[filmscanners] Another lurker seeking advice
Hello, Another lurker jumps in! I've been following the answers to Ed Lusby's question about Kodachrome, the Nikon 5000 and bulk loaders. I have a similar series of question, but with a different emphasis: As near as I can tell, the Nikon line is the only one with a bulk loader for slides. Is this true? If not, what are the alternatives? I gather that the Nikon bulk loader is (was?) prone to jam, but that there are fixes involving shims. However, I haven't seen the specific fix described in detail. Could somebody please point me to the fix? Also, additional commentary on the jamming problem would be welcome. Has anybody seen any reviews that compare the Nikon 5000 with its predecessors? I.e., are there significant improvements, or would one be just as well served by buying a 4000, since the price on these is sure to drop as they are replaced by the newer model? A little about what I want to do: I've got a ton of 35 mm Ektachrome slides, and I'd like to get them into digital format. I don't want to spend a lot of time loading them one-at-a-time into the scanner--thus the interest in the bulk loader. Also, I don't want to spend the rest of my life doing the scanning, so some degree of speed would be nice. I realize that the more you ask of a scan, the longer it takes, but I'm willing to forgo lots of processing on the first pass in order to simply get them scanned and in a system where I can then index and organize them. If I then want a good scan, I can always go back. Nonetheless, if I can get really good scans on the first pass without sacrificing too much time, all the better. Does this strategy seem reasonable? Thanks for your help. Regards, Carlisle Landel Southwest Harbor, Maine, USA Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Autocropping (Was: Raw files in Vuescan)
At 11:13 AM -0700 8/25/04, Ed Lusby wrote: [snip] >Auto cropping remains to be a problem in vuescan. The problem seems to vary >with scanner and certainly vuescan version, as Ed has made many recent >attempts to improve auto cropping lately. However, vuescan 8.0.4 remains >the best version for me in terms of auto cropping with the LS5000. When Ed >changed the auto crop algorithm in 8.0.8 and 8.0.9, he improved filmstrip >auto cropping significantly, which was his goal. However slide scanning >autocropping was quite bad. In version 8.0.11 (or thereabouts) he made >slide auto cropping better, but still not as good as 8.0.4. One can deal >with this situation in a couple of ways. You can either install the version >best for your usage on a particular day, or you can try the various >cropping options. [snip] Hello all, Well, I finally got myself an LS5000 with a slide feeder (yahoo!), and I'm working on learning how to use it. Autocropping is one of the things I'm trying to figure out, as my first pass led to scans with black edges. Ed, do you have suggestions about where to start when you suggest "try the various cropping options"? Should I try to obtain 8.0.4? Should I use the software bundled with the scanner instead of vuescan? Does anybody else have some other ideas? My solution was going to be to mess with the settings semi-randomly, and if that failed to resolve the problem, simply accept the black edges and crop them out later. Thanks, Carlisle Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Autocropping (Was: Raw files in Vuescan)
Hmmm...maybe I was a bit premature about my complaints. The batch I ran last night cropped perfectly. Now, if I can only figure out what I did to fix it Stay tuned! Carlisle Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Coolscan V vs 5000
At 9:40 AM -0400 9/9/04, Frank & Lila Mullins wrote: >I am in the process of purchasing my first film scanner. Although, I will, >at times, use the scanner to make 8 x 10 or larger prints, my primary goal >is to convert my 35mm slide collection to digital. At present, am tending >toward the Nikon Coolscan V. However, at a local photographic supply store, >the salesperson basically told me I was wasting my money and should buy the >Super Coolscan 5000 (at a cost of about $500 more!!). > >As best I can determine, there are two MAJOR differences between the two >scanners: >The Coolscan V has a dynamic range of 4.2 while the Super Coolscan >5000 has a dynamic range of 4.8. >The Coolscan V has a 14-bit A/D converter >while the Super Coolscan 5000 has a16-bit A/D converter. > >My questions is this: Do these two differences justify the added expense of >$500 or will the less expensive scanner meet my needs? > >Thanks for your input. > >Frank Frank, If you have a significantly large slide collection, then another major difference between the two is the availability of a bulk loader for slides that will handle 50 slides at a time. Available only for the 5000, it will cost you another $350 - $400, but it sure beats sitting around feeding slides one at a time. It will choke on some slide mounts, but there is apparently a fix (which I will be bugging the list about once I get going with scanning in a big way--I first need to buy myself a big new hard drive to store my scans). So far, I've been able to simply drop in a box of slides, turn it on, and walk away. Some time later, the job is done, and meanwhile I've slept the night away, or mowed the lawn, or done something else useful besides pushing slides into my scanner. Regards, Carlisle Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Revive this list?!
