Re: filmscanners: Acer 2720S and Windows XP - Miraphoto works?
... but XP ... isn't it the NEW VERSION of Windows 2000 ??? and NOT the new version of Windows ME ?? If it is the follower of 2000 then its name is NT while ME real name is 98 follow on !!! This means the applications are NOT COMPATIBLE because the operating systems ARE DIFFERENT . Being you I wouldn't waste my precious time following Microsoft needs ... and I would re-format my disk to re-install my operating system i.e. Windows 98 alias ME. Sincerely. Ezio www.lucenti.com e-photography site - Original Message - From: "HEREDIA, ARMANDO J" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Filmscanners Mailing List (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 3:50 PM Subject: filmscanners: Acer 2720S and Windows XP - Miraphoto works? > I recently re-imaged my primary PC at home with XP, but now am concerned for > it's compatibility with the Acer 2720S (scanner to arrive any day via post). > Any comments, experience would be appreciated. I've heard through various > newsgroups that Miraphoto 2.0 won't work correctly under XP. I've pulled > down the XP Acard SCSI drivers from the web > > -Armando >
Re: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images
Quantum 10KRPM 18GB ultra160 Scsi Raid DUTCH Item # 1295572989 NO COMMENTS !! Computers:Drives, Media:Drives:Hard Drives-SCSI Currently $75.00 First bid $75.00 Quantity 5 # of bids 1 bid history Time left 3 days, 4 hours + Location SILICON VALLEY Country/Region USA/San Jose Started Nov-09-01 10:27:45 PST mail this auction to a friend Ends Nov-14-01 10:27:45 PST watch this item Seller (Rating) luckyunme2aw (139) view comments in seller's Feedback Profile | view seller's other auctions | ask seller a question High bid see winning bidders list (include e-mails) Payment See item description for payment methods accepted Shipping Will ship to United States only. See item description for shipping charges. Seller assumes all responsibility for listing this item. You should contact the seller to resolve any questions before bidding. Auction currency is U.S. dollars ( $ ) unless otherwise noted. Description This auction is for 5 pieces of NEW 1" Quantum 18GB ultra160 Scsi Raid SCA 80 pin interface, 10,000RPM LVD/SE scsi hardrives Sincerely. Ezio www.lucenti.com e-photography site - Original Message - From: "James Grove" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2001 9:46 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images > I have just ordered a 60 Gig Maxtor ATA 100 drive (ATA 133 is also > available) I have done this because it is far cheaper than buying > another 36 gig drive to go on my U160 SCSI channel. I can get the Maxtor > drives for around 60 UK pounds, which means I could buy 4 of these IDE > drives for the same price as a Quantum U160 36gig drive! > > One thing to remember about Ide if you decide to give the drive a > beasting is to cool it with a slim cooler. > > -- > James Grove > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > www.jamesgrove.co.uk > www.mountain-photos.co.uk > ICQ 99737573 > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ezio c/o TIN > Sent: 10 November 2001 21:18 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images > > > I would recommend to buy a U-160 SCSI ... from e-bay ... I have just > done this to integrate the other 3 U-160 I have and I have bought for > 102US $ a 18GB IBM 1 rpm brand new under warranty. A 36GB 1rpm > also IBM U-160 is rated for 170 US $ ... > > Sincerely. > > Ezio > > www.lucenti.com e-photography site > > > - Original Message - > From: "Andrea de Polo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2001 4:53 PM > Subject: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images > > > > Hello, > > > > I have a CreoScitex scanner with attached a, Apple G4 Silver 733 with > > OS > 9.2.1 and 1GB of ram; I noticed that the internal HD is a slow 5400rpm > UltraAta HD; question: since I work only with Photoshop and my images > are about 60mb in size and I just have to open and save them during the > day (we process about 200 images/day), I was wondering what is the best > and effective way to speed up my work: buy a scsi external HD 10.000rpm > (total cost about 650 UK pounds), OR buy an internal UltraAta 7200 rpm > (total cost about 250 UK pounds) ??? > > > > Again, we just have to open, retouch and than save our 40mb images, > > but > currently I am noticing that is taking a bit to access the HD. > > > > Thanks to give me your best solution for time/money issue. Andrea > > -- > > > > Fratelli Alinari Photo Archives and Museum > > http://www.alinari.com > > The world's oldest picture library > > tel: +39-055-2395201 > > gsm: +39-347-4883223 > > fax: +39-055-2382857 > > > > > > >
Re: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images
Sorry to say negative , you can use an adapter you can buy for 10$ at any shop . It will transform 80 pin SCA to 68 pin SCSI 3 I have already 3 IBM SCA transformed to 68pin installed in the system I am using to write this note. SCA is the standard providing the power supply together with USCSI signal ... if you don't have a rack already then the adapter will solve. Anyway , the need of an adapter is not changing the meaning of what I am stating. Sincerely. Ezio www.lucenti.com e-photography site - Original Message - From: "Tom Scales" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2001 3:03 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images > This is an 80-pin, meant to be put in a rack mount. You can get an adapter, > but you're limited in the number of drives you can use in a chain with > adapters and the adapters are about $25. > > Better to find a 68pin. > > Tom > From: "Ezio c/o TIN" > > > Quantum 10KRPM 18GB ultra160 Scsi Raid DUTCH > > Item # 1295572989 > > > > NO COMMENTS !! > > > > > > This auction is for 5 pieces of NEW 1" Quantum 18GB ultra160 Scsi Raid SCA > > 80 pin interface, 10,000RPM LVD/SE scsi hardrives > > > >
Re: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images
Pat , you are right . Please, let me add some comments while OT ... I think this matter of efficiency and speed is an argument directly involving our group seen that e-photography is meaning big amounts of data and (eventually) long waitings in front of a screen . >The Adaptec RAID >card works somewhat differently and allows multiple >channels to behave as one. Raid 5 then can be thought >of as n number of disks with the data striped as in >Raid 0, but with parity error information saved along >with the data. The amount of redundant data used is >1/n, so the total amount of storage is (drive >capacity)*(n-1). As far as I know this is the definition of RAID 5 with the distribution = sharing of the so called ''check sum / parity'' byte on the disk chain ! Be careful because in case of multiple chains you will need multiple spare areas (as many as the chains). Thus in the case of SCSI where you cannot (by definition) overcome the number of 6 devices x chain/controller, you will have , as a minimum , 100/6 = 12.7% used by the parity and then 87.3% of AVAILABLE space for the user LESS what it is taken by the stack from the theoretical capacity of the disks. BTW , this method compulsorily implies a DOUBLE WRITING need i.e. write the data + write the new parity (even if on another