[filmscanners] Polaroid ss4000
i live in Vancouver, Canada and i just bought a Polaroid ss400 (non plus) for US $600. amazing machine! the store that i bought it from (Beau Photo Supplies) has one left in stock, so if anyone is interested let me know and i can forward the address and phone number. in today's global market i'm sure there wouldn't be much problem purchasing over the phone and shipping via Fedex or UPS or the like, to wherever you are. going by what i've read so far on this list, that seems like a price that would make it worthwhile for just about anyone looking for one. let me know Frank Vena photographer Vancouver Canada T: 604-512-4069 E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] W: www.frankvena.com http://www.frankvena.com Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: problem with ss120
On 25/5/02 5:54 am, mike rott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just bought a used ss120. Checking it out, I found that while the 35mm slide and film strip holders work, the 120 holder does not. It gets pulled into the scanner only a short ways before getting stuck. The scanner sounds like it is trying to pull the holder in but can not. After a few seconds it rejects the holder. Are there any suggestions on what I can try before returning it or sending it off for repairs. Also, when inserting the holders initially, how much resistance should be expected? thanks, Mike Mike The resistance is quite strong when pushing the holders in and sometimes feels like you are about to do some damage. The 120 holder should travel in just like the others so I don't understand why is doesn't. Simon Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: problem with ss120
Are there any suggestions on what I can try before returning it or sending it off for repairs. Also, when inserting the holders initially, how much resistance should be expected? Greetings: I had the same problem with mine (months ago) its the holder. Polaroid should replace it, no problem. Larry -- *** Ostrom Photography [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: Which is better - Canon,Nikon,Minolta - Please advise...
IF there are others here who have the Canon and can honestly dispute my findings, I'd love to hear from you because the price is s right on the Canon! Hi Doug...My comments will be honest because I own an FS4000 and just recently bought a Polaroid SS4000+. Let me qualify my comments: 1) I am somewhat of a novice and 2) I obviously would not have bought the SS4000+ if I were totally satisfied with the Canon. That said, while agree with some of your commenst I also disagree with some of them. Here's the scoop on the FS4000. The FARE dust and scratch removal works pretty well with *minor* particles, but fails miserably with dirty slides. IT blows out the highlights and shadows on negs to pure white and black respectively and requires lots of post work to clean it up. I have found FARE to work very well. Once again, I must qualify. The slides I have used are all new, but have had the typical, non-pro-shop dust etc as well as dust and minor scratches from storage. In these instances I have found FARE to work extremely well. As a matter of fact, most reviews that I have read on the internet discuss how nice FARE is and how it doesn't degrade the image. I have not seen the problem you mention of FARE blowing out the highlights etc. My only really old and horribly dirty and fungus laden slides are a box of old Kodachromes that are truly ancient. FARE did a lousy job on these, but I believe that the Canon literature says that FARE is not effective with Kodachromes. So I think the botom line is that it depends on what you define *mild* particles as in terms of my bying able to speak towards this. In my experience FARE has worked exceedingly well. The film strip guide protrudes so far out of the scanner on frame 1 that it sags to the point of almost falling out of the scanner. So badly, that the gears grind trying to pull it back into the unit. I have to disagree here as well. In my experience there is a bit of up and down motion, but the scanner seems to know what it is doing. I have never had the frame shifted downward on frame 1 compared to the other frames nor have I had frame 1 be out of focus. I also have not had my unit gring the gears trying to pull the carrier back in on frmae 1. From a mechanical standpoint my unit has been flawless. The FilmGet software, only a Photoshop plug-in and not stand