[filmscanners] Re: OT: Quad-black inks/Epson ink usage
The 1290 can be, and is, being adapted for CIS. I am ordering one in Australia and will later have No More Carts system fitted by arrangement with retailer. Kevin. - Original Message - From: "Ron Carlson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 2:54 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: OT: Quad-black inks/Epson ink usage > If, as I believe, the Epson 1290 is similar or the same as the 1280 in the > US, it is a six color printer with a cartridge that has a chip on it. If I > am correct, the 1290 will not be able to be adapted to a quad ink set for > black and white prints. I used to follow the Epson printer list referenced > by Tony and at that time, most of the black and white printers (the people > not the machines) were using the Epson 1160 or 1200 printers and going with > the piezo system developed by Jon Cone and available from a company called > "No More Carts". If I wanted to go that route, I would contact Jon Cone > and/or No More Carts and get their recommendation regarding which printer > (machine) is the best current option. Hope this is helpful. No More Carts > and probably Jon Cone as well should have a web site. > Regards, Ron Carlson > --- 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: 2/01/2002 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
filmscanners: ASAP - Don't OPEN - VIRUS (again)
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.306 / Virus Database: 166 - Release Date: 4/12/2001
Re: Virus Alert, was Re: filmscanners: Glenroy Road, Suite #350 Edina,.
No one should ever open an unknown .bat file anyway! Kevin. - Original Message - From: "bob geoghegan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2001 11:29 AM Subject: Virus Alert, was Re: filmscanners: Glenroy Road, Suite #350 Edina,. > Hi folks, > The Magistr worm went out with a message to the list. Be careful -- it's > always a good time to update your antivirus software. > > http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/w32.magistr.39921@mm .html > > Account.bat > was infected with the W32.Magistr.39921@mm virus. > > Bob > > At 06:34 PM 12/8/2001, you wrote: > >As I explained on the telephone, the alleged debt that your letter refers > >to involves. > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.306 / Virus Database: 166 - Release Date: 4/12/2001
Re: filmscanners: X-ray scanners/etc
Mike, if interested to follow up, I would like to contact you privately. My email is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kevin Power. - Original Message - From: "Mike Bloor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 11:37 PM Subject: filmscanners: X-ray scanners/etc > Jack Phipps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, wrote: > > >He has used these to bluff his way past x-ray machines in Ireland, a > tough place for security. > > I'm amazed. I live in Ireland, fly in and out regularly and have never > been forced to have film X-rayed. > > If you think Ireland is tough try Stockholm, Perth (Australia) and > Schippol (Amsterdam) airports. In general I have found the US amazingly > lax on security and most places in Asia very helpful as regards film. > > I now try and buy film at my destination where possible. I have reliable > source of refrigerated professional Fuji film in Budapest, Helsinki, > Bangkok, Singapore and, of course, Galway. I would be interested in > recommendations from list members for processing labs across Europe Asia > and in Mexico. > > Does anyone know if it is still safe to post films to labs in the UK ? I > normally send all my processing to a lab there. > > I don't want to get flamed for starting an off topic discussion. If anyone > wants to contribute but thinks this is OT, please mail me off list. > > Mike Bloor --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.298 / Virus Database: 161 - Release Date: 14/11/2001
Re: filmscanners: Play nice
I'm with you as it sure does get bitchy at times! If it happened on a list that I run, the offending member/s would get zapped along with their messages. Kevin. - Original Message - From: "Jack Whelan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 7:04 AM Subject: filmscanners: Play nice > I have to agree with the gentleman who wrote that this list has turned into > a platform for argument. I'm a relative new member, I don't have an ax to > grind. In fact I don't know anybody on this list, but I have to say some > members arn't sticking with the scanner topic. Some comments are too > caustic. > > e-mail messages often don't convey the real emotion behind the message. > It's easy to be misunderstood. We all need to be particularly sensitive > about what we write. There should be no room for any insults whatsover. > > When all else fails, use one of the options features of your e-mail program > and automatically delete messages from the member who annoys. > > Best regards, > > Jack > > > _ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp >
Re: filmscanners: tiff compression