disk) and this is meaning a LOSS OF SPEED/EFFICIENCY (relatively to the achievable speed/efficiency of the disks) relatively to other RAID techniques like RAID 1 RAID 0 is (by definition) the opposite side of the domain i.e. full speed/efficiency but NOT SAFETY (as you correctly state). AFAIK, more over , to overcome the ineherent limitation of IDE protocol and be able to put more than 2 devices x controller , the vendor has to multiply (internally to the disk controller) the number of IDE controllers and rejoin everything to the ''image'' of a single virtual controller and so on I really cannot understand why it would be needed such a complication and dependancy from the controller vendor when the SCSI hard drives cost almost the same (or 20% more max) of IDE hard drives ! Sometime ago the difference was remarquable and then people not willing to have large amount of data available at workstation level were trading off speed + efficiency + safety with a cheap hard drive but today ? ... an IDE RAID (or array) controller costs more/same as a good SCSI controller , providing less speed , less functions , less efficiency and less safety . Is it a matter of principles ? Yesterday night I have bought on eBay an IBM U-160 1rpm 18GB new and under warranty for 102 USD + 20$ of shipment to Italy from USA and this unit will be the fourth inside my system while having 2 x CD/R (IDE) and 1 x DVD (IDE) . My aggregated sustained transfer rate is 3 x 35MB/s + 1 x 29MB/s = 134MB/s = the limit of a 32bit PCI bus at 133MHz (but still in the limits of an Adaptec 29160 controller) Sorry , but I cannot perceive the price/performance advantage of an IDE solution . Not even in the case of a lower amount of data requested. Sincerely. Ezio www.lucenti.com e-photography site - Original Message - From: "Pat Perez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2001 10:00 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images > I'll jump in here. > > Raid 0, striping, assigns half of the data to one > drive, the other half to the other drive. The writes > happen more or less simultaneuosly, so large file > operations happen in roughly half the time. > > Raid 1 is, as you said, mirroring, where all data are > duplicated, so that if a drive fails, another exact > copy is ready to take over (after a command to 'break' > the mirror set). > > Classically, Raid 5 has a single chain logically (IDE > is limited to 2 devices per chain, and the above have > both drives on one chain (channel)). The Adaptec RAID > card works somewhat differently and allows multiple > channels to behave as one. Raid 5 then can be thought > of as n number of disks with the data striped as in > Raid 0, but with parity error information saved along > with the data. The amount of redundant data used is > 1/n, so the total amount of storage is (drive > capacity)*(n-1). > > Raid 0+1 is an IDE only hybrod that allows you to use > both channels with two disks such that you get > mirroring of two striped disks. > > I know of no motherboard based IDE Raid solutions that > are designed for high performance (Preben mentioned > that the host CPU does the drive I/O processing). > Apparently, the Adaptec IDE Raid PCI card handles > this. I have no experience with this card (though I > use Adaptec SCSI adapters exclusively). At work I have > a card similar to what Preben described. It is made by > 3Ware (www.3ware.com), and is called the Escalade. I > can heartily recommend this card under Win2000, the > only OS I have used it with. It is available with > support for 2, 4, or 8 IDE drives. At this time, it > doesn't yet support t
Re: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images
I would recommend to buy a U-160 SCSI ... from e-bay ... I have just done this to integrate the other 3 U-160 I have and I have bought for 102US $ a 18GB IBM 1 rpm brand new under warranty. A 36GB 1rpm also IBM U-160 is rated for 170 US $ ... Sincerely. Ezio www.lucenti.com e-photography site - Original Message - From: "Andrea de Polo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2001 4:53 PM Subject: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images > Hello, > > I have a CreoScitex scanner with attached a, Apple G4 Silver 733 with OS 9.2.1 and 1GB of ram; I noticed that the internal HD is a slow 5400rpm UltraAta HD; question: since I work only with Photoshop and my images are about 60mb in size and I just have to open and save them during the day (we process about 200 images/day), I was wondering what is the best and effective way to speed up my work: buy a scsi external HD 10.000rpm (total cost about 650 UK pounds), OR buy an internal UltraAta 7200 rpm (total cost about 250 UK pounds) ??? > > Again, we just have to open, retouch and than save our 40mb images, but currently I am noticing that is taking a bit to access the HD. > > Thanks to give me your best solution for time/money issue. > Andrea > -- > > Fratelli Alinari Photo Archives and Museum > http://www.alinari.com > The world's oldest picture library > tel: +39-055-2395201 > gsm: +39-347-4883223 > fax: +39-055-2382857 > >
Re: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images
> > Thus in the case of SCSI where you cannot (by definition) overcome the > > number of 6 devices x chain/controller, > > WHAT SCSI are you talking about? Try 16. not 6. > How many addresses have you per controller ? from 0 to 6 = 7 but 1 is the controller itself. SCSI is not IBM SSA . SCSI = 6 devices x controller/chain ; SSA 16 devices x controller/loop > That's not true. There is no "double write", both the data/parity is > written at the same time. Parity can easily be calculated on the fly. > YEP ! and who does write it on the disk in a different area/zone/disk ? > Run some benchmarks on your system and see for your self. Also, make sure > the benchmarks AREN'T running out of disk cache...that hardly tests the disk > speed. You'll be lucky to get even near 80, if even 60. My data are the output of a benchmark and not the theoretical max speed. Yes you can add because SCSI can parallelize the requests while IDE cannot. > The standard PCI bus is 33 MHz (or 66MHz), NOT 133MHz. Perhaps you mean > 132M BYTES/sec? Even at that, you can't get near %80 of that, if you're > lucky. 132M bytes/sec is the burst rate. There is substantial overhead on > the PCI bus that lowers that substantially. > YEP ! I can achieve the saturation of bus before achieving the saturation of the controller (Adaptec 29160 is a 64 bit adapter). Sincerely. Ezio www.lucenti.com e-photography site - Original Message - From: "Austin Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 4:21 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images > > Thus in the case of SCSI where you cannot (by definition) overcome the > > number of 6 devices x chain/controller, > > WHAT SCSI are you talking about? Try 16. not 6. > > > BTW , this method compulsorily implies a DOUBLE WRITING need i.e. > > write the > > data + write the new parity (even if on another disk) and this is > > meaning a > > LOSS OF SPEED/EFFICIENCY (relatively to the achievable speed/efficiency of > > the disks) > > That's not true. There is no "double write", both the data/parity is > written at the same time. Parity can easily be calculated on the fly. > > > Yesterday night I have bought on eBay an IBM U-160 1rpm 18GB new and > > under warranty for 102 USD + 20$ of shipment to Italy from USA > > and this unit > > will be the fourth inside my system while having 2 x CD/R (IDE) > > and 1 x DVD > > (IDE) . > > My aggregated sustained transfer rate is 3 x 35MB/s + 1 x 29MB/s > > = 134MB/s = > > The data rate doesn't just "aggregate" like that. There is SCSI overhead > that decreases the effective overall transfer rate. Not all files are > sequential, and without spindle locking, there is quite a bit of latency. > Run some benchmarks on your system and see for your self. Also, make sure > the benchmarks AREN'T running out of disk cache...that hardly tests the disk > speed. You'll be lucky to get even near 80, if even 60. > > > the limit of a 32bit PCI bus at 133MHz (but still in the limits of an > > Adaptec 29160 controller) > > The standard PCI bus is 33 MHz (or 66MHz), NOT 133MHz. Perhaps you mean > 132M BYTES/sec? Even at that, you can't get near %80 of that, if you're > lucky. 132M bytes/sec is the burst rate. There is substantial overhead on > the PCI bus that lowers that substantially. > >