alone, cannot batch scan. Well, it can, but only to memory, not to a file. How much ram is required to batch 6 frames on a strip at 4000dpi? Say no more... Imagine trying to batch an 40 frame APS roll! Since I've got quite a bit of I agree with you that this is not the scanner for a large volume operator. Then the kicker as you mentioned, is speed! A boy is it a dog. Over 10 minutes per frame for a 4000dpi grab! A. TOTALLY AGREE...this is one slow scanner. I have 2 image editing programs PS and Picture Window Pro. Oddly enough, in PWP the scanner is slow, in PS, for some reason, at least on my system it is truly painfully slow (though I am on USB and not SCSI, perhaps SCSI would improve the situation). Even if you could batch scan to file the speed would make this painful for a high volume scanner in PS (at least with USB...my system has 512 of RAM). So why did I get the SS4000? 1)Noise in shadow areas with the FS4000 2)Improved shadow detail 3)Speed (Firewire) In short, I think the Canon is great if you are not high volume and are not totally obsessive about shadow noise (ie I think you will be unhappy if you blow up your scans to 100% on the monitor to examine them, but would be happy if what you want is 8x10 prints of very good quality). But based on what you say, the Canon would be eliminated based on speed alone given your volume. Howard Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] list archives
My URL for this list's archive is apparently out of date. It seems to me Tony mentioning something about a different archive ... can I ask for its URL? (It really ought to be posted at the halftone.co.uk website). cheerios ... shAf :o) Avalon Peninsula, Newfoundland www.micro-investigations.com (in progress) Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] unsubscribe filmscanners_digest
_ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Scanner printer
David J. Littleboy wrote: Op's [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Have a look at the Minolta Scan Multi Pro It looks to me that the Multi Pro is the best 35mm scanner available, but that it's behind the 8000 for MF work. (I was particularly disturbed by the noise (grain) in the examples discussed here a while ago.) That's not my experience of the Minolta. Yes its only 3200 optical for 120 film but 6x6 scan is - 145M tiff file which is quite sufficient to work with. You only get 95M from a 35mm slide at 4800. My panoramic 6x17 are only scanned at 2400 which make up a to a 200M tif. That's about a 1 metre x 300 mm at 400 dpi. Just how much information do you want? How much are you to throw away? I can also say that I was disturbed by the banding in the Nikon scans and Nikon have no intention of fixing that. Have a look at the scan times for a fine mode scan that's a work around for the banding. The Minolta size is convenient for my desktop I'm very happy with the results just want more computer power now to handle the unexpected file sizes in Photoshop. Minolta as well as Nikon have ice cubes to work with. Now that Polaroid have there cleaning routine up and running the Polaroid SS120 might be a worth while consideration - looking at the cleaner its getting up to the ASF Ice product results. I'm glad I bought a Minolta it gives me 4800 for 35mm ( which you have to get the most from) and at 3200 for 120 is more than sufficient for my purposes. Which printer should I could consider if I want to print al least A3? It seems to be between the Canon 9000 (dye-based inks) and the pigment ink Epson 2100, 2200, or 4000 (same printer: the only difference is where you buy it). The Canon (as I understand it) doesn't do full-bleed A3. However, I'm finding the Epson 950C _very_ slow for full-bleed A4 (20 to 25 minutes), and probably should have bought the Canon 900. Sigh. (I whimped out on A3 this time around since I really don't have space for it (my wife said shut up and buy itg.)). They're enourmous. Also, since I haven't bitten the bullet and purchased the 8000, I don't have A3 quality images yet.) The reviews of the new Epson printers to tend to sway me towards them in preference to the Canon 9000's series. Canon do not have the paper range of the Epson.(There gloss paper is very scratched which is quite visible on the prints) If you read the fine print from Canon then there archival inks are some what iffy - they go into a routine of storage, underglass, paper, etc etc. Rob Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Nikon Scan manual ?
