Re: filmscanners: Polaroid 30 day return policy
I have a friend who is about to purchase a 120 filmscanner. He has been deciding between Polaroid and Nikon. I've leaned toward the Polaroid in giving advice, because of a so-far good experience with the company and my SS4000. I mentioned the 30-day return policy to him. He called Polaroid and was told that the policy applies to RESELLERS. That is, Polaroid will take care of a returned unit if the reseller decides to send it back to them. But, reseller's return policy applies to the buyer. He's found the unit at Mac Connection, but they insist on a 15% restocking fee if returned (unless defective). David, this effectively contradicts what you just stated. I hope you can shed some light on this. Being on the hook for $475 to try the thing out is far less than "good as gold" in my opinion. Of course, I think there is a better than 95% chance he'll love it. But he is replacing a Leaf. Lloyd - Original Message - From: "Bob Armstrong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 4:41 AM Subject: filmscanners: Polaroid 30 day return policy > On Wednesday, June 27, 2001 Hemingway, David J wrote: > > > > Polaroid offers a 30 day "good as gold" guarantee so if your are > > dissatisfied for ANY reason you can return it to your dealer for a full > > refund, excluding any shipping costs. > > > David, does this guarantee apply in the UK? > > Bob Armstrong > > >
Re: filmscanners: Polaroid 30 day return policy
Art, I told him about that scanner. He really didn't want to wait another 6 months or more for it to hit the pipeline. Also, he has a 6x7 so the 6x6 max info you posted was a deal-killer. OTOH, I have a large collection of 645 and 6x6 from years past. I might wait on this machine. He ordered the SS120 today for overnight delivery. I'll help him set it up this weekend. It'll take quite awhile for the green tinge to leave my skin after that, I'm sure. ;-) - Original Message - From: "Arthur Entlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 6:46 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Polaroid 30 day return policy > I am wondering where the Minolta Multi Pro will fit into the mix once it > arrives on the scene... > > Art > > > Lloyd O'Daniel wrote: > > > I have a friend who is about to purchase a 120 filmscanner. He has been > > deciding between Polaroid and Nikon. I've leaned toward the Polaroid in > > giving advice, because of a so-far good experience with the company and my > > SS4000. > >
Re: filmscanners: Polaroid 30 day return policy
David, Thanks for the follow-up, but it is moot for my friend. (I would think this is something Polaroid would want to address in general, though.) He found the scanner at Camera World of Oregon for a better price, and they threw in free overnight shipping. He has the unit now, but he can't play with it yet because he accidently unplugged and trashed his boot drive. :-) Lloyd - Original Message - From: "Hemingway, David J" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2001 12:09 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Polaroid 30 day return policy > Lloyd, > I will follow up by asking the Mac Connection's Polaroid rep. I am sure he > can easily find another source who will be more cooperative. > I will get back to you. > David > > -Original Message- > From: Lloyd O'Daniel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 12:38 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: filmscanners: Polaroid 30 day return policy > > I have a friend who is about to purchase a 120 filmscanner. He has been > deciding between Polaroid and Nikon. I've leaned toward the Polaroid in > giving advice, because of a so-far good experience with the company and my > SS4000. I mentioned the 30-day return policy to him. He called Polaroid and > was told that the policy applies to RESELLERS. That is, Polaroid will take > care of a returned unit if the reseller decides to send it back to them. > But, reseller's return policy applies to the buyer. He's found the unit at > Mac Connection, but they insist on a 15% restocking fee if returned (unless > defective). > > David, this effectively contradicts what you just stated. I hope you can > shed some light on this. Being on the hook for $475 to try the thing out is > far less than "good as gold" in my opinion. > > Of course, I think there is a better than 95% chance he'll love it. But he > is replacing a Leaf. > > Lloyd > > > - Original Message - > From: "Bob Armstrong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 4:41 AM > Subject: filmscanners: Polaroid 30 day return policy > > > > On Wednesday, June 27, 2001 Hemingway, David J wrote: > > > > > > > Polaroid offers a 30 day "good as gold" guarantee so if your are > > > dissatisfied for ANY reason you can return it to your dealer for a full > > > refund, excluding any shipping costs. > > > > > > David, does this guarantee apply in the UK? > > > > Bob Armstrong > > > > > > > >
Re: filmscanners: I love/hate SilverFast
I ordered my upgrade, also only to discover that I couldn't use the SN I had just bought. I'm monitoring my VISA account carefully. If Lasersoft charges it before getting a functional version for download, I intend to report them for mail fraud. This is pretty much the last straw. Great software...sorry company. Now, perhaps illegal as well. FWIW, I too purchased Silverfast prior to the Polaroid bundle for $309 w/ IT8. I went though the exact same one month period trying to get a functional SN from them. I further had to wait on more than one new release to get one that would work. It was weeks before I could use the software. Just at the point of demanding a refund, I finally got resolution. Also, I received the same old line that I was the only person on the planet with the problem so it must be my system. We now know that was a lie. I wonder if Germany is aware or gives a damn about how they are represented in the US. If Lasersoft charges those of us foolish enough to buy the vaporware upgrade, perhaps we should consider a class action against them as well. Lloyd - Original Message - From: "David Gordon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Filmscanners" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 5:53 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: I love/hate SilverFast > Hemingway, David J [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on Mon, 6 Aug > 2001 05:34:19 -0400 > > >As I have not played with the new version, I and I think the other list > >members would be very interested in how effective this new release is in > >correcting negatives. > > From a quick attempt with the demo it the canine's testicles. > > Unfortunately, as you can't enter your serial number after paying for the > upgrade, it's still pants. > > -- > David Gordon > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