As best I know, because magazines print in four colours they would require CYMK files not RGB. - Original Message - From: PAUL GRAHAM To: Filmscanners@Halftone. Co. Uk Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 5:02 PM Subject: filmscanners: tiff compression Hi all, what do people think about saving my raw scans as LZW tiff's? I am making 48 bit 6x7 scans on Nikon 8000, and they are over 500Mb each, so lossless compression would save a hell of a lot of space, but what are the drawbacks? can most programmes decode them if I send them to people on a CD? Also, for catalogue/ magazine use what sort of RGB file size should I supply, something like a 12" print at 300dpi is still 75Gb uncompresses, which seems big for most magazines thanks, Paul
Re: filmscanners: 1640SU @CompUSA $150
Try this link for info on 1640SU. A pro member of another group I belong to wrote a glowing report in this article. http://www.apogeephoto.com/jan2001/Epson_1640.shtml The article is also available from his website: http://www.chrisgroenhout.com Kevin Power. - Original Message - From: "Stan McQueen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 12:29 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: 1640SU @CompUSA $150 > > > >1. Has anybody tested this? How good is it? > > > > > >Yes. See: > > > >http://www.channel1.com/users/rafeb/scanner_test2.htm > > > >It's not 1600 dpi, I'm fairly sure. But it's > >the best you're going to find for $250 -- of > >that I'm fairly certain. > > > > >and 2. Does VueScan support it? > > > >Yes. > > > > > >rafe b. > > Thanks, Rafe. I took a look at your comparisons. I'm sure it's better than > my old Microtek ScanMaker X6 which is all I currently have for scanning MF. > I'll let you know more after I get it. > > Stan > === > Photography by Stan McQueen: http://www.smcqueen.com >
Re: filmscanners: Film Scanner Question Again
I had the same problem with being diverted to nextra. I thought it had something to do with Tim being bundled out of Wimbledon. Kevin (in the Colonies) - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 3:02 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Film Scanner Question Again Tony, that's a good point about Photoshop, and other software, viewing image dimension only in pixels, with the other sizing information being nothing more than auxiliary instructions for use in displaying or printing the image. By the way, your halftone site is hosed up. I tried to call it up and, instead, got sent to www.nextra.co.uk and got a lot of pop up ads. Don't know if it's by accident or design, but I consider it improper behavior. In a message dated 7/8/2001 2:21:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes, as does Photoshop. To quote myself ;) 'it will save you endless confusion to realise than scans don't really have any dimension apart from pixels.' I won't plug my page a third time, but I didn't do it to say it all again here ;-) Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Was New Nikon performance, now dust
I tried Superia 200 and 400 and they were both grainy - the 400 moreso. - Original Message - From: "Maris V. Lidaka, Sr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 11:56 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Was New Nikon performance, now dust > I tried Kodak Supra 400 and was disappointed - too much grain, probably > because it was the 400 speed. I have not tried the Supra 100. > > I did like the results of Fuji Superia 100, though - good color and > comparatively less grain. > > Maris > > - Original Message - > From: "Dan Honemann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 4:08 PM > Subject: RE: filmscanners: Was New Nikon performance, now dust > > > | What are the best color and b&w films in terms of scanning? From what > I've > | read thus far, it sounds like Kodak Supra has a slight edge for color, and > | the C41 processed films (XP2 super and T400CN) for b&w. Are there others? > | > | Also, if one is planning ultimately to scan and maintain files in digital > | format (and print from there), are there any advantages left to shooting > | transparencies as opposed to negatives--given that the latter has so much > | more exposure latitude? Or does the finer resolution of slide film still > | make this the preferred emulsion when scanning? > | > | Dan > | >
Re: filmscanners: Fast, decent, low res scans
Translated into English that message should have read, "Tell Phil (with the Acer scanner) to buy a Mac SCSI card for about Aus$90 from any Mac dealer - they are not as expensive as he thinks. I have one which I bought with the G4 and run my Zip and 1640su on it and it works a treat!" - Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Power" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 11:22 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Fast, decent, low res scans > Phil, earlier you wrote that you were having problems with your new Acer > scanner. > > I mentioned your problem on another group I'm on and this was the answer. > > "Tell Phil (with the Acer scanner) to buy a Nac SCSI card for about > Australian $90 from any Mac dealer - they are not as expensive as he thinks. > I have one which I bought with the G$ and run my Zip and 1640su on it and it > works a treat!" > > Hope this helps. > > Kevin. >
Re: filmscanners: Fast, decent, low res scans
Phil, earlier you wrote that you were having problems with your new Acer scanner. I mentioned your problem on another group I'm on and this was the answer. "Tell Phil (with the Acer scanner) to buy a Nac SCSI card for about Australian $90 from any Mac dealer - they are not as expensive as he thinks. I have one which I bought with the G$ and run my Zip and 1640su on it and it works a treat!" Hope this helps. Kevin.