I have downloaded Nikon Scan 3.1.2 to use with my LS30. Can anyone tell me where to download a manual ? Mike Bloor Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Nikon LS8000
I am now the proud keeper of a Nikon 8000 complete with NikonScan 3.1 ... And why did I choose this particular bag of spanners, over any other rattler? The Minolta Multi Pro - I faced another six weeks wait as 'allegedly' the Pro's are being trickle fed once a month into the UK from Germany. The Polaroid SS120 (according to some Polaroid dude) will be obsolete as soon as the last remaining units are sold. Get one while you can. They don't seem to have any plans for a replacement model either... can this be true? So I felt obliged to stump up the extra loot and go for the Nikon. So far with the Nikon ... The Nikon software needs windows 98 Second edition or later. Seems to be to do with the firewire card and drivers. Lucky for me I had an XP disc lying around. Don't laugh, I like w98 (first time round). I have seen the banding coming from transparent areas of bw negatives if you turn up the brightness a long way in whatever image manipulation package is used. It can be 'got round' by using the fine scan switch in the extras section. Mr Hamrick's Vuescan seems to do a 'fine scan' anyway, but that makes the previews seem to take an age. I suppose it would be nice if it were switchable. I have not seen any misalignment of rgb layers, but then Art said I wouldn't. I have seen the dust and scratches. But... I've seen the stuff before on my previous film scanners, a Canon FS2700 and a Microtec Artixscan 4000T. I have become quite a good little spotter. Maybe the 4000T isn't a proper Polaroid machine. Or maybe I haven't developed the knack of removing the dust problem at source, like having clean negs. The infra red cleaning is an eye opener for me. Mind you, for the money, it ought to be. Instead of spotting, now I can twiddle my thumbs and wonder if I should have waited 6 weeks or just got an SS120. Nikon Scan 3.1 niggles - I can't quite see how to save/recover all the settings in one go : some one mentioned the variable offsets on 120 roll film (camera to camera variations) and how they had to keep setting the offsets. This lives in the Extras area. I'm not sure how to save/recover all the options for all frames - all at once. Anyone any ideas? Quite easy to scan 6x17 images (did one for a friend, yer 'oner) - have to use the offsets to scan two frames of 6x9, don't do any automatic exposure on the second frame - use the automatic exposure for the first frame. Use an image editing program with layers and they match very easily, a bit too easily, must have done something wrong. Much harder to get a 24mmx65mm image for various reasons - Using the standard roll film holder I couldn't fathom how to get Nikon Scan to auto expose for just the cropped area. I need to understand how to manually set the 'exposure'. The 35mm film is only clipped into one side of the holder, but would yield one image file. If I use the 35mm holder with Nikon Scan then I get different exposures for each half image, because I don't know how to save all my settings between successive insertions of the film carriers. Got to move the film. Using Vuescan and the roll film holder allows me to expose for the cropped area but working out the offsets (for the first time) takes ages as the previews are slower coming to the screen (fine mode). I know I could always get one of those carriers that handles anything, but that would spoil the fun. On the whole - it does what is says on the lid. Which is useful. Apologies for that slightly rambly account of my first week of married bliss, me and my scanner. Mental note - must get W98SE, there's a lot less going on in the background as compared to XP. P.S. Any one know how to completely turn off the auto insert business on the cd in XP? Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Autoplay on XP cd's [was filmscanners] Nikon LS8000
deedee, Right-click on your cd drive and under Autoplay, select 'Take no action' for each type of CD file, music, data, etc. Or leave music to autoplay, but data or mixed cd's not to, as I do. Bob Frost. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. Any one know how to completely turn off the auto insert business on the cd in XP? Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Scanner printer
Op's [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Me: (I was particularly disturbed by the noise (grain) in the examples discussed here a while ago.) That's not my experience of the Minolta. Yes its only 3200 optical for 120 film but 6x6 scan is - 145M tiff file which is quite sufficient to work with. You only get 95M from a 35mm slide at 4800. The size and somewhat lower cost of the Minolta (since it includes glass carriers) make it very attractive. I wish there were more raw scan examples on the net to download and look at closely (the reviews mostly focus on 35mm examples). Having been burned on the Epson 2450 (mine may be on the edge of the defective end of allowable specs), I'm hesitant to spend that kind of money with any doubts remaining. My panoramic 6x17 are only scanned at 2400 which make up a to a 200M tif. Could you email me ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) a crop from a 2400 dpi scan from a panarama: I'd love to see how it compares to my fuzzy Epson 2450 