[filmscanners] Re: Archiving???!!!
?ISO-8859-1?Q?H=E5kon_T_S=F8nderland?= wrote: > Yup, same solution here. Have your files on at least two harddisk > spindles. The chances of both failing at the same time should be > small. Use 3 if you are unsure and your data means a lot to you. For backup of stuff stored on my computer (which includes images), I backup to another hard disk that's on *another* computer so that if the PC's power supply blows up and torches all the hard disks that I don't have both the original and backup blown. As to DVDs and such, if one makes four copies on DVDs (as was suggested for CDs) then it cuts down to something still over a gigabyte. As to the suggestion about labels and pen-writing on CD's, it should be "better" on DVDs where the recording layer is at the middle of the disk rather than a hair below the top (label side) like it is on CDs. There's a thick layer of that very tough plastic between a felt pen and the active layers. Mike Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Sprintscan Died...Replace it with Plustek OpticFilm 7200?
Problem with this scanner is - not MAC compatible and by todays standard very low DMax On Dec 8, 2004, at 6:33 PM, Chris Street wrote: > Polaroid have exited the scanner business. For 13"x19" you will need > min. > 3600dpi. > > Consider the 7200dpi (optical resolution) dedicated 35mm scanner > Plustek > OpticFilm 7200. > magazine reviews summarised here: http://tinyurl.com/6k76b > > You can crop 35mm by 3/4 and still get 13"x19" at 7200dpi > > Chris Street > > >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Smith >> Sent: 07 December 2004 05:48 >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: [filmscanners] Sprintscan Died...Replace it with What? >> >> My Polaroid Sprintscan 4000 Plus has died. Polaroid has quoted up to >> $650 to repair it. I'm strongly considering buying a new scanner but >> don't know what the prime contenders are (non-flatbed). Seems that >> I've not paid any attention to prior posts for 35mm scanners since I >> got this one when it first came out. >> >> Regarding my uses - I'm printing these 35mm images on an Epson 1280, >> mostly at 13X19 size. I shoot a lot of 4x5 also and have an Epson >> 3200 >> for those chromes. >> >> Which scanners should I consider and if it were your choice today, >> which $400 - $1000 dedicated film scanner would you purchase? >> >> thanks >> Brad >> >> -- >> - >> - >> 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: Archiving???!!!
"Brad Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] >But, as I try to access older CD's, I consistently find files that I can't >open - [snip] I'm sure books have been written on this subject, but I'll put in my 2 cents: You didn't say which 'name brands' you used. I would only use Mitsui Gold CDRs. Kodak also used to make an excellent gold CDR but I think they have been discontinued. It seems that very few people want to pay a premium price for quality. I think Mitsui has changed its name to Mam-e. A quality CDR may have a long shelf life after it is burned, but the shelf-life BEFORE it is burned is very short. I don't remember the exact number, but you should burn them within a few years after they are manufactured. I've read that problems with CD burners are common, e.g., dirt on the laser, misalignment, etc. can cause a burner to make poor quality CDs. I've read that DVDs are no better than CDs, and are probably worse. Hope this helps. Nick Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Sprintscan Died...Replace it with Plustek OpticFilm 7200?
Polaroid have exited the scanner business. For 13"x19" you will need min. 3600dpi. Consider the 7200dpi (optical resolution) dedicated 35mm scanner Plustek OpticFilm 7200. magazine reviews summarised here: http://tinyurl.com/6k76b You can crop 35mm by 3/4 and still get 13"x19" at 7200dpi Chris Street >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Smith >Sent: 07 December 2004 05:48 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: [filmscanners] Sprintscan Died...Replace it with What? > >My Polaroid Sprintscan 4000 Plus has died. Polaroid has quoted up to >$650 to repair it. I'm strongly considering buying a new scanner but >don't know what the prime contenders are (non-flatbed). Seems that >I've not paid any attention to prior posts for 35mm scanners since I >got this one when it first came out. > >Regarding my uses - I'm printing these 35mm images on an Epson 1280, >mostly at 13X19 size. I shoot a lot of 4x5 also and have an Epson 3200 >for those chromes. > >Which scanners should I consider and if it were your choice today, >which $400 - $1000 dedicated film scanner would you purchase? > >thanks >Brad > >--- >- >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: Archiving???!!!