A lurker adds his $0.02: I've not been a member for long, having joined within the last year in preparation for purchasing a scanner to archive an extensive slide collection. Personally, I hadn't realized that the list even *needed* a "revival". This is an *incredibly* good list, because the junk to content ratio is vanishingly close to zero. So what if there are long periods of silence? As far as I've been able to see, if somebody has a question, it is answered quickly *and* authoritatively. If somebody has something useful to say, then they say it. Perfect! Of course, I'm not a long-time member, so maybe there used to be lots of list traffic back in the "good old days". Kudos to Tony and the list community for making this a great resource. Returning back to the sidelines now Carlisle Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Nikon Scanners
At 3:55 PM +1000 9/14/04, Peter Marquis-Kyle wrote: >I have read several reports from people who have used older models of Nikon >slide feeders. As I recall, they found the feeders were very reliable with >plastic slide mounts. > >With card mounts there was a risk that the feeder would try to >gobble two slides >at the same time, causing a jam. This was easily averted by reducing >the size of >an input slot (with, for example, a piece of credit card held on with adhesive >tape). > >Does this apply to the current model, does anyone know? > >Peter Marquis-Kyle >www.marquis-kyle.com.au My understanding is that it still applies. (Actually, the "current" model has been around for a while--it also fits the 4000.) I haven't tested mine yet, but I fully expect having to modify it when I do. Carlisle Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Scan Dual IV vs. Scan Dual II
Berry, To amplify Brad's answer: When you first set up your Mac under OSX, you create accounts that will have various levels of administrative privileges. That way you can set up your machine for multiple users, and everybody gets their own directory space for storing files, etc., and you can limit what some of the users (for example, your child, friend, co-worker, etc.) can get to and do. At least one of the users has administrative privileges, that is, can add and delete files and applications at will. So, if you set up your machine with an account for you and your kid, and you fixed it so that your kid had limited privileges, then only you could load the software, not your kid. With regards to native vs non-native, what this means is that if you have some OS9 software that use with plugins for the scanner, then although that software will run in OSX, the plugins won't. You will have to upgrade to the OSX version of the software to run the plugins. Have a great evening! Carlisle At 10:46 AM -0700 9/14/04, Brad Davis wrote: >Berry,, >OS X is basically a Unix system, I'm sure you've heard that. #3 just means >that you have to have full privileges on the system - the administrator >privileges. When you go to OS X you will find that there are differing >levels of privileges which define what you can do and administrator is the >only one who can install software. > >#4 just means that the program controlling plug-in must have been written >for OS X. There were programs that were cobbled together and would run >under OS X, but weren't native to the operating system. These existed early >on for OS X, when there hadn't been time to rewrite everything to run under >OS X. Generally, these required an added layer between the program and the >OS so that a translation could be done. By now, most everything is native. > >By the way, when you go to OS X, you will find that it will run OS 9.2 under >OS X. This is so you can run legacy programs. I found that it worked, but >was not satisfactory (and you can't use the Minolta plug-in with say >Photoshop running under 9.1, for instance). > >With OS X, you get a chance to learn UNIX, if you so choose, or not, there >is not real need. > >Good luck, > >Brad > >> I notice on the Minolta compatibility chart, the following footnotes >> regarding use of the Scan Dual IV with Mac OS-X: >> >> *3:You must be logged on as an administrator to complete the driver >> installation. >> *4:The Mac OS X plug-in cannot be used with applications that are not OS X >> native. >> >> Since it is stated that various versions of OS-X are compatible, *4 is a >> little puzzling. *3 is a mystery to me. >> >> My main question is whether SD-IV works fine with OS-X 3.x, or are there >> some issues. >> >> (I am still using OS 9.1 on a G4, but am considering upgrading the OS or to >> G5.) >> >> Berry >> >> >> >>-- >> -- >> 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: Scan Dual IV vs. Scan Dual II
