wrong during installation, it will" theory, so I was
expecting problems on installation of the unit and the software
(Insight).  I have very rarely installed new software, let alone a
hardware peripheral without some disaster, be it a lock-up and partial
install leading up to 3 days of hair pulling while my computer lay in
pieces on the floor while I'm on the phone with tech support.  So, I was
nervous about this, especially since I already had another film scanner
on the other USB port and this was a "beta" unit.

Well, I was in for a pleasant surprise.  The SS4000+ installed without
any glitches at all.  It just installed the software, and became one of
the TWAIN devices available to me in Photoshop, Insight worked as stand
alone software as well, and the scanner hardware was recognized by the
computer OS.

Time to scan...  Insight came with sketchy help files, being in beta at
the time, and I have to admit I was scratching my head a couple of
times, but that's been improved upon in newer versions.  My policy with
film scanner drivers has always been to only use them to capture the
image and then send it on to Photoshop for the real work.  And indeed,
that's how I started my workflow with the SS4000+.  But, as I let my
hair down, I began to appreciate the easy layout of Insight, and let the
natural flow take over, and I found myself using more of the features in
it before sending the file over to Photoshop.

Now, Insight is "no Photoshop" but it is actually amazing how many
features it does have built in.  In fact, if you only need to get a good
scan off the film, and don't need to do cut and paste, or compositing or
design, you can get a perfectly good result with just Insight.  It has
many of the same image adjusting options that are in Photoshop, like
brightness, contrast, color balance, curves (with a histogram),
sharpening, and even resampling options for the output file.

The trickiest part of using Insight is its reliance on film profiles.
You could avoid this by sending a "raw" scan to something like Photoshop
and playing with color balance and curves, but I found it easier to use
the profiles within Insight, which provide a starting point to adjust
from. Transparencies were relatively simple because you aren't dealing
with dye coupler masks that make negative color film orange, so you have
a few basic profiles for transparencies; Slide, Kodachrome, and
underexposed slide.  With negatives its a bit more tricky because you
have to select a profile, and Polaroid doesn't have one for every film
made.  Sometimes you have to guess at what film profile will work best
for your film type.  The good thing is that this function is a software
matter done after the pre-scan, so you can quickly see what affect the
profile has on the image, and you can run through them until you find
the best one for the film you are working with.

The hardware is basically a large shoebox shaped case.  It has only one
button, a big orange one that turns the scanner on, and two LEDS that
tell you its status.  There is a good sized panel in the front that has
a slot to allow the carriers in, and w

[filmscanners] Re: Scanning old Lantern Slides

[TonySleep]

On Tue, 05 Feb 2002 00:22:04 -0800  John Prokos ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:

> I have taken on a project to scan 50 old lantern slides from a Mt
> McKinley
> expedition in 1910.

I have seen what informally looked like very good results from the Microtek
8700 flatbed. It has a glassless carrier for up to 10x8 which should
eliminate problems like Newton's Rings, or emulsion damage, to the slides.
However check you can get a suitable mask.

The Agfa T2500 is now discontinued as Agfa have pulled out of scanners.

Regards

Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info
& comparisons

Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] VueScan 7.5 beta 11 Available

I just released VueScan 7.5 beta 11 for Windows, Mac OS 8/9/X
and Linux.  It can be downloaded from:

  http://www.hamrick.com/vsm.html

What's new in version 7.5 beta 11

* Changed auto eject to eject right after scan completes
* Increased maximum number of raw scan files to 10,000
* Reduced display flickering on Mac OS 8/9
* Fixed crashing on some systems
* Fixed problem with Epson transparency adapter and ADF
* Fixed problem with Umax 1200S ADF

Regards,
Ed Hamrick


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: Vuescan feature request

In a message dated 2/5/2002 11:10:08 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> Would it be possible to change the way files are named in Vuescan?  If I set
>  "warn on overwrite", it warns me after the scan has completed which means
>  I've wasted that time.

You haven't actually wasted the time.  Just change the name
and press the "Save" button.

Regards,
Ed Hamrick


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: VueScan 7.5 beta 9 Available

In a message dated 2/5/2002 4:28:58 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:

> Obviously, there is an issue with scanners like these which do a
>  separate IR pass.  However, given the the difference in IR focus (and IR
>  light source location) on all scanners with an IR channel, would there be
>  any benefit in doing some sort of registration check on ALL scanners
>  with an IR channel?