Ed Verkaik wrote: > From: "Brad Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Someone must have a solution, must have found way to reduce the losses. The > only way I can see to reduce my losses is to write everything on my old HP > burner and make multiple copies - perhaps 4 copies each. That seems a bit > much as it reduces the effective capacity of a CD to about 160 megabytes. > > Suggestions? > > > Years ago when I had to make a decision on archiving, I began to suspect the > same risk with CDs and opted for two external hard drives. I keep one copy of > all files on my system, and have two 200gb firewire drives for backup. If one > fails, the other can be copied to a replacement drive. It also means > simplicity, speed, and easy file retrieval. > Yup, same solution here. Have your files on at least two harddisk spindles. The chances of both failing at the same time should be small. Use 3 if you are unsure and your data means a lot to you. Håkon -- We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Archiving???!!!
From: "Brad Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Someone must have a solution, must have found way to reduce the losses. The only way I can see to reduce my losses is to write everything on my old HP burner and make multiple copies - perhaps 4 copies each. That seems a bit much as it reduces the effective capacity of a CD to about 160 megabytes. Suggestions? >>> Years ago when I had to make a decision on archiving, I began to suspect the same risk with CDs and opted for two external hard drives. I keep one copy of all files on my system, and have two 200gb firewire drives for backup. If one fails, the other can be copied to a replacement drive. It also means simplicity, speed, and easy file retrieval. I had hoped that DVD would provide an alternative but with conflicting standards, rapid changes in technology, and even greater unreliability, I passed. The biggest problem with CDs or DVDs is that you don't know if/when a file will fail and you must either rewrite everything every two years or so, or check files one at a time. Forget it!!- life's too short! Ed Verkaik Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Archiving???!!!
Mike Johnston addressesd the issue of CD quality just recently. Here is a link: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-05-09-04.shtml I have run into the same problem with some data files from work. A couple of tips, good quality CDs do seem to help. Burn AT LEAST two CDs and check them to make sure that all files are readable on both, many times you will find a file unreadable even immediatly after writing. If you have two readable CDs chances are in a few years, that you will be able to recover the needed file off of at least one of them. Yes, this is a royal pain in the ass, but it does seem to be the safest way. Frankly this is one of the major reasons that I have not moved from film to digital. Until an affordable and truly reliable way of storing data is available I remain hesitant to commit all my eggs into one basket. At least with film I can always rescan if needed. Jim Couch Brad Davis wrote: >Archiving: > >I've been using CD's for archiving for at least 6 years. When I started, I >used an HP burner that worked at 2X. It still works. In fact, if a CD >won't read on another burner or CD drive, it may read on the old HP. This >doesn't surprise me, running slower would seem likely to be more robust. > >But, as I try to access older CD's, I consistently find files that I can't >open - with any CD reader, even the HP. While CD's written by the HP are >likely to have fewer bad files, it seems that virtually all of the older >CD's have some files that are unreadable, or if read, can't be opened by >photoshop for one reason or another. It seems that the question isn't if I >am going to lose files, but how many on a given CD. > >Now, I may be doing things that increase my chances of losing a file, or >even an entire CD, but I haven't been able to identify what I might be >doing. I pretty successfully avoid scratches, and beyond that, I keep the >CD's in books that have sleeves in them. They are stored at room >temperature which is never above 75 degrees, nor below 60 and the humidity >remains in a range around 40% - not a lot higher or lower. > >I've always purchased the more expensive name brand CD's, even though I am >somewhat suspicious that on occasion what I got was no better than the no >name sold by Fry's out here. In talking to others, I hear the same stories >irrespective of brand of CD used. > >CD's written by companies (that contain software, such as my Photoshop CD) >seem to do better, I rarely have any trouble, and on the rare occasion I do, >putting it in the old HP has always taken care of it. I've never had to >request a replacement CD and I don't back them up - I probably should. > >I have been in the habit of making multiple backups, so I haven't lost >anything of value - yet. > >I've been considering DVD's, but reading about the problems they many have, >they seem to be an even more fugitive medium. > >Someone must have a solution, must have found way to reduce the losses. The >only way I can see to reduce my losses is to write everything on my old HP >burner and make multiple copies - perhaps 4 copies each. That seems a bit >much as it reduces the effective capacity of a CD to about 160 megabytes. > >Suggestions? > > >Brad > >-- >Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection >of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house. >Henri Poincare --Science and Hypothesis > > > > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Archiving???!!!
