Re: filmscanners: yet *another* low cost way to avoid the future
You obviously can't afford to do anything but argue! -Original Message- From: Anthony Atkielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Monday, August 27, 2001 6:02 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: yet *another* low cost way to avoid the future >Ian writes: > >> And I'm surprised that you don't have a dupe >> of it sitting in a cupboard for the day it fries >> something. I would. I do. > >I can't afford the capital outlay. I can barely pay the rent as it is. The >current configuration I purchased in better days, when I could afford the best. > >> The "spare" machine can of course be used to >> see just how hard the OS change and related >> fallout would be . > >Unfortunately, there is no spare. >
Re: filmscanners: New auto adjust software on it's way
; ^ ) Yes, I can see it might be slow for a Pentium Pro 200! -Original Message- From: Steve Greenbank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 2:30 PM Subject: filmscanners: New auto adjust software on it's way >From: > >http://www.steves-digicams.com/diginews.html > >The software automatically enhances digital images. > >Samples of what it can do here: > >http://dragon.larc.nasa.gov/retinex/pao/news/ > >8,10,25,26 are little short of amazing. Some of the others are less >impressive (22 in particular looks wrong) hopefully there are still some >user controls. > >This is presumably the software they used to spy on us from sattelites and >hence is a pure digital system so it probably does nothing for dust, >scratches and grain :-( > >Steve > >P.S. It's probably a bit slow on Pentium Pro 200's >
Re: filmscanners: OT (a bit): Publishing pictures :)
Congratulations!!! - Original Message - From: "Rob Geraghty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 10:51 PM Subject: filmscanners: OT (a bit): Publishing pictures :) > I just wanted to share my excitement about getting the cover photo and two > articles in the September issue of Australian Ultralight magazine. I confess > my brother produces the magazine for the AUF, but it's still cool to have > my photos published in a news-stand magazine. The photos were taken on > Kodak Supra 100 and Provia 100F, and scanned with my Nikon LS30. Apparently > the laser proofs looked better than the printed magazine - mostly because > the printing company's better press was being used for a month to do another > job. > > It's probably ho hum for the pro photographers on the list, but this is > still exciting for me being able to go into a newsagency and see a photo > I took on the cover of a magazine. Especially when I took the photo and > scanned it! :) > > Rob > > > Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://wordweb.com > > > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.276 / Virus Database: 145 - Release Date: 9/3/01
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 4000 Plus
$1,448.55 - Original Message - From: "Shough, Dean" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 12:23 PM Subject: filmscanners: Sprintscan 4000 Plus > The Sprintscan 4000 Plus is now listed at eCost for $14500. See > http://www.ecost.com/ecost/ecsplash/shop/detail.asp?dpno=962229 > Only changes appear to be FireWire/USB interfaces and 14 bits per color. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.276 / Virus Database: 145 - Release Date: 9/3/01
Re: filmscanners: Re: Autoexposure problem in Vuescan
Great Idea! - Original Message - From: "Alan Tyson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 8:41 AM Subject: filmscanners: Re: Autoexposure problem in Vuescan > I have taken to leaving a deliberately blank frame on every > film in order to scan it for the mask. Sometimes I find > Vuescan's results better with these settings, and sometimes > not; I have to try it and see. Perhaps this is because I > have a Scanwit, on which Vuescan can't control the exposure. > > BTW, after suffering a processor's lost film mixup, I also > photograph another frame from the computer screen showing my > name & address (and a bit of Ed Hamrick's Vueprint test > chart). > > Regards, > > Alan T > > > - Original Message - > From: Rob Geraghty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 12:11 AM > Subject: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Autoexposure > problem in Vuescan > > > > > .The problem is that VueScan is expecting there to > be some > > > part of the scanned image to be somewhat unexposed. If > > > you're taking pictures of the sky, the negative is > usually > > > quite dark and VueScan mis-computes the color of the > orange mask > > > > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.276 / Virus Database: 145 - Release Date: 9/3/01
Re: filmscanners: New film scanner - buying suggestions?