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images
Congratulations for the professional results Rob ! :-) Rob , we have been here before , you are right , but I am not living in USA , but in Italy and I buy on eBay USA with credit card, I have 3 U160 IBM 1rpm and NO FANS at all while the box is a cheap box I have assembled on my own with a 350W power supply ( 20$ the power supply at any shop) and a cage costing 30$ at any shop. IDE and SCSI when coming to the HDA (hard disk files) are the same but different protocol implementation just IDE a little bit more obsolete in facts they follow the SCSI implementations by 6 or 12 months after. Sincerely. Ezio www.lucenti.com e-photography site - Original Message - From: "Rob Geraghty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 3:06 AM Subject: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images > Ezio wrote: > >I really cannot understand why it would be needed such a complication and > >dependancy from the controller vendor when the SCSI hard drives cost almost > >the same (or 20% more max) of IDE hard drives ! > > Ezio, I know we've been here before, but SCSI isn't a cheap option for everyone. > Certainly, if I was in the US and had access to the sorts of prices you > quote from ebay, I'd use SCSI... well, there's other problems. If I wanted > to use a 10Krpm SCSI drive I'd also have to fit a cooling fan in my computer > and move house to somewhere that had air-conditioning. I simply couldn't > run such hard drives in 30+C temperatures reliably. I can buy two 7200rpm > IDE drives locally for about US$250, plus another US$45 for an IDE RAID > controller. The SCSI option (in Australia) would cost me US$200 for the > SCSI controller card, and at least US$500 for an equivalent capacity 10Krpm > SCSI drive. Plus, the IDE drives would behave themselves more reliably outside > of an airconditioned office. > > Obscanning: on a completely different topic, I've just taken a roll of Provia > 100F using two L series Canon lenses. I should get back the results tomorrow > so I can get an idea of how much difference the lenses made in scanning > on the LS30. > > Rob > > PS I got two more of my photos on the magazine cover. Scanned with the LS30 > and they look great! :) > > > Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://wordweb.com > > >
Re: filmscanners: HP 7400c
I made the same mistake when I bought (3 years ago) the 6200c and paid a fortune willing to have an HE flat bed capable of scanning films and slides (sometimes) BIG MISTAKE ! I don't want to tell you about the lousy quality of the product and the hassles of having it working under W98SE I can write a very sad romance ... I want just to warn you ... if the 7400 it would be even close relative to the 6200c then ... you will never scan any film or any slide ! The quality of scans is so poor to make it almost useless. I have wasted my money and 2 months later I have been obliged (after having accessed this forum while pilgrining on the net . looking for relief) to buy a film scanner (Nikon LS-30) . delightful machine indeed ! The HP6200 is broken (I actually scanned 100 times max !!) (150$ asked for a repair by the HP carry - in centre !!) I have substituted the flatbed with an inexpensive Genius Kye 50$ worth ... and it produces good results for my purposes. Ready to listen to people knowing better than me the 7400 , but I won't buy this brand any more .. :-((( Sincerely. Ezio www.lucenti.com e-photography site - Original Message - From: Bernie Kubiak To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 3:38 PM Subject: filmscanners: HP 7400c User reviews of the HP 7400c scanner would be appreciated. I'm looking to copy polaroid transfers (approx. 3" x 5" -- from 669 color pack film) and to make distribution CD's of my B&W work. In additon, I'd like to be able to make scans of 35mm and 645 transparencies for proof prints and enlargements to 13"x19" size. Yeah, cost does matter. This machine seems like a pretty good compromise.
Re: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images
I'll take this off list . Sincerely. Ezio www.lucenti.com e-photography site - Original Message - From: "Austin Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 4:50 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images > > > > Thus in the case of SCSI where you cannot (by definition) overcome the > > > > number of 6 devices x chain/controller, > > > > > > WHAT SCSI are you talking about? Try 16. not 6. > > > > > > > How many addresses have you per controller ? > > from 0 to 6 = 7 but 1 is the controller itself. > > SCSI is not IBM SSA . SCSI = 6 devices x controller/chain ; SSA > > 16 devices x > > controller/loop > > No one uses narrow SCSI for RAID, and it doesn't have to be SSA. SCSI uses > four bits for SCSI ID, which makes SIXTEEN devices. > > > > That's not true. There is no "double write", both the data/parity is > > > written at the same time. Parity can easily be calculated on the fly. > > > > > > > YEP ! and who does write it on the disk in a different area/zone/disk ? > > A correct implementation of RAID 5 will write all at the same time. RAID 5 > is NOT slowed down because it has to do multiple writes, it's because, > sometimes, depending on stripe size, it has to read, calculate parity, then > write. RAID 5 is slowed down for reads, since the parity is distributed > across drives. > > > > Run some benchmarks on your system and see for your self. > > Also, make sure > > > the benchmarks AREN'T running out of disk cache...that hardly tests the > > disk > > > speed. You'll be lucky to get even near 80, if even 60. > > > > My data are the output of a benchmark and not the theoretical max speed. > > What benchmark are you using? I do not believe you are getting 134M > bytes/sec, it is physically impossible. > > > Yes you can add because SCSI can parallelize the requests while > > IDE cannot. > > IDE CAN parallelize, and as I said, you can't just add transfer rates, it > doesn't work that way. > > > > The standard PCI bus is 33 MHz (or 66MHz), NOT 133MHz. Perhaps you mean > > > 132M BYTES/sec? Even at that, you can't get near %80 of that, if you're > > > lucky. 132M bytes/sec is the burst rate. There is substantial overhead > > on > > > the PCI bus that lowers that substantially. > > > > > > > YEP ! I can achieve the saturation of bus before achieving the > > saturation of > > the controller (Adaptec 29160 is a 64 bit adapter). > > Now you're talking silly. You said you had four disks. The MAX media > transfer rate from those disks is around 35M bytes/sec. Even if they were > able (which they are NOT) to sustain that over the SCSI/PCI bus at full > speed, that's 140M bytes/sec. 64 bit PCI is 264M bytes/sec for 33MHz PCI, > and 528M bytes/sec for 66MHz PCI...so there is NO way you are saturating the > PCI bus especially with a 64 bit controller. You previously said you were > on a 32 bit PCI bus. > >