at 2400. I thought I had figured out how to get a decent 8.25x11.75 from the 2450 (_two_ sharpening passes, one with R=4 and the second with R=2 in Picture Window Pro) but it only works for certain images. It doesn't work on images with fine details like cityscapes/landscapes. Sigh. The reviews of the new Epson printers to tend to sway me towards them in preference to the Canon 9000's series. That's why I bought the 950Cg. Or maybe that should be a frown. The speed is not amuzing. I called Epson Japan and asked how long should it take and the help-desk flunky (actually, a clearly intelligent person: she was very good at only giving the company line) said our data data shows that, depending on printing conditions, an A4 print with margins takes 1 minute 53 seconds. Me: So how long does full-bleed A4 take? Epson: we won't tell you. Me: Aaaarg. (This is after they told me anyone scanning negatives on a flatbed needs their head examined. (Actually, it was closer to You should use a film scanner if you need quality scans.)) But the 9000 series and the 2100/2200/4000 aren't comparable printers since one would presumably decide pigment vs. dye inks a priori. Anyway, my I should have bought the Canon is about A4 dye-based ink printers. The 4000 demo books that Epson has on display here are devastating. (One problem with the 950C and 2100/2200/4000, though, is that (I think) they're not available outside Japan yet.) Canon do not have the paper range of the Epson. I don't know what you mean here: any paper ought to be useable on any printer. FWIW, a review of various papers in a Japanese camera magazine rated Konica's heavy weight glossy DX photo paper the best. (There gloss paper is very scratched which is quite visible on the prints) My HP 970Cxi did that. But that was because its paper path is too convoluted to use heavy weight paper. I'm surprised you are seeing that with Canon. If you read the fine print from Canon then there archival inks are some what iffy - they go into a routine of storage, underglass, paper, etc etc. Isn't that the dye/pigment distinction? (Don't take the above as argumentative: your point that no one ever says anything other than ravingly positive about Epson printers is spot on. I'm even quite happy with the 950C other than speed (and even that saves money: you can't waste a lot of paper at half an hour a shot). And I'd love to be persuaded that the Minolta's the right way to go.) David J. Littleboy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tokyo, Japan Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Umax experience
Laurie, Bummer on the Powerlook II. In general, I agree with everything you wrote below. In this particular case, I got lucky. I did research the site before I bought and found a Magicscan upgrade version that was XP compatible. I had actually been shopping for a scanner for contact sheets for awhile. I didn't want to put the $$$ in for a new Epson 1680. I narrowed my choice to either a used Epson 1600 or a new or used PLIII. I did take note that, for the longest, Umax's site stated that their scanners were not XP compatible. Totally amazing to me that they were that slow in upgrading. I bid on 1-2 epsons and did not bid on Powerlooks until I knew they had compatible software. Of course, I knew that I could use Vuescan or (gulp) buy Silverfast. Have you tried Vuescan with your PLII? The problem with the old firmware in PLIII's with XP was that it caused multiple device manager entries for the scanner. The new Magicscan and a registry fix on the Umax site caused my scanner to be listed properly without the new firmware. Lloyd -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Laurie Solomon Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2002 11:43 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Umax experience Lloyd, I have a Umax Powerlook II, which I like very much; but I have had problems getting it to function in twain mode under Windows XP when using upgraded Magicscan and Binuscan software. Upon checking the Umax web sight, I found no upgrades for that scanner when it came to software that would work with Win XP; a call to Umax did not help either. They suggested trying the Win 2000 upgrade which enabled the MagicScan twain to work so that the scanner could be used; but the Binuscan PhotoPerfect portion did not work. Moreover, for some reason, the MagicScan twain would not work with programs such as OmniPage and OmniForm. My point is that your experience seems to indicate that, as is often the case with many support staffs, they really do not always know what they are talking about when they give advice. In your case as in mine, it was not the scanner hardware or firmware that would not work with WinXP but the damn software, which they do not really keep up todate in terms of upgrading and which the web site is totally ineffective in providing good substantive information on. Their sight when it comes to support and upgrade information is lacking. Their telephone support service can be expensive as pointed out and generally not all that helpful even if you get through, despite the fact that the personnel may be very nice to deal with and attempt to be helpful. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Umax experience