"Active" is an understatement! - Original Message - From: "Mark Otway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 3:15 AM Subject: filmscanners: New film scanner - buying suggestions? > Hi there, > > I'm not sure if this list is particularly active, but I thought I'd > join/post my question anyway... > > I'm currently looking to buy a 35mm negative/film scanner. My primary > requirements are: > > 1. To digitally aquire photos for use on the web > 2. To store hi-res copies of my photographs on CD as a 'backup' of the > paper prints I have at home - in case the worst should happen and my > photos get damaged. > > I don't need a mega-high quality scanner, but what I do want is one > which is fairly intelligent and can support simple batch scanning - I > take quite a lot of photos, and have loads of old ones I'd like to scan > (litterally hundreds) so ideally I'd like to be able to bung a pile of > negative strips into a 'hopper' and let the machine work away on them. I > don't know if this is possible, particularly without spending a fortune > (my budget is limited at around 300 pounds sterling, excluding VAT). > > So far, it seems that the HP Photosmart S20 might be good (although it > doesn't seem to have particularly good batch facilities) and the Minolta > Dual Scan series looks quite good too - if a little pricey. > > Can anyone give me any recommendations, or any ideas for other things to > consider? > > Thanks > > Mark Otway > > > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.282 / Virus Database: 150 - Release Date: 9/25/01
Re: filmscanners: Website ref. re - Pixels per inch vs DPI
The Canon Elan is an excellent camera (I have one) and everyone knows that it's the quality of the lens not the camera that you need. Denise - Original Message - From: Paul Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 2:06 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Website ref. re - Pixels per inch vs DPI > well thats an astonishing amount of work on this site, and very interesting > reading, > but what dropped my jaw was that he did the tests on a > Canon Elan with a Canon 28-105mm lens > to judge the quality of 35mm vs 5x4" (among other things) with this is > plainly ridiculous > I'm not trying to be a snob here, but really, you gotta get hold of a good > pro 35mm camera before doing such tests, > > paul > > http://www.users.qwest.net/~rnclark/scandetail.htm >
[filmscanners] SS4000
Hello, I am almost in position to buy the Polaroid but the sites I've looked at don't have them. Any of you know where I can get one? Thanks, Denise [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.310 / Virus Database: 171 - Release Date: 12/19/01 -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe' in the title or body
[filmscanners] Re: PC memory type for filmscanning (OT - slightly)
Yes, please - send me the test result logs. By the way, the astro pics are awesome! Thanks, Denise [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.311 / Virus Database: 172 - Release Date: 12/27/01 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe' in the title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Tips needed on difficult scan
Hi Ken, I don't know about the scanning part but...there are ways to take several different scans at different settings and merge them in Photoshop or another application. This will give you the results you want. I'm not an expert but I've read about this and can find out some information if you want. Sincerely, Denise - Original Message - From: "Ken Durling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 11:44 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Tips needed on difficult scan HI folks - I'm still working away here, improving my understanding and techniques. Since the addition of histograms to Vuescan, I've been trying to utilize them some, but remain somewhat confused, as I'm just starting to get a grasp of the ones in PS Elements, which have 3 sldiers, and input and output controls. I have a slide that I've been spending hours trying to yield what I can see through the loupe on the light table, but it's evading me. It's a very high contrast sunset shot taken on Velvia, with one side very dark under dense clouds, and the opposite side has brilliant - one might say "blown out" - area of sunlight. Along the bottom of the photo is a lot of city detail, seen from above - I was shooting from up in the hills overlooking SF Bay. It was taken with a sharp lens, so the detail is there, and I'd like to retrieve it. My main problem has been trying to bring out all the detail in the city - which is in the relatively dark area of the photo. Secondarily, the finding a contrast range that doesn't blow out the sunlit areas too severely, while not darkeneing the shadows too much. But what I'd like help with is how to utilize the Vuescan histograms to achieve this. Needless to say, upon initial scan at the default white and black points of 1, the histograms go off the scale at either end. What general guidelines should I use for trying setting that will bring the contrast range within the scale? And what effect do the color balance settings have on the effectiveness of the black and white point settings? Thanks for any lights, and if seeing an example of this particular scan would be helpful, I can supply. Ken Durling Photo.net portfolio: http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251 -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.313 / Virus Database: 174 - Release Date: 1/3/02 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Video card for imaging