Re: filmscanners: Wess Plastics - Slide Mounts
Cliff, that link doesn't seem to be working. Is it complete? - Original Message - From: "Cliff Ober" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 10:30 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Wess Plastics - Slide Mounts > Here's a link: > > http://www.wesspl.com > > Found on Kodak's site... > > Cliff Ober > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ira Beckoff > Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 6:40 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: filmscanners: Wess Plastics - Slide Mounts > > > This is a working 800 number for Wess Plastics. > I am still loking for a web site. > For years thry have been a supplier of quality slide mounts for the Audio > Visual Presentation business. > As of 7:30 PM tonite 5/31/01 I can only reach their phone message. > In years past I could get their catalog and order direct. > The search continues. > > Wess Plastics (Wess mounts) offers full frame mounts that are specifically > made for your situation. Contact them @ 1-800-its-wess (u.s. only) or > 1-516-231-6300. I'm not sure as to whether they have a web site. > > Ira > Ira Beckoff > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >
Re: filmscanners: What is 4,000 scanner quality like in practice.
If you think that was expensive, I was quoted A$25 and A$35 respectively from two bureaus in Melbourne, Australia yesterday. - Original Message - From: "Laurie Solomon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 1:02 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: What is 4,000 scanner quality like in practice. > I would hope that Lynn was writing tongue-in-cheek or that he has based > comments on out-dated information. Most of the places that I know in my > local area are charging $15 for a high resolution flatbed or non-drum film > scan. Of course, if one considers the current cost of living as being > pricey, then $7.50 US for a drum-scan would be pricey. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of William Alexander > Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 7:34 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: FW: filmscanners: What is 4,000 scanner quality like in > practice. > > > > Please forgive the group newbie, but is that $7.50 us for a drum scan and is > it considered pricey??? HOLY *#!%!!! I pay $28-$40/scan!!! Am I being taken > for a ride? Please if anyone can suggest a less expensive vendor please do > so! > > > William Alexander > Art Director > Leisure Publishing Company > 540-989-6138 > > > -- > > From: Lynn Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 13:29:39 -0400 (EDT) > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: filmscanners: What is 4,000 scanner quality like in practice. > > > > 7.50 per drum-scan is a bit pricey, > >
Re: filmscanners: Ektachrome E100VS bad?
I've had superb results with it, but it was sent to pro lab for development. - Original Message - From: "Roger Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 9:59 PM Subject: filmscanners: Ektachrome E100VS bad? > Anybody out there used Kodak's E100VS film? I got four trial > rolls from one of Kodak's special deals and developed my first one > yesterday, along with a Fuji Provia 100F for comparison. I used > freshly mixed E6 chemicals and my usual procedure. When I took the > two rolls out of the tank after the fixer, the Fuji was fine but the > Kodak had a milky strip along the whole length of the film. I had > seen that effect before a couple of years ago, ironically with Fuji > and Agfa films, after Kodak made a big change in the E6 chemistry. (I > have not been able to find out why). The bleach is much weaker in the > new formulation and seems to become exhausted quickly. Re-bleaching > and re-fixing corrected the situation, with no harm to the images > that I could detect. I certainly never expected one of Kodak's films > to show the incomplete bleaching or fixing effect. > I put the E100VS back into the bleach for another few minutes > and then back into the fixer, which cleared up the milky appearance. > After the usual washing, Final Rinse and drying, I compared the two > films and made some scans. The Provira 100F produced its usual > superbly sharp, slightly understated colour images. The E100VS was > strange, with almost cartoon colours including weird electric greens > and reddish browns. The scans (Minolta Scan Dual II) seemed to > emphasize the odd colours and the grain was much more prominent than > in the Provira 100F scans (further evidence that Provira 100F is the > grain champ for scanning). > Anyway, I'm curious to know if others have had good luck with > what I assume is one of Kodak's flagship films. I was a bit > suspicious of its "Vivid Saturation" designation, but I expected the > colours to be fairly accurate. I will make sure to add extra Bleach & > Fix time for the next rolls, but if the other three films turn out to > be equally quirky, I can't see much use for E100VS. > > Regards, > Roger Smith >
Re: filmscanners: Cleaning slides