Have you tried Vuescan with your PLII Yes, I bought a copy;amd found it does permit the Umax to work with Win XP. However it is not a twain driver and does not allow the scanner to be used from within applications like Photoshop, OmniForm, or OmniPage. I did download a newer version of MagicScan for Win 2000; and as I noted ot does provide a workable twain driver that will work with Photoshop but not OmniPage or OmniForM for some reason. The BinuScan application within it does not work at all with Win XP. The problem with the old firmware in PLIII's with XP was that it caused multiple device manager entries for the scanner. The new Magicscan and a registry fix on the Umax site caused my scanner to be listed properly without the new firmware. Interesting, I found that to be a known problem with every SCSI flatbed scanner that I ever owned under both Win 98 and Win XP. The version of MagicScan which I downloaded for Win 2000 now produces the multiple entries in Device Manager like previous versions; but, unlike previous versions, it now registers in the Scanners and Cameras dialog box as well. In the Device Manager, it registers 7 instances of Umax OL-II SCSI Scanner Device with no date and exclamation marks as well as one instance of Umax PowerLook II without an exclamation mark and with a 1/11/2000 date. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Lloyd O'Daniel Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2002 4:43 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Umax experience Laurie, Bummer on the Powerlook II. In general, I agree with everything you wrote below. In this particular case, I got lucky. I did research the site before I bought and found a Magicscan upgrade version that was XP compatible. I had actually been shopping for a scanner for contact sheets for awhile. I didn't want to put the $$$ in for a new Epson 1680. I narrowed my choice to either a used Epson 1600 or a new or used PLIII. I did take note that, for the longest, Umax's site stated that their scanners were not XP compatible. Totally amazing to me that they were that slow in upgrading. I bid on 1-2 epsons and did not bid on Powerlooks until I knew they had compatible software. Of course, I knew that I could use Vuescan or (gulp) buy Silverfast. Have you tried Vuescan with your PLII? The problem with the old firmware in PLIII's with XP was that it caused multiple device manager entries for the scanner. The new Magicscan and a registry fix on the Umax site caused my scanner to be listed properly without the new firmware. Lloyd -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Laurie Solomon Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2002 11:43 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Umax experience Lloyd, I have a Umax Powerlook II, which I like very much; but I have had problems getting it to function in twain mode under Windows XP when using upgraded Magicscan and Binuscan software. Upon checking the Umax web sight, I found no upgrades for that scanner when it came to software that would work with Win XP; a call to Umax did not help either. They suggested trying the Win 2000 upgrade which enabled the MagicScan twain to work so that the scanner could be used; but the Binuscan PhotoPerfect portion did not work. Moreover, for some reason, the MagicScan twain would not work with programs such as OmniPage and OmniForm. My point is that your experience seems to indicate that, as is often the case with many support staffs, they really do not always know what they are talking about when they give advice. In your case as in mine, it was not the scanner hardware or firmware that would not work with WinXP but the damn software, which they do not really keep up todate in terms of upgrading and which the web site is totally ineffective in providing good substantive information on. Their sight when it comes to support and upgrade information is lacking. Their telephone support service can be expensive as pointed out and generally not all that helpful even if you get through, despite the fact that the personnel may be very nice to deal with and attempt to be helpful. -- -- 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: list archives
On Sat, 25 May 2002 10:59:51 -0230 michael shaffer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: My URL for this list's archive is apparently out of date. http://www.mail-archive.com/filmscanners@halftone.co.uk is current 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] Copyright of photos
The copyright of photos on the internet had quite a thrashing on this list a few months ago, but did any solution to the problem of people stealing copyrighted images come up? On the nyip.com website this month, http://www.nyip.com/tips/digital_dialog0402.php Jim Barthman has come up with what could be an answer, involving placing a transparent GIF over the image you want to protect from downloading. Colin Maddock Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Copyright of photos
Colin Maddock wrote On the nyip.com website this month, http://www.nyip.com/tips/digital_dialog0402.php Jim Barthman has come up with what could be an answer, involving placing a transparent GIF over the image you want to protect from downloading. That's a clever trick, but it would not stop anyone from stealing the image. Just viewing the HTML source will reveal the location and filename of the real image, which can then be downloaded. Peter Marquis-Kyle Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