That's ok, I wanted to read your comments. I learn a lot from you guys. Denise - Original Message - From: "Ken C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 1:26 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Video card for imaging Oops. sorry I thought I was off-list. sheesh, not enough coffee this morning. Ken - Original Message - From: "Ken C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 12:25 PM Subject: Re: [filmscanners] Video card for imaging > Alex, > No worries about being "on topic" since we're not "on list". Just about any > decent modern video card will do fine for image editing these days. > Something with 32 meg of memory would work fine, and should be reasonably > priced. Where the new video cards are headed, with high costs, is in the > realm of performance for games. So unless you're a major gamer who has to > get the best frames-per-second performance as your hero kills or maims his > opponents, you don't need to go for the latest and thoroughly expensive 64 > meg nVidia whatever card. > > Having said that, if you do 3D graphics development that involves having to > render the file, I'm told that a fast video card can help speed that up, > though a fast cpu is what determines how quickly your file will be rendered. > What graphics apps do you use? > > I built my latest pc with the express purpose of using it for graphics and > web work. I have a Sony 19" monitor and was finding it bothersome and slow > to have to always drag the application's dialogue boxes out of the way to > see parts of the image I was working on. This was always a sore point with > me for PhotoShop, and I found it a pain with Dreamweaver. So, I built this > box specifically to run Windows XP so I can run dual monitors. My second > monitor is a 15", which is fine because I just drag the dialogue boxed onto > it. Just completed that mod this weekend and I love it. You need to > install a 2nd video card, unless you get a special video card (Matrox sells > one) that are dual head. This second card only needs to be basic enough to > run a monitor at the resolution you need (and must be compatible with this > function onXP). > > If you run XP you'll need lots of RAM but if I recall you were going to > start at 512 meg, which is what I have and is certainly enough for XP - more > would be better of course. And if you have more than 1 pc, networking is a > lot easier to set up with XP as is Internet access. I have used W98SE > successfully but it's not as stable, but be sure to avoid Windows ME, it's > not a good product. > > Feel free to ask anything else, I'm in and out but can usually respond > fairly quickly. I don't mind having a conversation with someone with > similar interests. > > Regards, Ken > > - Original Message - > From: "Alex Zabrovsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 11:30 AM > Subject: [filmscanners] Video card for imaging > > > Well, to be on-topic one additional question which is related to PC > hardware: is it important to chose certain Video Adapters for further image > editing or just anyone available today will do fine ? > > Regards, > Alex Z > > -- -- > > 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: PNG File format?
Hello Mark, Sue Chastain on About.com has some stuff at http://graphicssoft.about.com/cs/formatspng/index.htm?terms or try http://ondemand.vendaria.com/vmail/0005/ Denise - Original Message - From: "Mark Otway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 3:40 AM Subject: [filmscanners] PNG File format? Hi all, Just looking at file formats for archiving images. I've been told that PNG is a lossless format that supports 24-bit (or higher) colour, and has a compression ratio similar to Jpeg? Is this true? Is there any sensible reason why I shouldn't archive my scans in this format rather than JPEG? (I don't archive raw scans as they simply take up too much space - I've got over 3,000 images to store). Thanks Mark -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.323 / Virus Database: 180 - Release Date: 2/8/02 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: OT - Informed opinion debate/cle
I second this. Denise - Original Message - From: "Tris Schuler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 3:32 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: OT - Informed opinion debate/cle I don't wish to add fuel here but I must say I tend to come down in the Art camp on this one. I don't know this gentleman, have only read what he's posted to this list. It reads like sober stuff to me, but then I'm no authority in particular in this area. On the other hand I have some experience filtering out BS from useful feedback in the real world, and Art's contributions come across with me like the latter. In any event, please let list members contribute as they see fit and are able. If something's radically amiss it might be mentioned, but let's try to keep this list above the sort of dismal norm we most usually find on your typical Internet forum. Tris -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.325 / Virus Database: 182 - Release Date: 2/19/02 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