I tried it with my LS-30, but there was no misalignment found
on any image I scanned.

Regards,
Ed Hamrick


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] RE: Slightly OT: Hard Drive Speed

[Austin Franklin]

> Putting eBay aside, if you buy from a legit dealer, you can expect to pay
> four to five times as much, per gigabyte of storage, when you choose SCSI
> over IDE.

I think that's BS.  Do you have numbers to substantiate that, using same
speed drives?


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] RE: Slightly OT: Hard Drive Speed

[Austin Franklin]

> The newer and larger 7200 rpm drives typically have a larger
> cache than the
> older drives, and this would provide a larger performance gain than going
> from an Ultra ATA 66 to Ultra ATA 100.

Do you believe a larger cache helps with large file reads and writes?  For
reads it is no help, and for writes, it's really not much help either.  It
helps for smaller file writes...for sure.  Imaging files are typically very
large, and speed is mostly limited by drive media transfer rate.


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: VueScan 7.5 beta 8 Available

[Eric]

Steve:

>Lets face it, memory is pretty cheap right now - and nerds like us
>scanner folks probably already have loads of it just so we can scan
>and manipulate images anyway :-)

I'm in agreement.  I have a Polaroid SprintScan 4000, and I'd love to be
able to make multiple passes.  Or even the long exposure pass.


Eric


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: Scanning old Lantern Slides (Off Topic)

[Arthur Entlich]

John Prokos wrote:

> Art,
>
> I know I asked for opinions and I am truly grateful for yours! However I
> have to respond to your statements. How much has film changed since the time
> people used 8" floppies and 12" Bernoulli disk? Digital moves on and film
> moves on and people update their tools.


I like digital for many reasons, but archiving isn't one of them.  To
answer your question about how much film has changed since 8" floppies...

Hardly at all.  35mm film still uses the same dimensions and cameras it
did 50 years ago, and in terms of viewing, film has required the same
basic technology to create prints and to view it for the last 100 plus
years.  Try holding a CDR up to the light and figuring out what's on it ;-)

I can gush about what digital has allowed people to do.  Its wonderful!
But as I have mentioned before, when they finally produce a product 1" x
1.5" by nearly paper thickness, which stores about 200 megs of image
information, can be viewed with a simple light source, is archival for
50-100 years if properly stored, and costs under 25 cents, then digital
will have finally "come of age".

Art


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: VueScan: 7.5 betas (Mac) glacially slow

In a message dated 2/6/2002 10:25:24 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> I'm testing slide scans at 500 dpi that take 12-15 minutes to complete;
>  they took only 2 minutes with VueScan 7.4.2

Are you setting some of the options in the Filter tab?  Some cause
the CPU time to go up significantly.

I can probably diagnose the problem if you:

1) Delete vuescan.ini
2) Run VueScan
3) Turn on "Files|Output log file"
4) Exit VueScan
5) Run VueScan
6) Change minimal options to set up scan
6) Do the 500 dpi scan
7) Exit VueScan
8) E-mail vuescan.log to me

I get a lot of e-mail, so could you also include with this e-mail:

1) the operating system you're using
2) the version of VueScan you're using
3) the scanner you're using
4) a brief description of the problem
5) things you've already tried to solve the problem

Thanks,
Ed Hamrick


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] NikonScan 3 for Mac OS X

[Julian Vrieslander]

Nikon says it will be released in April.



Of course, if current trends are any indication, by then most of us will
be using VueScan version 9.4.21.

--
Julian Vrieslander 


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Vuescan 7.5.b10

[Stephen Jennings]

Just loaded the new Vuescan on my Mac with OS8.6 and 256 mg of ram.  When
the scan begins I get a message saying that it is unable to allocate enough
memory and to increase my virtual memory.  I never needed virtual memory
before, which I keep off.  Is there a way around this?  7.4.2 runs fine
without it.

STEPHENJENNINGS
P h o t o g r a p h e r
   Cambridge, MA
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] RE: Slightly OT: Hard Drive Speed

[Gerry Kaslowski]

How about taking all this HD and CPU stuff offline!!!  I, for one, am really
tired of getting deluged with all this CRAP all over again.


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Sprintscan 120 35mm strip holder for panoramic modification.