Brad, My pleasure! I only know enough Unix to be dangerous...but I *do* know macs! 8*) Carlisle >Carlisle, > >Thanks for amplifying my answer, yours is so much clearer and sensible. I >recognize that I was assuming that everyone knows Unix to some degree, even >though I also know that isn't true. > >Brad >> Berry, >> >> To amplify Brad's answer: >> >> When you first set up your Mac under OSX, you create accounts that >> will have various levels of administrative privileges. That way you >> can set up your machine for multiple users, and everybody gets their >> own directory space for storing files, etc., and you can limit what >> some of the users (for example, your child, friend, co-worker, etc.) >> can get to and do. At least one of the users has administrative >> privileges, that is, can add and delete files and applications at >> will. So, if you set up your machine with an account for you and >> your kid, and you fixed it so that your kid had limited privileges, >> then only you could load the software, not your kid. >> >> With regards to native vs non-native, what this means is that if you >> have some OS9 software that use with plugins for the scanner, then >> although that software will run in OSX, the plugins won't. You will >> have to upgrade to the OSX version of the software to run the plugins. >> >> Have a great evening! >> >> Carlisle >> >> At 10:46 AM -0700 9/14/04, Brad Davis wrote: >>> Berry,, >>> OS X is basically a Unix system, I'm sure you've heard that. #3 just means >>> that you have to have full privileges on the system - the administrator >>> privileges. When you go to OS X you will find that there are differing >>> levels of privileges which define what you can do and administrator is the >>> only one who can install software. >>> >>> #4 just means that the program controlling plug-in must have been written >>> for OS X. There were programs that were cobbled together and would run >>> under OS X, but weren't native to the operating system. These >>>existed early >>> on for OS X, when there hadn't been time to rewrite everything to run under >>> OS X. Generally, these required an added layer between the program and the >>> OS so that a translation could be done. By now, most everything is native. >>> >>> By the way, when you go to OS X, you will find that it will run >>>OS 9.2 under >>> OS X. This is so you can run legacy programs. I found that it worked, but >>> was not satisfactory (and you can't use the Minolta plug-in with say >>> Photoshop running under 9.1, for instance). >>> >>> With OS X, you get a chance to learn UNIX, if you so choose, or not, there >>> is not real need. >>> >>> Good luck, >>> >>> Brad >>> I notice on the Minolta compatibility chart, the following footnotes regarding use of the Scan Dual IV with Mac OS-X: *3:You must be logged on as an administrator to complete the driver > >>> installation. > >>> *4:The Mac OS X plug-in cannot be used with applications that >are not OS X > >>> native. > >>> > >>> Since it is stated that various versions of OS-X are compatible, *4 is a little puzzling. *3 is a mystery to me. My main question is whether SD-IV works fine with OS-X 3.x, or are there some issues. (I am still using OS 9.1 on a G4, but am considering upgrading the OS or to G5.) Berry -- -- 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 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Nikon LS-30 -- strange behavoir
At 7:58 PM +1000 3/10/05, Peter Marquis-Kyle wrote: >In the hope that someone might still be reading this list, I'll ask >a question: > >My Nikon LS-30 scanner [snip] was fitted with new scanning and >focussing stepper motors [and] now produces files with a weird >waviness. [snip] What could be causing this? Hey! Look! The list lives! Cool. Peter, I'm goind to second Stephen's guess that it is a problem with the stepper motors. Out-of-round, out-of-alignment, loose mount, whatever--it's definitely not stepping properly. Cool effect, though! ;) Let us know what the shop says after you get it back. Best regards, Carlisle Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Kodachrome puzzle (laquer?!) 1970 vintage
