Re: filmscanners: Films for scanning
on 6/13/01 4:16 PM PST, Rob Geraghty wrote: > Which makes me disappointed I didn't wait longer and get > a SS4000 as I'd originally planned. If this is true, why > did the scanner manufacturers choose 2700dpi if it's so > prone to aliasing? Or are they clueless and simply picked > it as a reasonable resolution to get an A4 print at 300dpi? > Tony wrote: >> IME film type preferences under discussion here are 90% >> interactions between scanner and film, and the nice >> thing about 4000ppi is that an awful lot of the problems >> seen at ~2700ppi suddenly cease to exist. Does the aliasing phenomena occur at 2900ppi, as in the Nikon, or at 2820, as in the Minolta? I am considering these, as well as the SS4000. David Corwin
Re: filmscanners: 35mm filmscanner choice
on 7/30/01 2:01 PM PST, Tom Hueneman wrote: > Roger, where did you see a SS4000 for under $700us??? > I, for one, would be VERY interested at that price >> Roger said: >> >> "but with the price of the Polaroid SS4000 running >> less than $700US (I assume the $200 rebate is still in effect), it ought to >> be a prime consideration for you." Tom- B&H (for example) has the SS4000 for $889US. Since Polaroid is offering a $200 rebate , then the final cost to you would be $689. Tempting, no? David Corwin
Re: filmscanners: Polaroid's rebate, WAS: 35mm filmscanner choice
on 7/31/01 4:46 AM PST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hey, DAVID: The Polaroid web site says the rebate coupon expires 9/31/01. > Repeat after me, "Thirty days has September, April, June, and November, etc., > etc." Or, maybe, this year is a leap year? Couldn't help calling this to > your attention. Ha ha. Maybe that's why a few on the list have been nervous about Polaroid honoring that rebate. At least it doesn't expire on April 1. David
filmscanners: Mac Not Supported, WAS: VueScan 7.1.7 Available
Geoff, Richard, Dean, Fellow MacVuescanners- on 8/1/01 2:34 PM PST, Richard wrote: > Looks like that¹s it for us Mac users. Based on a quote from Ed Hamrick- >>> Yes, I'm sick and tired of everything to do with the Mac. The >>> people who work there are rude to me, many Mac users >>> are rude to me, and I'm not putting up with it any more. To resurrect support for the Mac OS, we Vuescanners need to send Ed lot's of positive feedback, support, gratitude, and praise for his hard work and excellent product. Otherwise, Richard will be right, and what a shame that would be. Allow me to paste an article from today's maccentral. And please follow Mr. Sellers' advice in the last paragraph. David Corwin http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0107/01.vue.shtml Mac support for Vuescan dropped by Dennis Sellers, [EMAIL PROTECTED] August 1, 2001 1:05 pm ET Hamrick Software is no longer supporting the Mac operating system for its Vuescan product. And based on the angry "invectives" he's receiving from Mac users, Ed Hamrick of Hamrick Software may not be inclined to change his mind anytime soon. Vuescan is an application designed to work with most scanners to produce high-quality scans that have excellent color fidelity. It takes advantage of the advanced hardware capabilities of most scanners on the market today, and helps you do batch scanning while at the same time producing color-balanced and cropped images, according to Hamrick. According to an online message from Hamrick, he dropped Mac OS support after receiving an e-mail from a manager in Apple's Developer Relations Group "giving me a hard time about supposedly violating some sort of Non-Disclosure Agreement (which was just nonsense)." "I'm quite busy trying to add support for the Canon FS-4000, and I don't have time to waste arguing with Apple," he said. "I've dropped Mac OS support as a result." He's getting lots of response from Mac users. Unfortunately, he said that much of it is rude. Let me add an opinion here: if you'd like to see Hamrick reconsider Mac OS support for Vuescan, drop a friendly note to him. You can find contact info for support, technical problems and tips at the Hamrick Software Welcome page. (Thanks to MacCentral reader Bill Norton for the heads-up on this item.)