Re: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images
Austin, we don't understand each other . Sure it's my fault . > > > > Thus in the case of SCSI where you cannot (by definition) overcome the> > > > number of 6 devices x chain/controller,> > >> > > WHAT SCSI are you talking about? Try 16. not 6.> > >> >> > How many addresses have you per controller ?> > from 0 to 6 = 7 but 1 is the controller itself.> > SCSI is not IBM SSA . SCSI = 6 devices x controller/chain ; SSA> > 16 devices x> > controller/loop> > No one uses narrow SCSI for RAID, and it doesn't have to be SSA. SCSI uses> four bits for SCSI ID, which makes SIXTEEN devices. The U-160 card I know (Adaptec 29160) allows the connection of 7 devices each controller while permitting 16 addresses. From ADAPTEC WEB site Performance Supports up to 160 MByte/sec transfer rates with Ultra160 SCSI Connects high-performance devices such as hard disk drives, CD-Recorders, and other high-speed peripherals to your PC Connectivity Connectivity for internal and external SCSI devices Single SCSI card can connect up to 7 or 15 devices per channel Backward compatible with earlier versions of SCSI The Newest SCSI Features Features added with Ultra160 SCSI 160 MByte/sec performance Cyclic Redundancy Checking (CRC) checks all transferred data, adding significantly to data integrity Domain Validation intelligently verifies system configuration and automatically sets reliable transfer speeds The Types of SCSI SCSI Type Speed SCSI makes it easy to connect hot hard drives and cool peripherals Ultra160 SCSI (16-bit Wide) 160 MB/sec State-of-the-art hard drives Ultra2 SCSI (16-bit Wide) 80 MB/sec Hard drives Ultra Wide SCSI (16-bit Wide) 40 MB/sec Hard drives and tape drives Ultra SCSI (8-bit Narrow) 20 MB/sec CD-R, CD-RW, tape, removable storage (Jaz), and DVD drives SCSI-2, Fast SCSI (8-bit Narrow) 10 MB/sec Scanners, Zip drives, and CD-ROM Server Technology Comparison > A correct implementation of RAID 5 will write all at the same time. RAID 5> is NOT slowed down because it has to do multiple writes, it's because,> sometimes, depending on stripe size, it has to read, calculate parity, then> write. RAID 5 is slowed down for reads, since the parity is distributed> across drives. RAID Level 4 RAID Level 4 stripes data at a block level across several drives, with parity stored on one drive. The parity information allows recovery from the failure of any single drive. The performance of a level 4 array is very good for reads (the same as level 0). Writes, however, require that parity data be updated each time. This slows small random writes, in particular, though large writes or sequential writes are fairly fast. Because only one drive in the array stores redundant data, the cost per megabyte of a level 4 array can be fairly low. RAID Level 5 This level is commonly referred to as striping with distributed parity. RAID Level 5 is similar to level 4, but distributes parity among the drives. No single disk is devoted to parity. This can speed small writes in multiprocessing systems. Because parity data must be distributed on each drive during reads, the performance for reads tends to be considerably lower than a level 4 array. The cost per megabyte is the same as for level 4. Then it costs in performances anyhow I personally estimate this in almost 20% (average) ... but we can discuss about this amount , what I am thinking is : RAID 5 slowers the operations if compared with a no-RAID mode (stright mode). For me this is true by definition and by real mesurements. > > > the benchmarks AREN'T running out of disk cache...that hardly tests the> > disk> > > speed. You'll be lucky to get even near 80, if even 60. I am meaning ... each disk runs at 35 or 30MB/s + SCSI architecture allows parallel operations then I can add them to have an aggregated transfer rate . It might be I will never achieve 100% real addition , but I believe the aggregated transfer rate is close to the summary of the single aggregated transfer rates of each disk. Ultra160 uses double transition clocking to send 2 bits of data per clock cycle instead of one, doubling Ultra2's data transfer rate of 80MB/s to 160 MB/s. As drive caches approach the 2 MB range, Ultra160 will grow to meet demands much as its predecessors Wide Ultra and Ultra2 SCSI evolved over the last three years > > > The standard PCI bus is 33 MHz (or 66MHz), NOT 133MHz. Perhaps you mean> > > 132M BYTES/sec? Even at that, you can't get near %80 of that, if you're> > > lucky. 132M bytes/sec is the burst rate. There is substantial overhead> > on> > > the PCI bus that lowers that substantially.> > >> >> > YEP ! I can achieve the saturation of bus before achieving the> > saturation of> > the controller (Adaptec 29160 is a 64 bit adapter). Correct ... then I can achieve the saturation (80% of 132MB/s) of the bus before saturating the max controller throughput right
Re: filmscanners: Sharpening scanned images for printing
I'm often doing so . To do so I'm using ''Bruce Fraser's sharpening action'' and ''Ultra Sharpen III action'' in PS6. Sincerely. Ezio www.lucenti.com e-photography site ICQ: 139507382 - Original Message - From: Chris Hargens To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 3:25 AM Subject: filmscanners: Sharpening scanned images for printing I'm curious to know if those who scan and print 35mm negs --using a 3600 dpi scanner and above -- typically sharpen their scanned images before printing. Also, do drum scans require less sharpening? Chris Hargens
Re: filmscanners: OT - Viruses and MS Outlook / Express
either have Norton AntiVirus to scan your incoming and outgoing mail ... in my case it is intercepting the sneaky messages. Sincerely. Ezio www.lucenti.com e-photography site ICQ: 139507382 - Original Message - From: "Matthias Felsch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2001 12:41 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT - Viruses and MS Outlook / Express > > - Original Message - > From: "Mark T." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2001 7:59 AM > Subject: filmscanners: OT - Viruses and MS Outlook / Express > > > > > If you use MS Outlook, or MS Outlook Express to read your mail, be > > afraid! . > >. > > So if you use either of these products, please visit MS.com and get the > > patches, and (everyone) please keep your virus checker updated.. > > ..and turn off the preview- window, because it opens the message. > > Matthias Felsch > > > > > >
[filmscanners] Trashing Adobe Gamma