Dieder, I assume that this isn't seen on original slides when examined closely. Is that correct? Do you see the same thing with RAW scans? Carlisle Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Nikon Coolscan V ED
Berry, Any chance your software is corrupted? If you have a mac, you might try trashing the preference file, or uninstalling and reinstalling the windows software. You might try Vuescan as alternative software, too. Good luck, Carlisle On Nov 17, 2005, at 9:27 PM, Berry Ives wrote: > I hadn't used my film scanner for several months. Now when I try > to start > up the Nikon Scan 4 software, it gives me a hardware error: > > "The scanner has reported a hardware error. Please reset the > scanner by > switching on and off. If this does not work, please contact your > local > Nikon Service or Support office." > > I tried turning it on and off several times and repeating the software > startup, and the same error repeats. > > I don't know what changed since I last used it. Perhaps some other > software > is not compatible? Of course, that would not be a "hardware error." > > Any suggestions? > > Berry Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: ArtixScan 4000tf firmware
Harald, Are you sure you need a firmware update? Would you mind re- explaining the problem? (I'm sorry, I've deleted the original posts...) My understanding is that whatever the latest firmware update exists, that's what you use. Then you simply need the most current driver for your OS. That is (as I understand it), the firmware sets up the device's brain, and then the drivers talk to the device. I assume that you've re-installed the last firmware you ever had--is that right? Will Vuescan run the device properly? Carlisle -another mac driver, who is using a Nikon scanner and Vuescan On Jan 30, 2006, at 6:22 AM, Arthur Entlich wrote: > I'm sure Hakon was trying to be helpful (even if it was written a bit > harshly)--maybe a linguistic issue. > > I would not suggest using a firmware upgrade for the 120nf for the > 4000tf, as you recognize, they are very different models, and likely > have quite unique firmware. > > Art > > Harald E Brandt wrote: >> On 2006-01-28, at 23.47, ?ISO-8859-1?Q?H=E5kon_T_S=F8nderland?= >> wrote: >> >>> http://www.scannerdriver.de/ftp/AS120tfFW170.zip >>> >>> Found here: >>> http://download.microtek.de/drivers/MTreiber.php >> >> >> Although nice find, there are 2 problems: >> 1. So you think firmware for model 120tf is the same as for 4000tf? I >> doubt. >> I wouldn't want to try that unless someone else has done it >> successfully. >> 2. 'exe'-files are for Windows, I use Mac OS. Ok, we have a PC also, >> but for totally different purposes and no FireWire; that could be >> fixed >> though if it is absolutely necessary just to get in a firmware thing. >> >> Anything more? >> >> > > -- > -- > 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: Postprocessing - Resizing for screen display
>> What techniques do list members use to resize/sharpen screen display >> images and what USM etc values seem best? I'm determined to produce >> an image which my wife actually feels does the original >> justice Are you sure the "sharpness" issue isn't simply one of having the proper resolution and aspect ratio? Usually, if your digital image is of sufficient resolution, then, given the proper aspect ratio and/or how you ask the computer to display the image, it will be nice and sharp. I'm a Mac driver, so I'm somewhat unclear on the details for making a Windows desktop wallpaper image. Nonetheless, I've got a friend with a windows box who wanted a photo converted to wallpaper. As it was displayed, it was a mess (it was a photo of a person), fuzzy and distorted. I re-scanned the photo at higher resolution and then saved it as wallpaper. That cleared up the fuzziness. It was still distorted because the display resolution wasn't set to a pixel count appropriate for the screen size. Thus the image was stretched in one dimension in order to fit the screen. I had to futz around with the screen resolution until I got it to display correctly (Macs handle this much better--well, ok they handle most things better), but I eventually figured it out. Problem solved. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding your problem. Good luck, Carlisle Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Postprocessing - Resizing for screen display