Hello Brad, I haven't been archiving on this media personally (I still have everything on a huge internal HDD), but do have some idea from forums etc. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/hd-back.shtml points out that putting lables or writing on CD can cause the data to be lost. There are some other interesting points in the article as well. I also remember reading another thread where some claimed that "re-writable" DVDs were more reliable than plain "once-writable" media. I am not sure if that is true for CD's as well. Most big banks use "tapes" as backup medium. I am not sure if that is because they are more reliable, or just cheaper. -Navjot On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 09:34:49 -0800, Brad Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Archiving: > > I've been using CD's for archiving for at least 6 years. When I started, I > used an HP burner that worked at 2X. It still works. In fact, if a CD > won't read on another burner or CD drive, it may read on the old HP. This > doesn't surprise me, running slower would seem likely to be more robust. > > But, as I try to access older CD's, I consistently find files that I can't > open - with any CD reader, even the HP. While CD's written by the HP are > likely to have fewer bad files, it seems that virtually all of the older > CD's have some files that are unreadable, or if read, can't be opened by > photoshop for one reason or another. It seems that the question isn't if I > am going to lose files, but how many on a given CD. > > Now, I may be doing things that increase my chances of losing a file, or > even an entire CD, but I haven't been able to identify what I might be > doing. I pretty successfully avoid scratches, and beyond that, I keep the > CD's in books that have sleeves in them. They are stored at room > temperature which is never above 75 degrees, nor below 60 and the humidity > remains in a range around 40% - not a lot higher or lower. > > I've always purchased the more expensive name brand CD's, even though I am > somewhat suspicious that on occasion what I got was no better than the no > name sold by Fry's out here. In talking to others, I hear the same stories > irrespective of brand of CD used. > > CD's written by companies (that contain software, such as my Photoshop CD) > seem to do better, I rarely have any trouble, and on the rare occasion I do, > putting it in the old HP has always taken care of it. I've never had to > request a replacement CD and I don't back them up - I probably should. > > I have been in the habit of making multiple backups, so I haven't lost > anything of value - yet. > > I've been considering DVD's, but reading about the problems they many have, > they seem to be an even more fugitive medium. > > Someone must have a solution, must have found way to reduce the losses. The > only way I can see to reduce my losses is to write everything on my old HP > burner and make multiple copies - perhaps 4 copies each. That seems a bit > much as it reduces the effective capacity of a CD to about 160 megabytes. > > Suggestions? > > Brad > > -- > Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection > of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house. >Henri Poincare --Science and Hypothesis > > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Archiving???!!!
Archiving: I've been using CD's for archiving for at least 6 years. When I started, I used an HP burner that worked at 2X. It still works. In fact, if a CD won't read on another burner or CD drive, it may read on the old HP. This doesn't surprise me, running slower would seem likely to be more robust. But, as I try to access older CD's, I consistently find files that I can't open - with any CD reader, even the HP. While CD's written by the HP are likely to have fewer bad files, it seems that virtually all of the older CD's have some files that are unreadable, or if read, can't be opened by photoshop for one reason or another. It seems that the question isn't if I am going to lose files, but how many on a given CD. Now, I may be doing things that increase my chances of losing a file, or even an entire CD, but I haven't been able to identify what I might be doing. I pretty successfully avoid scratches, and beyond that, I keep the CD's in books that have sleeves in them. They are stored at room temperature which is never above 75 degrees, nor below 60 and the humidity remains in a range around 40% - not a lot higher or lower. I've always purchased the more expensive name brand CD's, even though I am somewhat suspicious that on occasion what I got was no better than the no name sold by Fry's out here. In talking to others, I hear the same stories irrespective of brand of CD used. CD's written by companies (that contain software, such as my Photoshop CD) seem to do better, I rarely have any trouble, and on the rare occasion I do, putting it in the old HP has always taken care of it. I've never had to request a replacement CD and I don't back them up - I probably should. I have been in the habit of making multiple backups, so I haven't lost anything of value - yet. I've been considering DVD's, but reading about the problems they many have, they seem to be an even more fugitive medium. Someone must have a solution, must have found way to reduce the losses. The only way I can see to reduce my losses is to write everything on my old HP burner and make multiple copies - perhaps 4 copies each. That seems a bit much as it reduces the effective capacity of a CD to about 160 megabytes. Suggestions? Brad -- Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house. Henri Poincare --Science and Hypothesis Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