[Hemingway, David J]

Several list members were having difficulty locating the Sprintscan 120 35MM
film strip holder for modification to scan 35mm panoramic slide. Here is the
information to order this part in the United States.

Call 800-552-0711 hit 3 then 1

This puts you into order services. Ask for PID 119706. It is $40

David


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: Slightly OT: Hard Drive Speed

[Ezio c/o TIN]

Moreno, on my desk right now I have 4 x 18.2 SEALED NEW IBM U-SCSI-3 bought
from PCPARTSINC www.pcpartsinc.com who is a legitimate dealer and more over
is a Company so Police and FBI can go and inspect whenever they want.
Eache of the drives costed 100$ and they NEW + SEALED + UNDER 3 Years
warranty worldwide (I am in Italy and I have already used the warranty on an
EXPENSIVE 36GB U-SCSI-160 with free substitution)

Sometimes the world is dynamically changing and paradigms are not fitting to
everything for every situation.

Sincerely.

Ezio

www.lucenti.com  e-photography site

ICQ: 139507382
- Original Message -
From: "Moreno Polloni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 10:19 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Slightly OT: Hard Drive Speed


>>SCSI hard disk drives is the answer.
Faster than any IDE , multiple access at the same time and greater number of
units for the same number of controllers.
Price is NOT a problem ... I have already bought 4 x 18.2 IBM 10,000rpm
SCSI-3 for 95$ each (on eBay) <<

Putting eBay aside, if you buy from a legit dealer, you can expect to pay
four to five times as much, per gigabyte of storage, when you choose SCSI
over IDE.

There was a time when SCSI performance was much higher than IDE, but that
gap has narrowed considerably over the last few years. A 100mb Photoshop meg
file takes about 4 seconds to open with a pair of striped IDE drives. A pair
of SCSI drives may do it in 3.5 seconds, but is it worth 4x the cost? Or
would you rather have 4x the storage for the same amount of money?






Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body



Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: Slightly OT: Hard Drive Speed

[Moreno Polloni]

>> Please name the two drives you are claiming are a FIVE times price
increase
for SCSI vs IDE.<<

I looked up wholesale pricing for the IBM 18gb SCSI drive being discussed,
vs a 7200 rpm 100gb IDE drive for the same price and posted the results in a
previous message. The SCSI drive costs more than 5x per gb than the IDE. My
source was Tech Data, one of the largest computer distributors in Canada.



Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: VueScan 7.5 beta 13 Available

[Luca Salgarelli]

Hello Ed.

Any news on the problem with multiprocessor Linux systems?

Thanks
Luca

On Wed, 2002-02-06 at 18:38, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I just released VueScan 7.5 beta 13 for Windows, Mac OS 8/9/X
> and Linux.  It can be downloaded from:
>
>   http://www.hamrick.com/vsm.html
>
> What's new in version 7.5 beta 13
>
> * Fixed problem saving after preview and refreshing preview
> * Fixed auto eject to only eject when all batch scans done
> * Fixed problem with removing film carrier from FS4000
> * Fixed problem with scanning from an ADF
>
> I'm planning on releasing 7.5 tomorrow and removing
> 7.4 from my web page.  If anyone has any show-stopper
> bugs they need me to fix before I do this, speak now or
> forever hold your peace (or at least for a week, since I'm
> going skiing for a week starting Saturday).
>
> Regards,
> Ed Hamrick
>



Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] RE: Vuescan 7.5.b12

[Thomas B. Maugham]

Yep, works fine!

Thanks...

Tom

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 6:39 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Vuescan 7.5.b12


In a message dated 2/6/2002 2:52:01 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> I notice in your "what's new for beta 11" that you changed the auto
>  eject to eject right after a scan completes.  I find that when doing a
>  device|batch scann|all with VueScan set to device|auto eject|scan it
ejects
>  the carrier after the first scan.  Did you mean to do this?  It would be
>  better (for me at least) if, when doing batch scans, it did not eject the
>  carrier until the final scan is done.

I'm pretty sure this is fixed in beta 13.
You can download it from:

  http://www.hamrick.com/vsm.html

Regards,
Ed Hamrick



Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: Slightly OT: Hard Drive Speed

[Ezio c/o TIN]

Moreno , please, give up ! with such a flame ... I am a 21 years old IBM
Sales Representative and I can assure you cannot compare apple to apple in
such a manner ... first of all a 100GB as got an owful throughput provided
the inherent density of data per actuator ... it is almost unfair toward the
IDE drive (and this is avoiding to speak about IDE protocol bottle necks).
Second ... the IBM List prices could be quite different from the STREET
PRICES ... please, go wherever you want and ask for the REALLY PRACTICED
PRICE (street price) if you don't want accept eBay prices for SEALED NEW and
under 3 years international warranties .