Dears, in a Windows 98 installation what do you remove and where to get rid of Adobe Gamma ? I am not able to remove it !!! Sincerely. Ezio www.lucenti.com e-photography site ICQ: 139507382 - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2001 4:43 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Spectrocam Problem Solved To everyone..Thank you! Downloading the Spectrocam program update 1.6.2 and trashing Adobe Gamma as well as all the spectrocam, & colorsync preferences did the trick. I now have a calibrated monitor for the first time. A scary thought. Color me happy. Happy holidays to all. Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC PS: Our Christmas card URL http://www.bway.net/~skid/trowelangel.html --- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe' in the title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe' in the title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Vuescan ... red shadows
NIKON LS-30 it seems like depending from the settings like film and white balance ... Sincerely. Ezio www.lucenti.com e-photography site ICQ: 139507382 - Original Message - From: "michael shaffer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 2:55 PM Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Vuescan ... red shadows Ezio writes ... > Dears, I am experimenting a nasty problem with a scanned > film (negative) : Fuji 1600 ASA. > The red parts of the pics are carrying a great extent of shadows > ... Which scanner? shAf :o) Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe' in the title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe' in the title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Vuescan ... red shadows
It is a NIKON LS 30 Should I be scared ? Sincerely. Ezio www.lucenti.com e-photography site ICQ: 139507382 - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 12:57 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Vuescan ... red shadows On Wed, 26 Dec 2001 02:33:26 +0100 Ezio c/o TIN ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Dears, I am experimenting a nasty problem with a scanned film (negative) > : > Fuji 1600 ASA. > The red parts of the pics are carrying a great extent of shadows ... > these > are more evident with RED , but are also present with black or dark > objects. > > It would be nice to show you an example so if you want to evaluate with > your > own eyes go to : > http://it.geocities.com/ezio_lucenti/paginafotospiral.html There's a great deal more wrong with this than 'red shadows'! There are huge amounts of colour smearing from the red shirt, yellow shorts and blue shirt. It is as if the scanner has Vaseline over the lens. Fiddle with the mid tone level slider to increase the contrast in highlight areas if you want to see this clearly. What model is it? Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe' in the title or body -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe' in the title or body
[filmscanners] Re: OT: Contacting Adobe
I have accessed it 10 minutes ago ... from Italy through ADSL 640/128 ... I guess you have a problem with your DNS ... sometimes it happens. Sincerely. Ezio www.lucenti.com e-photography site ICQ: 139507382 - Original Message - From: "Ken Durling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2002 11:47 PM Subject: [filmscanners] OT: Contacting Adobe HI all - I have not been able to get on Adobe's website for about a month. My connection invariably times out, and I have DSL. Anyone else having this experience The same thing happens whether I use www.adobe.com or the Adobe Online link in PS Elements. Any ideas? Ken 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: Building PC system for image editing
Alex ... first of all you will find as many opinion about the best as many users you will contact ;o) ... he he he ! Second ... I have developped my OPTIMAL SYSTEM in the past 12 years of self assembling ... all my friends have systems builded by myself ... and in house I have 3 systems interconnected (mainly used by kids to play video games and myself to play with digital imaging and digital audio). 1. Memory. I understand this is the most important resource for image processing. I'm planning to start from 512 MB Well done ! ... that is barely enough ... for scanning purposes . In facts 2700dpi from a film are almost 30MB ... multiplied many times (as Photoshop does ... ) + other system stuff = 256 MB + some room for the ease . 2. Processor. I think I would opt for something like P4 1.6-1.7 GHz which sounds to be enough given there will be no serious constraints on the memory amount. What about AMD Ahtlon ? I strongly push for AMD processors ... I have those ONLY at home (3 systems) and no problems nor with Photoshop and neither with Wavelab by Steinberg neither with the most demanding and intriguing video games very cheap , very fast , very powerful and very stable ON APPRPRIATE MOTHERBOARD !!! be careful only few vendors of MB are ... STABLE ... I suggest ASUS A7V266 coupled with AMD 1.7GHz (PIII clone and more) 3. As about HDD I think there is no too much choices to contemplate about. The bigger, faster and reliable is better. Depends on the local market offerings. BTW, should I pay more for SCSI interface ? What is RAID ? Any opinions about it ? SCSI U-160 for SURE ... and lately there are on eBay good auctions for SCSI RAID boards available for 50$ (I've bought a couple of them!!! ... MYLEX ACCELERAID 250 ) SCSI because it's FASTER and working with many I/O at the same time IT IS NOT MORE EXPENSIVE as you think ... I have already bought (for my new system ) 4 x IBM SCSI-3 18GB 1rpm 4MB cache at 90$ EACH !!! under IBM warranty (3 years) sealed packs on eBay of course ! IDE is good for CD-R ... quite good ... because you will have troubles to find CD-Rs SCSI these days ... and in this case the SCSI devices are owfully more expensive than IDE ... so TAKE IDE for SLOW devices to SAVE on the total system budget. 4. Display card. Which one would you recommend ? (not necessarily to be the most expensive though...) Take a GTS2 nVidia today available at less than 150$ (64MB DDR) ... I use an ELSA 64MB DDR GTS2 since 2 years ago and today are available GTS3 but they cost 500$ list and 300$ on eBay ... abd such a power is required by gaming only not by Photoshop ! 5. CD-RW. Are there DVD-RW available for PC installation ? Are they worth the expense ? I use 2 x MITSUMI 8x4x24 2 years old ... I have burnt more than 1,000 CD-Rs flawless (I have told you I am playing with music ! ... ) they costed 2 years ago 120$ each and are good as the much more expensive Plextor , TDK or other ! ... CD-Rs are required for archiving purposes and almost compulsory . I suggest MITSUMI (the new models ) on eBay (they have a lousy distribution and thus are easier and cheaper to find on eBay ) many other available , but DO NOT BUDGET more than 150$ each ... they are just like those expensive. Put them IDE not to slow down your SCSI chain and not to spend a fortune ! SCSI board CHEAP ! to attach the scanners ... must be added. 2904 or similar by ADAPTEC (I have a 2940 I have paid 150$ 3 years ago ... but there are available 2940UW2 on eBay for less than 200$. This is almost the system I would build for a friend I cannot say it is the fastest , but I am almost sure it is among the best as price/performance ratio. Sincerely. Ezio www.lucenti.com e-photography site ICQ: 139507382 - Original Message - From: "Alex Zabrovsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Building PC system for image editing