Duh-oh! Wait. I *do* misunderstand the problem. You aren't making wallpaper, you want the best image. OK, forget everything I just said. Sorry about that. Slinking off into the corner now, tail between legs, Carlisle On Feb 17, 2006, at 10:11 AM, Carlisle Landel wrote: > >>> What techniques do list members use to resize/sharpen screen display >>> images and what USM etc values seem best? I'm determined to produce >>> an image which my wife actually feels does the original >>> justice > > Are you sure the "sharpness" issue isn't simply one of having the > proper resolution and aspect ratio? > > Usually, if your digital image is of sufficient resolution, then, > given the proper aspect ratio and/or how you ask the computer to > display the image, it will be nice and sharp. > > I'm a Mac driver, so I'm somewhat unclear on the details for making a > Windows desktop wallpaper image. Nonetheless, I've got a friend > with a windows box who wanted a photo converted to wallpaper. As it > was displayed, it was a mess (it was a photo of a person), fuzzy and > distorted. I re-scanned the photo at higher resolution and then > saved it as wallpaper. That cleared up the fuzziness. It was still > distorted because the display resolution wasn't set to a pixel count > appropriate for the screen size. Thus the image was stretched in one > dimension in order to fit the screen. I had to futz around with the > screen resolution until I got it to display correctly (Macs handle > this much better--well, ok they handle most things better), but I > eventually figured it out. Problem solved. > > Or maybe I'm misunderstanding your problem. > > Good luck, > > Carlisle > > -- > -- > 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: Postprocessing - Resizing for screen display
Al, Yes, your replies (at least, the one to me) have seemingly gone AWOL. Messages to the list as a whole seem to have come through ok. Glad to hear you've found pointers towards a solution. Once you figure out the solution, perhaps you could post it to the list with some before and after examples accessible on a website somewhere. Best, Carlisle On Feb 19, 2006, at 6:04 PM, "" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Art, > > >> I asked if the person's wife was using an LCD screen and if so, if >> the >> image had been set to the monitor's native resolution, but I have >> never heard any further feedback, so I didn't delve any further into >> it. > > I did reply to you on Friday but can't recall seeing it on the > list. I replied to the > other posters (Laurie, Carlisle and Francis) and those seem to be > AWOL as > well. > > I won't write too much here, in case it goes astray, but yes the > images have > been resized to match the native monitor resolution. Francis sent > some useful > links and I'm revisiting the whole issue of using sharpening > masks. These look > to be the key in getting the sort of results I'm after. > > > > Al Bond > > -- > -- > 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] Advice on scanner settings--Thanks!
Bunch, Wow! The list lives! Thanks to all for the advice. Especiallly, thanks for the reminder that IR filtering doesn't work for Kodachrome. I've got the bulk slide feeder, so the plan is to simply drop a box of slides in and start it up, then go away and drop another in when I get to it. I figure if I do a couple of boxes an evening, it'll eventually get done. I'm going with the "memory is cheap" theory and will use the 4000dpi TIFF settings. Best regards, Carlisle Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] More settings questions
Bunch, OK, the TB drive has been ordered, I'm almost ready to go. A few more setting questions. TIFF file type: The choices are 24, 48 and 64 bit RGBI. Which one do I choose? Use a Vuescan color balance preset, or set to "none"? Thanks again for the help. Carlisle Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RAW?
Good evening, everyone. It occurred to me today that I could upgrade my ViewScan to the pro version for not too much money, which would allow me to scan RAW format instead of (or in addition to) TIFF and/or JPEG. Should I do this? Why or why not? Thanks, Carlisle Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