Hope this is not off-topic to continue this discussion re "Best way to clean slides", but I have found it worthwhile to learn of the methods others use. I have found most of my problems arise when I put slides into competitions or when I project them for others. They seem to attract dust and gunk that must be sucked in somehow by projectors, let alone poor handling practises. Nevertheless, it is a real problem, that has to be overcome. Perhaps it is best to scan them first so one always has a digital copy. Kevin. - Original Message - From: "Arthur Entlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 6:14 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Cleaning slides > > > Kevin Power wrote: > > > Can I ask members to detail the way they go about cleaning slides. In my own > > case, I use an aerosol spray designed for this purpose, then run cold > > running water over them and then dry them off by using the aerosol spray > > once more. Seems to work OK. Kevin Power. > > > > I'm really beginning to wonder just what it is I'm not doing to my > slides that everyone else is doing which makes them mine not require > cold running water, ammonia, kim-wipes, PEC, and so on... > > I mean, I know B.C. is known for it's pristine water and air, but what > exactly is it that you guys are finding all over your slides that > requires such drastic measures? > > I'll admit, I have a few that have been mistreated, usually by the > processor, and sometimes they benefit from a good rewash in warm water > and a spot reducing agent like photoflo, but they are relatively rare also. > > If I do anything, I give them a blast with compressed air, in most cases > that's all that's needed. > > On a similar topic, today I saw an ad for Nikon's ED 4000 scanner, and I > have to admit the ad is pretty impressive. They show an image of a > gorilla which is very dirty, dusty, scratched, badly faded and other > wish abused. They then show the result from the ED 4000 after > application of ROC and ICE. It really does look like a different image, > color is restored and defects are gone. > > Art > > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Arthur Entlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 6:45 PM > > Subject: Re: filmscanners: Cleaning slides > > > > > > > >> The reason I say eeek, is because I was a mouse in a former life, and > >> its habit... > >> > >> No, really, because you're are playing with the pH of the film. Ammonia > >> is very base (alkaline), and I have no idea how it responds with > >> formaldehyde hardener, etc. I do know that I once was playing with > >> household chemicals on some B&W prints and full strength household > >> ammonia dissolved the emulsion right off the print. > >> > >> Unless I read an authoritative source that says a certain concentration > >> of ammonia is safe for film emulsions, you'll excuse me if I run into my > >> hole in the wall and shiver ;-) > >> > >> Art > >> > >> Colin Maddock wrote: > >> > >> > >>>> I use cotton bud dipped in a diluted ammonia based household cleaner - > >>> > > it works wonders on the mould too. > > > >>>> Colin Maddock > >>> > >>> > >>> Art said: > >>> > >>> > >>>> All I can say is eeek! stay away from my film! > >>> > >>> > >>> Why do you say "eeek" Art? Needless to say, the above cleaning method > >> > > has no adverse effect on the film. In fact it is "squeeky clean". No smears, > > no marks, a scan looks perfect. These are old slides that I am talking > > about. > > > >>> Colin Maddock > >>> > >> > >> > >
Re: filmscanners: Cleaning slides
Can I ask members to detail the way they go about cleaning slides. In my own case, I use an aerosol spray designed for this purpose, then run cold running water over them and then dry them off by using the aerosol spray once more. Seems to work OK. Kevin Power. - Original Message - From: "Arthur Entlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 6:45 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Cleaning slides > The reason I say eeek, is because I was a mouse in a former life, and > its habit... > > No, really, because you're are playing with the pH of the film. Ammonia > is very base (alkaline), and I have no idea how it responds with > formaldehyde hardener, etc. I do know that I once was playing with > household chemicals on some B&W prints and full strength household > ammonia dissolved the emulsion right off the print. > > Unless I read an authoritative source that says a certain concentration > of ammonia is safe for film emulsions, you'll excuse me if I run into my > hole in the wall and shiver ;-) > > Art > > Colin Maddock wrote: > > >> I use cotton bud dipped in a diluted ammonia based household cleaner - it works wonders on the mould too. > >> > >> Colin Maddock > > > > > > Art said: > > > >> All I can say is eeek! stay away from my film! > > > > > > Why do you say "eeek" Art? Needless to say, the above cleaning method has no adverse effect on the film. In fact it is "squeeky clean". No smears, no marks, a scan looks perfect. These are old slides that I am talking about. > > > > Colin Maddock > > > >
