[filmscanners] RE: Epson-inkjet
Yahoo groups aren't down. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: Bruce Kinch > > I'm also not getting any of the Yahoo groups: Piezo, Archival Color, > Digital BW , etc. Perhaps my ISP is balking? They need the bandwidth > for the spam? Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Epson-inkjet
>Anyone know what has happened to epson-inkjet list yet? Six days down now. I'm also not getting any of the Yahoo groups: Piezo, Archival Color, Digital BW , etc. Perhaps my ISP is balking? They need the bandwidth for the spam? Bruce -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: VueScan profile problem!
Sorry - but are you guys referring to the "Monitor Color Space" pull down under the "Color" tab in Vuescan? I can't find anything that is labeled "Monitor Profile." Am I missing it? On Mon, 24 Jun 2002 12:31:27 -0400, you wrote: >On Mon, 24 Jun 2002 09:01:00 -0500, "" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Oh drat! >> >>Here Ed implements monitor profiles in VS at last, and I >>can't find mine! Using VS 7.5.34 on WinXP Home, I choose >>"ICC Profile" in the Monitor Profile popup. I then browse to >>the folder (XP default .../Spool/Drivers/Color) where my >>PhotoCal profile resides, and I can't "see" it! Only a few >>profiles are available, some CMYK setups and a few older PS >>default settings. What is wrong here (if anything)? My >>PhotoCal profle is correctly named with a .icm extension >>(which VS is now supposed to recognize) as per Windows >>requirements. (If the app didn't give it the correct suffix, >>it wouldn't work...)I tried making a copy with a .icc >>extension, and that didn't work either. Anyone grok this? >> >>Thanks in advance, >>Les > >In the Color tab click on the @ button next to the "Monitor ICC Profile" >entry, and navigate to the color directory. Then in the "Files of type:" >box in the popup, just erase what's there and type in *.icm and all the ICM >profiles will appear. Then select the one you want. > >Paul > > >Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' >or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Ken Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Trouble with Canoscan FS4000US
Hello i have serious trouble with errors on my scans with Canons Canoscan FS4000US film scanner. I have a WWW page http://www.skydiver.de/stef/fehler.htm with 2 pictures and repair history. Has someone seen this error before? Maybe it is a tramline (see www.halftone.co.uk) error, but i am not sure. Thanks for your interest and comments Stefan Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: OT: leben list
Arthur Entlich wrote: > Many complaints have come to public forums about Nikon depth of field > being inadequate to capture the full 35mm frame in focus with either > glass mounts, special slide mounts or special pre-handling of film strips. The above line was supposed to read: Many complaints have come to public forums about Nikon depth of field being inadequate to capture the full 35mm frame in focus WITHOUT either glass mounts, special slide mounts or special pre-handling of film strips. I apologize for this error, as it is inaccurate as it was posted. Art Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: OT: leben list
I was going to stay out of this, because I sound like an old skipping record when it comes to this subject. However, in fairness, I have to respond. Some film scanners handle depth of field better than others. For instance, I have not experienced a film frame or slide which has enough curvature when using the HP S10 or S20, the Minolta Dual II or the Polaroid SS4000 series scanners to cause any area to be out of focus. Many complaints have come to public forums about Nikon depth of field being inadequate to capture the full 35mm frame in focus with either glass mounts, special slide mounts or special pre-handling of film strips. The two main issues determining whether a CCD scanner has enough depth of field is 1) the aperture of the lens used (determined by the brightness of the light source and other design issues), and 2) the length of the optical path. The scanners I mention above appear to have either long enough optical paths (the HP models are fixed focus so obviously have a fairly substantial depth of field) or a bright enough light source to allow for a stopped down lens. Therefore, I have to challenge your statement that "every scanner has problems with "curved" film..." The scanners I mention seemed to have no such problems with any film with "normal curvature" which I consider my films to have. On the other hand, "normal curvature of film" is indeed adequate to cause areas to be out of focus with at least some Nikon scanners. Art Jan Copier wrote: > Barry, > > Ok, your right, but be reasonble, every scanner has problems with "curved" > film (accept a drum scanner I suppose), I'm having a Coolsacn IV and very > satisfied with it (manual focus is possible), keep your negs safe and flat > as possible. > > Jan > > - Original Message - > From: "barry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2002 3:15 PM > Subject: [filmscanners] RE: OT: leben list > > > I am researching the purchase of a new scanner. I am considering the Nikon > IV and others. Does anyone have any experience with the Nikon? I am told it > has a focusing problem with currved negatives. > > Where is the Digital B&W, The Print site? > regards > > bt > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Glenn Thureson > Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2002 7:23 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [filmscanners] Re: OT: leben list > > > You're right, I missed that. I've been reading the archives over at Digital > B&W, The Print. Hours later, I've finally checked my Inbox. Thanks for > noticing (not that we can fix it). > > Glenn > > - Original Message - > From: "Robert Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 9:33 AM > Subject: [filmscanners] OT: leben list > > > Sorry if you find this a bit off topic, but as I've some of your names on > overthere, I want to ask if I am the only one not receiving anything from > the Leben scan (and Epson) lists since Wednesday (June 19)? > > Robert > > > > 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 > > > > 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: ADMIN: was RE: Density vs Dynamic range>AUSTIN (2a) - To the MODERATOR
No Austin, perhaps I made me unclear: the thread topic and how it has started has really captured my attention raising quite interesting issue certainly related to the scanning, but then many unnecessary discussions have entered this line going deeply into things which has not much to do with the List issue taking more and more of the bandwidth on the List. (I must confess, from certain point I just started to delete automatically the bunches of the emails on this List dealing with this thread). I'm electronics engineer myself so perhaps those electronic processing debates run through this thread might have certain interest for me, but surely not in the scope of this List. This is just how I feel about that, probably others will not agree with me. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Austin Franklin Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2002 9:06 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: ADMIN: was RE: Density vs Dynamic range>AUSTIN (2a) - To the MODERATOR > Now it is down to people's self-consciousness to realize that this List > isn't the very appropriate place for such long and annoying threads going > off-topic more and more. Hi Alex, It comes across that you (and some others) somehow believe the "Density vs Dynamic Rage" thread was off-topic. In fact, it could not be more ON topic. It may not be a topic that (unfortunately ) interests a lot of list members, but it IS an important topic (far more important than a lot of people may understand) that does relate to filmscanners. There are many topics on this, and other lists, that don't please everyone...for one example, I could care less about Viewscan and Nikon scanners (although some of the discussion about Nikon scanners does interest me), but they ARE related to film scanners, and do belong here...except when this group becomes a Viewscan support group...now that's out of line IMO. I believe this group is everything from "how do I turn my scanner on" to "what is the spectral response of the LEDs in the Nikon 8000ED scanner"...it's all about filmscanners. Regards, Austin 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