I have forgot ! ... OPERATING SYSTEM = WINDOWS 98 SE No other choices to avoid headaches with drivers ! Sincerely. Ezio www.lucenti.com e-photography site ICQ: 139507382 - Original Message - From: "Ezio c/o TIN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 1:01 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Building PC system for image editing Alex ... first of all you will find as many opinion about the best as many users you will contact ;o) ... he he he ! Second ... I have developped my OPTIMAL SYSTEM in the past 12 years of self assembling ... all my friends have systems builded by myself ... and in house I have 3 systems interconnected (mainly used by kids to play video games and myself to play with digital imaging and digital audio). 1. Memory. I understand this is the most important resource for image processing. I'm planning to start from 512 MB Well done ! ... that is barely enough ... for scanning purposes . In facts 2700dpi from a film are almost 30MB ... multiplied many times (as Photoshop does ... ) + other system stuff = 256 MB + some room for the ease . 2. Processor. I think I would opt for something like P4 1.6-1.7 GHz which sounds to be enough given there will be no serious constraints on the memory amount. What about AMD Ahtlon ? I strongly push for AMD processors ... I have those ONLY at home (3 systems) and no problems nor with Photoshop and neither with Wavelab by Steinberg neither with the most demanding and intriguing video games very cheap , very fast , very powerful and very stable ON APPRPRIATE MOTHERBOARD !!! be careful only few vendors of MB are ... STABLE ... I suggest ASUS A7V266 coupled with AMD 1.7GHz (PIII clone and more) 3. As about HDD I think there is no too much choices to contemplate about. The bigger, faster and reliable is better. Depends on the local market offerings. BTW, should I pay more for SCSI interface ? What is RAID ? Any opinions about it ? SCSI U-160 for SURE ... and lately there are on eBay good auctions for SCSI RAID boards available for 50$ (I've bought a couple of them!!! ... MYLEX ACCELERAID 250 ) SCSI because it's FASTER and working with many I/O at the same time IT IS NOT MORE EXPENSIVE as you think ... I have already bought (for my new system ) 4 x IBM SCSI-3 18GB 1rpm 4MB cache at 90$ EACH !!! under IBM warranty (3 years) sealed packs on eBay of course ! IDE is good for CD-R ... quite good ... because you will have troubles to find CD-Rs SCSI these days ... and in this case the SCSI devices are owfully more expensive than IDE ... so TAKE IDE for SLOW devices to SAVE on the total system budget. 4. Display card. Which one would you recommend ? (not necessarily to be the most expensive though...) Take a GTS2 nVidia today available at less than 150$ (64MB DDR) ... I use an ELSA 64MB DDR GTS2 since 2 years ago and today are available GTS3 but they cost 500$ list and 300$ on eBay ... abd such a power is required by gaming only not by Photoshop ! 5. CD-RW. Are there DVD-RW available for PC installation ? Are they worth the expense ? I use 2 x MITSUMI 8x4x24 2 years old ... I have burnt more than 1,000 CD-Rs flawless (I have told you I am playing with music ! ... ) they costed 2 years ago 120$ each and are good as the much more expensive Plextor , TDK or other ! ... CD-Rs are required for archiving purposes and almost compulsory . I suggest MITSUMI (the new models ) on eBay (they have a lousy distribution and thus are easier and cheaper to find on eBay ) many other available , but DO NOT BUDGET more than 150$ each ... they are just like those expensive. Put them IDE not to slow down your SCSI chain and not to spend a fortune ! SCSI board CHEAP ! to attach the scanners ... must be added. 2904 or similar by ADAPTEC (I have a 2940 I have paid 150$ 3 years ago ... but there are available 2940UW2 on eBay for less than 200$. This is almost the system I would build for a friend I cannot say it is the fastest , but I am almost sure it is among the best as price/performance ratio. Sincerely. Ezio www.lucenti.com e-photography site ICQ: 139507382 - Original Message - From: "Alex Zabrovsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Building PC system for image editing
Hi Alex , ... first of all ... the suffix IL is for wich Country ? ... I am not able to guess ... :o) ... Second ... going in details ... 1) I understand going with Athlon I'll will have to chose certain motherboard (not all Pentium board will work with it, right ?) You should start to go to http://www.asus.co.tw and study the different MB offered . In facts , not only they are different for Intel processors and for AMD proc. , but ALSO different for different form-factory in the same processor belonging to the same vendor ... so be careful ... the MB is the basement for the performances of your system ... a clugg or a bottle neck in the MB and expensive parts are simply USELESS or not exploited at the max they can give . 2) Also, it seem to use DDR memory type not being compatible with regular SDRAMs, right ? (so the motherboard supporting the Athlon are intended for DDR memory interfacing, am I wrong ?) DDR is extremely fast but also expensive so ordinarily it's used for video cards memory. As far as I know ... the simms of RAM are called SDRAM and other names ... and are quite cheap ... I am planning to buy for the system I am assemblying right now ... I am planning to use 2 x 512 ''chocolate sticks'' for the cost of 106 € (Euro) each ... or 85$ (more or less) . What you have to check is to use 133MHz memory ... same price of 100MHz memory but faster and newer so available for larger chunks. Today my system has (ASUS K7V motherboard with AThlon 800MHz SLOT A form fatory) 256 MB of 133MHz RAM 2 x 128 The number of slots is also fixing the max upgradeability of the board ... so the A7V266 has 3 slots for memory boards and can reach the 3GB of RAM being available in chuncks of 1GB MAX + having the microcode able to manage that . 3) BTW, what about cooling ? I've heard AMD should be treated in special way in regard of it since being heated significantly. Many suggest adding additional fan streaming onto the CPU. Is that correct ? Really ? .. I have no need of extra fans (for CPU seen that ATHLON SLOT A is a small book comprehensive of L2 CACHE and fans etc. etc. ... also ... Pentium IV has got owful problems of heating seen the frequency of clock used and the extreme push it has been used to counter the performances problems it has so be careful ... if you will ever go P IV (with the today available technology) you must be sure of having a good power and good set of fans but remember you are going to use a 64 bit architecture with a 32bit operating system (either W98 either NT are 32bit ... and the available Linux is ALSO 32bit !) The AMD XP (and so for the older Athlon) have a different architecture i.e. 32bit and so better performing with O.S. at 32bit My wife's system is on AMD Duron (800MHz) ... so big and silent fan sealed and clamped on the CPU ... no probs so far ... I am not sure of carrying the absolute true ... but I am pretty sure of being experienced since 22 years ago in this world ... being so far employed in a MAJOR (BLUE ;o) ) computer company and professionally dealing with XL and XXL Unix systems . Sincerely. Ezio www.lucenti.com e-photography site Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Building PC system for image editing