filmscanners: Vuescan for Mac Resurrected, WAS: VueScan 7.1.7 Available
It worked! He's back. >From Ed Hamrick- > If you're a Mac OS user, please stop e-mailing me about this. You win, I give > up. I'll continue releasing VueScan for Mac OS 8/9/X, and in return, please > stop clogging my e-mail . http://www.hamrick.com/mac.html >> To resurrect support for the Mac OS, we Vuescanners need to send Ed >> positive feedback and gratitude for his hard work and >> excellent product. David Corwin
Re: filmscanners: Best scanner software
on 9/30/01 9:00 AM PST, JackG wrote: > I just recieved the Poloraid 4000 and am trying to decide from reading the > messages which would be best for a novice like me, the Poloraid, VueScan or > the Silverfast. Of course the Poloraid and SilverFast came with the scanner, > but $40.00 for the VueScan is a very fair price for software that works > well. John in OKC- First thing I would is to calibrate the ss4000 using supplied target. Print out the documentation from Silverfast on doing the calibration. Also visit Ian Lyon's site and print out his documentation on doing the calibration. Read through both of them a few times. Between those two sources, you should be OK in doing the process, even though some steps are not crystal clear. If you have trouble, forget it, and go right to using Polacolor. For your first scans, only use well exposed slides. Polacolor is easy to use, and should deliver you good scans right from the get go. Truly, a few clicks and you're there. Once you've gotten comfortable with Polacolor, and scanning slides, only then would I recommend learning Silverfast. It has WAY more tools than you'll need for now, and the documentation is lousy (the PDF I downloaded doesn't even show you the button for ejecting film!) Or if you have negs, Vuescan is definitely worth it. But please get comfortable with slides first. You'll be happier. Have fun, David Corwin
filmscanners: Re: Insight Calibration, WAS: Best scanner software
on 9/30/01 12:01 PM PST, Dave King wrote: > I take it from your comment that Insight does not have provision for > IT-8 calibration. Does it at least have provision for using the > profile made with Silverfast? This is the same question that I have been meaning to pose to David H. or anyone who can answer it- When you hit "preview" using Insight 4.5, the SS4000 goes through it's warm-ups, and a Progress bar comes up saying "calibrating". Is the hardware being calibrated each time you hit preview? What is Insight calibrating to? Assuming it's not to the Silverfast IT8 target, how does one (or can one) apply the profile generated by the Silverfast IT8 target? David Corwin > From: David Corwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> First thing I would is to calibrate the ss4000 using supplied target. Print >> out the documentation from Silverfast on doing the calibration. Also visit >> Ian Lyon's site and print out his documentation on doing the calibration. >> Read through both of them a few times. Between those two sources, you should >> be OK in doing the process, even though some steps are not crystal clear.
Re: filmscanners: Kodak RFS 3600 Information
on 1/9/01 5:59 AM PST, Andrew Rodney wrote: > The software that drives the 3600 is truly awful! It's beta software > disguised as a working product (it isn't, even with the .1 dot release). > There will be a review of the scanner going up in the next day or so at > www.imaginginsider.com. In the meantime, run away from this messy product as > fast as you can! Why do you think PEI gave it a COOL2 Award (Best Imaging Products of 2000) for "best" 35mm filmscanner? (Note-they also gave awards to The Epson Perfection 1240U and UMAX PL 2100XL for flatbeds, and the other filmscanner award (multi-format) to the Minolta Dimage Scan Multi II) David Corwin
Re: filmscanners: Large collection - full frame projection viaDLP & PowerPoint
on 5/28/01 5:57 AM PST, Marvin Demuth wrote: > My current project is to take a large collection of multi-format negatives > and transparencies (35mm to 4x5), b&w color prints (billfold to 8x10) to > scan them into JPEG for insertion into PowerPoint 2000 slides for full > frame projection via DLP (Digital Light Processing) at 600x800 pixels. Marvin- First thing, don't scan into JPEG. You'll be working in PSD or TIFF to do your color correction, adjustments, cropping, sharpening, etc., only then save as a jpeg. > I have started with the flat art and have found the process slower than I > would like for it to be. What kind of scanner are you using? A scan on a flatbed for that size output shouldn't take much time. Probably less than the time it would take to set up the artwork on a copy stand, and fiddle with lighting, focus, exposure, etc. (as others have suggested with a digital camera - but your question was how to simulate an SLR using a scanner, is that correct?) > I love the concept of looking through a 35mm single lens reflex finder, > composing the photo, exposing the photo and then quickly moving to the next > subject. Is there any scanning process that accommodates this approach? Hmmm, if I understand your question, not really, other than the suggested digital camera approach. But then, without a filmscanner (or a hybrid flatbed with adapter like the UMAX P-look III that I have) how are you going to capture the negs and trannies? > Any one have ideas as to ways to approach this project? Has any one > handled a large project of this type? If so, how did you approach the > project? I have art directed a similar project. A 800 x 600 pixel image in a PowerPoint presentation is very forgiving at the viewing distances your audience will see them from. The images will look much better on your computer screen than they ever will on the big screen (but is fun to see them so big!) If you look at a video projection screen up close, each pixel is something like 1/4 inch wide (think about 800 pixels spread out over a 12 or 15 foot wide screen and you get the idea...) David Corwin
[filmscanners] Re: [filmscanners_Digest] "Halo" Effect
on 8/18/02 04:00 PM PST, Robert DeCandido, PhD wrote: > I have a Polaroid Sprintscan 4000 (not the Plus version) and am using > Vuescan. When I scan a slide (either Kodachrome or Provia/35mm), the > white areas (such as a building illuminated by the sun; or pages of an > open book) in the scan will exhibit a "halo" effect. This appears as > a kind of a whitish or even greenish glow surrounding the white object > in the scan. Robert- Have you tried using the PolaColor Insight software to scan the same slide(s), and comparing them to the ones scanned using Vuescan? It would be interesting to see if you're getting the same effect. If you are, that would rule out Vuescan. I have the same scanner, and find that I use Insight for scanning slides, reserving Vuescan for negs. I haven't had a problem with Insight. David Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