Despite I am a 21 old IBM Sales Man (Unix Systems and not Netfinity) ... my
systems at home are clones self assembled , but with IBM HDD (1 x 36GB U-160
+ 3 x 18GB U-160 with Adaptec 29160 ... and slower SCSI U2FWs on the other
systems (2)..)

The 5x18.2GB I have already referenced are SEALED NEW and labelled as Compaq
! and they will be driven by a MYLEX (again IBM ... damned !) SCSI-U2FW
80MB/s on 2 chains ... with INTEL i960 chip ... and I have bought it for 65$
(not 500) new and under warranty on eBay again ...
What about the price/performance of a RAID0,1,3,5 IDE  capable of 15
drives ... please compare this and then ... apples will be compared with
apples and pears with pears ...
I think you will NEVER put everything on a single drive IDE or SCSI it could
be ... or you will have an orrible bottleneck on the actuators (at least)
... isn't it ?

Sincerely.

Ezio

www.lucenti.com  e-photography site

ICQ: 139507382
- Original Message -
From: "Moreno Polloni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 1:20 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Slightly OT: Hard Drive Speed


>> Please name the two drives you are claiming are a FIVE times price
increase
for SCSI vs IDE.<<

I looked up wholesale pricing for the IBM 18gb SCSI drive being discussed,
vs a 7200 rpm 100gb IDE drive for the same price and posted the results in a
previous message. The SCSI drive costs more than 5x per gb than the IDE. My
source was Tech Data, one of the largest computer distributors in Canada.




Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: nikon 4000 ED (ICE, Tmax, Kodachrome)

[ThomasH]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Date sent:  Wed, 6 Feb 2002 10:13 + (GMT)
> Send reply to:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:[filmscanners] Re: nikon 4000 ED
>
> > On Tue, 5 Feb 2002 13:35:36 -0600   Jack Phipps ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >
> > > It is correct that Digital ICE does not work on traditional black and
> > > white
> > > film such as Tri-X. However, it works quite well on chomogenic black and
> > > white film like Tmax.
> >
> > A small point : 2 TMax emulsions are chromagenic, most are silver image
> > films.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Tony Sleep
>
> Hi all, a "VueScan refugee" from UseNet comp.periphs.scanners here :-)

Yep, we are all crossing over because of this
"unnecessary roughness" in the newsgroup.

Thomas.


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] RE: Slightly OT: Hard Drive Speed

[Austin Franklin]

> >> Please name the two drives you are claiming are a FIVE times price
> increase
> for SCSI vs IDE.<<
>
> I looked up wholesale pricing for the IBM 18gb SCSI drive being discussed,
> vs a 7200 rpm 100gb IDE drive for the same price and posted the
> results in a
> previous message. The SCSI drive costs more than 5x per gb than
> the IDE. My
> source was Tech Data, one of the largest computer distributors in Canada.

Come on Moreno, that's a silly comparison.  I've shown an apples for apples
comparison that SCSI and IDE are comparably priced.

Austin


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] RE: Digital ICE

[Clive Moss]

>Digital ICE is unique (and patent protected)
> in that it "looks through" the surface defects and identifies
> the underlying information in the film.

Not sure I understand this. If the defect is, say, a speck of a
substance (talc, eg) that cannot be penetrated by anything the scanner
can throw at it, would you not get the same result as a hole in the
film, if you do not interpolate?

--
Clive Moss


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: Vuescan 7.5.b12

In a message dated 2/6/2002 2:52:01 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> I notice in your "what's new for beta 11" that you changed the auto
>  eject to eject right after a scan completes.  I find that when doing a
>  device|batch scann|all with VueScan set to device|auto eject|scan it ejects
>  the carrier after the first scan.  Did you mean to do this?  It would be
>  better (for me at least) if, when doing batch scans, it did not eject the
>  carrier until the final scan is done.

I'm pretty sure this is fixed in beta 13.
You can download it from:

  http://www.hamrick.com/vsm.html

Regards,
Ed Hamrick


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body