>- Original Message - >From: "Julian Robinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 3:48 AM >Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Building PC system for image editing >I would go further. It is true that this is not the place to have ongoing, >overbearing discussions on the topic, but there are some reasons why the >subject could be covered here: >- Most of us are interested in the subject at one level or other. I guess so ;o) ... >- The subject of 'system suitable for image editing' is to some extent >exclusive to this kind of group. Specialist PC how-to-do-it groups would >not have the same emphasis or even understanding of what is needed/best for >imaging. People using their PCs for video, or at the other extreme, for >word processing, may have quite different needs. Absolutely YES ... you are right ! .OMISSIS .. >Unless Tony has violently objected in the past I for one would like to see >such discussion in public so I can learn about this essential aspect of >filmscanning. >Just another opinion, from someone who doesn't have time to participate in >every discussion but reads most of them and learns a lot as a result. >Julian Julian , I absolutely agree with you and I am totally simpathetic with you. Sincerely. Ezio www.lucenti.com e-photography site Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: OT: problems installing SCSI card
It's a clear problem of IRQ missing / conflicting for sharing NOT available ... I can be of some help (maybe) , but off list ! ... I am dealing with this kind of stuff since ever the WinTel architecture has this technology limit Sincerely. Ezio www.lucenti.com e-photography site ICQ: 139507382 - Original Message - From: "Eric Etheridge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 4:59 AM Subject: [filmscanners] OT: problems installing SCSI card I'm trying to install an Adaptec 2906 card in my Gateway desktop and getting a monitor/video card conflict. When the card installed, the monitor won't come on when I boot up. I've tried booting with the scanner attached (Sprintscan400) and with nothing attached; same result both time. When I pull the card, everything goes back to normal. My system is a little more than 2 years old; running Win98SE with a flatscreen monitor and an ATI LCD Panel VideoCard Rev0. Device manager shows one (and only one) IRQ channel free: 14. Adaptec tech suggested booting without the scanner, but that didn't work. His next suggestion was to try reordering PCI cards on the motherboard. I'm wary of that. Hoping someone here has some guidance, on- or off-list. Thanks Eric Etheridge 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] Building PCs ... the RAM.
Please, some good soul can explain to me ... why I should buy expensive DDR RAM in huge quantity (mass RAM is going to be 512MB or 1GB ... on my system very soon) ... when the bandwidth of MEMORY BUS is always the same e.g. on Asus A7V266 = 2.1GB/s ??? This bandwidth is not saturated by any type of currently available memory and I strongly doubt the system is going to use all of it ... so why to pay the difference ? Just a matter of having a learning attitude :o) ... P.S.: please send answers OFF LIST ... not to bother the colleagues / friends. Sincerely. Ezio www.lucenti.com e-photography site ICQ: 139507382 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: OT: problems installing SCSI card
Eric, first of all you have to become accustomed to >start>Programs>Accessories>System Tools>System Informations TAB= IRQ (because you are using W98 ... !! isn't it ?) ... second ... you have to start to become accustomed to the BIOS of your system as Laurie is rightly telling you ... BUT BE WARNED ! ... the BIOS texts are somehow obscure and MORE obscure the results of the different parametres ! ... DO NOT TOUCH till you are absolutely sure of what the result will be ... in facts .. BIOS settings are gonna changing the behaviour (at a low level) of your system thus if not properly set they can (apparently) make your system unusable or so. I am available off-list to guide you step by step you need (IMHO) advices because the system and yourself seem to have a conflicting set of IRQs + difficult or impossible sharing of the same . Laurie is right ... you should act on the IRQs , the physical sequence of the PCI boards (when PnP) .. the physical setting of legacy boards with their IRQs ... etc. etc. ... So it is a matter of screw-driver and IRQ hammering ... and remember 2 very peculiar parametres ! ... PnP Operating System . Reset IRQ ... those 2 parametres of BIOS are not acting as you would likely expect IMHO. Sincerely. Ezio www.lucenti.com e-photography site ICQ: 139507382 - Original Message - From: "Laurie Solomon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 5:44 AM Subject: [filmscanners] RE: OT: problems installing SCSI card It sounds like there is an IRQ conflict in the system where the SCSI card is conflicting with your video card. If your video card is an AGP card, then you can not change the location of it; but you can rearrange the location of the SCSI card vis-à-vis the other PCI cards in terms of the slot it is using as the Adaptec Tech suggested. Alternately, you could go into your system BIOS and change the IRQ of the slot which your Adaptec card is using. You failed to mention if the free IRQ is free with the card installed or without it installed. If it is with the card installed, that means one of two things: either you have two free IRQs with the card not installed or your SCSI card is sharing an IRQ with something which may be the cause for the incompatibility. The devices hooked up to the card will not effect the conflict that you describe since it is a conflict between the SCSI card and something else which is at the root of the problem and not one involving the connected devices. If it were the latter, the system would boot but it would not recognize the SCSI devices. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Eric Etheridge Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 9:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] OT: problems installing SCSI card I'm trying to install an Adaptec 2906 card in my Gateway desktop and getting a monitor/video card conflict. When the card installed, the monitor won't come on when I boot up. I've tried booting with the scanner attached (Sprintscan400) and with nothing attached; same result both time. When I pull the card, everything goes back to normal. My system is a little more than 2 years old; running Win98SE with a flatscreen monitor and an ATI LCD Panel VideoCard Rev0. Device manager shows one (and only one) IRQ channel free: 14. Adaptec tech suggested booting without the scanner, but that didn't work. His next suggestion was to try reordering PCI cards on the motherboard. I'm wary of that. Hoping someone here has some guidance, on- or off-list. Thanks Eric Etheridge 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] IRQs ! ... take it off list ...
Lets take the matter off list . Please, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sincerely. Ezio www.lucenti.com e-photography site Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Building PCs ... the RAM.
Thanks Steve for the GREAT ! answer ... absolutely CLEAR and effective . BTW .. you say : >I would say disk speed is next important to memory size. SCSI best but very >expensive, >followed by IDE RAID, but with a large cache a decent sized 7200rpm disk >would be adequate - particularly for files 60Mb or less. I have just bought 4 x IBM SCSI-3 18GB 10Krpm for 95$ each ... new sealed and under 3 years warranty ... there many other available on eBay cause IBM is today producing U-160 ONLY ! ... so previous technology is going cheaper and cheaper till availability will last. Also ... I have bought a MYLEX AcceleRAID Ultra SCSI (40MB/s sustained) for 48.00 $ also on eBay from same seller Many other are available , but NOT MYLEX U-160 ... TOO EXPENSIVE ! ;o) ... Today my system is using the other way round ... i.e. Adaptec 29160 + 3 x IBM U-160 no-raid also bought on eBay and 1 of them (very expensive LIST price ) swapped by IBM because crashed under warranty after 1 year of work (it was 3 years ago technology / production ... faulty !) . The disk has been changed in Europe despite it was bought (eBay) in USA and manufactured in Singapore . almost the only good thing coming from globalization (together with Internet) ;o) Thanks for your advices ! Sincerely. Ezio www.lucenti.com e-photography site ICQ: 139507382 - Original Message - From: "Steve Greenbank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 9:26 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Building PCs ... the RAM. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Archiving
My experience is ... no false reading or miss to read with : Kodak, TDK and SKC (cheap but sure). My experience. Sincerely. Ezio www.lucenti.com e-photography site ICQ: 139507382 - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 12:26 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Archiving When archiving scans to a CD, is there any real quality difference between the various CD-R brands which have widely varying prices? Howard [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: Slightly OT: Hard Drive Speed
Moreno, on my desk right now I have 4 x 18.2 SEALED NEW IBM U-SCSI-3 bought from PCPARTSINC www.pcpartsinc.com who is a legitimate dealer and more over is a Company so Police and FBI can go and inspect whenever they want. Eache of the drives costed 100$ and they NEW + SEALED + UNDER 3 Years warranty worldwide (I am in Italy and I have already used the warranty on an EXPENSIVE 36GB U-SCSI-160 with free substitution) Sometimes the world is dynamically changing and paradigms are not fitting to everything for every situation. Sincerely. Ezio www.lucenti.com e-photography site ICQ: 139507382 - Original Message - From: "Moreno Polloni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 10:19 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Slightly OT: Hard Drive Speed >>SCSI hard disk drives is the answer. Faster than any IDE , multiple access at the same time and greater number of units for the same number of controllers. Price is NOT a problem ... I have already bought 4 x 18.2 IBM 10,000rpm SCSI-3 for 95$ each (on eBay) << Putting eBay aside, if you buy from a legit dealer, you can expect to pay four to five times as much, per gigabyte of storage, when you choose SCSI over IDE. There was a time when SCSI performance was much higher than IDE, but that gap has narrowed considerably over the last few years. A 100mb Photoshop meg file takes about 4 seconds to open with a pair of striped IDE drives. A pair of SCSI drives may do it in 3.5 seconds, but is it worth 4x the cost? Or would you rather have 4x the storage for the same amount of money? 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: Slightly OT: Hard Drive Speed
Moreno , please, give up ! with such a flame ... I am a 21 years old IBM Sales Representative and I can assure you cannot compare apple to apple in such a manner ... first of all a 100GB as got an owful throughput provided the inherent density of data per actuator ... it is almost unfair toward the IDE drive (and this is avoiding to speak about IDE protocol bottle necks). Second ... the IBM List prices could be quite different from the STREET PRICES ... please, go wherever you want and ask for the REALLY PRACTICED PRICE (street price) if you don't want accept eBay prices for SEALED NEW and under 3 years international warranties . Despite I am a 21 old IBM Sales Man (Unix Systems and not Netfinity) ... my systems at home are clones self assembled , but with IBM HDD (1 x 36GB U-160 + 3 x 18GB U-160 with Adaptec 29160 ... and slower SCSI U2FWs on the other systems (2)..) The 5x18.2GB I have already referenced are SEALED NEW and labelled as Compaq ! and they will be driven by a MYLEX (again IBM ... damned !) SCSI-U2FW 80MB/s on 2 chains ... with INTEL i960 chip ... and I have bought it for 65$ (not 500) new and under warranty on eBay again ... What about the price/performance of a RAID0,1,3,5 IDE capable of 15 drives ... please compare this and then ... apples will be compared with apples and pears with pears ... I think you will NEVER put everything on a single drive IDE or SCSI it could be ... or you will have an orrible bottleneck on the actuators (at least) ... isn't it ? Sincerely. Ezio www.lucenti.com e-photography site ICQ: 139507382 - Original Message - From: "Moreno Polloni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 1:20 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Slightly OT: Hard Drive Speed >> Please name the two drives you are claiming are a FIVE times price increase for SCSI vs IDE.<< I looked up wholesale pricing for the IBM 18gb SCSI drive being discussed, vs a 7200 rpm 100gb IDE drive for the same price and posted the results in a previous message. The SCSI drive costs more than 5x per gb than the IDE. My source was Tech Data, one of the largest computer distributors in Canada. 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: Multi-coloured lines in images...
Maybe it is of 0 (zero) interest to anyone , but my HP 6200c ... a very expensive unit finally decided to DIE ! ... and this just after 3 years from the EXPENSIVE purchase and VERY FEW scans performed . I have brought the unit to repair centre (no way HP will receive the unit ! ... not even if I would have carried at their central premises here in Italy !) and the final sentence is ... not repairable , frow it in the GARBAGE ! ... (and actually the TRASH is the PROPER PLACE for THIS HP STUFF !) ... I have been ripped following the ads of HP and is reputation (quite amazing how this kind of brand can have such a reputation with stuff like this sold in the marketplace) ... the scan was NEVER able to scan a slide despite the specifications ... then I discovered the feature being a simple MIRROR !! ... such a cheat ! the installation always being TRICKY under W98 and almost impossible in the proper way the operations always randomly working / crashing and the past 6 months with 2 big brown/multicolor bands on the scans ... I will never buy an HP product any more and I strongly suggest everybody to look for other brands more serious , with better and more reliable products , LAST BUT NOT LEAST with a BETTER CUSTOMER CARE OVERALL ! Sincerely. Ezio www.lucenti.com e-photography site ICQ: 139507382 - Original Message - From: "Arthur Entlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 11:19 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Multi-coloured lines in images... I'm guessing your calibration strip might be damaged, or dirt is on the sensor itself. Art Ian Jackson wrote: > Preben, > > I have exactly the same problem on my HP Officejet 1150c scanner. I > cleaned the glass, mirrors, lens and even the ccd window but no > improvement. I changed the cold cathode lamp with no improvement. > > As this problem is also seen when use the Officejet as a stand alone > copier it eliminates any issue with my computer, e.g. video card. > > I suspected that the ccd is failing and tried to mask off a section of > it to see if that section still showed the problem. This was > impossible to do due to the calibration sequence which because of the > masking was getting too little light and reported that the lamp was > failing (but it was new) > > Two days ago I bought a new 2400dpi flatbed scanner for not much more > than the 250UK pounds which HP wanted just to look at my Officejet. > > Ian Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