Re: filmscanners: SilverFast Upgrade Disaster
Roger, Let us know how the TWAIN version works. I'm having a similar problem with v5.5 and my SS4000. At least, after reading your posts, I'm thinking it might be Silverfast. I've also built a new computer and switched scanning OS's back to Win2000. The SS4000 locks up Photoshop upon selecting Scan in SF. In Insight, I get an unknown ASPI error suggesting that I check termination. I've done that. Also, my Epson 1200S on the same chain (behind the SS) works fine using their TWAIN driver. I haven't contacted Lasersoft on this latest headache yet. Lloyd - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2001 9:23 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: SilverFast Upgrade Disaster In a message dated 8/12/2001 4:56:31 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Not wishing to sound to gloomy, but the advice sounds like a "we have no idea - but it might work if we re-install everything". The good news is that it often does - the bad news is IME it more often doesn't. When I had a problem they gave me all sorts of advice and blamed other software suppliers when I knew it was their problem from the tests I had done. I had also found a way round the problem which was an inconvenience rather than a showstopper. 3-6 months later an update fixed the problem but they didn't e-mail me to tell me. If I had paid the normal asking price (it was bundled) and my livlihood depended on it I would have been bloody livid. Depressingly Lasersoft support is actually better than many others. SteveYour comment about workarounds gave me an idea. After the reinstall of Photoshop, if SilverFast causes Photoshop to freeze again with a 500 MB file from my SS120, I'll try to install SilverFast as TWAIN rather than a Photoshop plug-in. I remember having a similar problem where my Microtek ScanMaker 5 flatbed scanner with ScanWizard software would cause Photoshop to freeze about every third scan. ScanWizard could be used either as a Photoshop plug-in or as a stand alone program, so I run it by itself now. You're right, it's not convenient, but right now I need to get some work done and the sooner the better, even if it's not convenient.
Re: filmscanners: SilverFast Upgrade Disaster
Steve, Thanks for the info. I had the same thought. I had previously used Win 2000 on the old machine as my scanning OS, then stupidly switched to ME. (Did that after getting exasperated at the $$$ Microsoft wants for tech support even for individuals using W2k.) I could have sworn that I previously had to download and install aspi32.exe from Adaptec's site for W2k. But the only version I can find there now warns against its use with 2000. Further evidence that you are right: I switched Insight from using ASPI to STI (possible with SS4000 and W2k). Problem resolved, albeit scanning a bit slower. Lloyd - Original Message - From: "Steve Greenbank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 13, 2001 3:19 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: SilverFast Upgrade Disaster > Lloyd > > That sounds a bit like dodgy ASPI drivers. Have you tried any other SCSI > scanning software. > > You could try ASPICHK from : > > http://www.adaptec.com/worldwide/support/suppdetail.html?prodkey=EZ-SCSI_5.0 > > I notice that EZ-SCSI is having problems with 2000 so I don't know if this > will work. It does rather suggest there can be problems with 2000 if Adaptec > can't get it working - they are usually considered the SCSI experts. > > Steve > > - Original Message - > From: "Lloyd O'Daniel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, August 13, 2001 8:48 AM > Subject: Re: filmscanners: SilverFast Upgrade Disaster > > > Roger, > > Let us know how the TWAIN version works. I'm having a similar problem with > v5.5 and my SS4000. At least, after reading your posts, I'm thinking it > might be Silverfast. I've also built a new computer and switched scanning > OS's back to Win2000. The SS4000 locks up Photoshop upon selecting Scan in > SF. In Insight, I get an unknown ASPI error suggesting that I check > termination. I've done that. Also, my Epson 1200S on the same chain (behind > the SS) works fine using their TWAIN driver. > > I haven't contacted Lasersoft on this latest headache yet. > > Lloyd > - Original Message - > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2001 9:23 PM > Subject: Re: filmscanners: SilverFast Upgrade Disaster > > > In a message dated 8/12/2001 4:56:31 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > Not wishing to sound to gloomy, but the advice sounds like a "we have no > idea - but it might work if we re-install everything". The good news is > that > it often does - the bad news is IME it more often doesn't. When I had a > problem they gave me all sorts of advice and blamed other software > suppliers > when I knew it was their problem from the tests I had done. I had also > found > a way round the problem which was an inconvenience rather than a > showstopper. 3-6 months later an update fixed the problem but they > didn't > e-mail me to tell me. If I had paid the normal asking price (it was > bundled) > and my livlihood depended on it I would have been bloody livid. > > Depressingly Lasersoft support is actually better than many others. > > Steve > > > Your comment about workarounds gave me an idea. After the reinstall of > Photoshop, if SilverFast causes Photoshop to freeze again with a 500 MB > file > from my SS120, I'll try to install SilverFast as TWAIN rather than a > Photoshop plug-in. I remember having a similar problem where my Microtek > ScanMaker 5 flatbed scanner with ScanWizard software would cause Photoshop > to > freeze about every third scan. ScanWizard could be used either as a > Photoshop plug-in or as a stand alone program, so I run it by itself now. > You're right, it's not convenient, but right now I need to get some work > done > and the sooner the better, even if it's not convenient. > >
Re: filmscanners: Was: Silverfast Help- Cant find Scanner Now: discount upgr...
For what it's worth, I upgraded to v5.5 on the first weekend it was available. That was when the website was able to take money, but not provide access to download. I called on Monday to get the appropriate UID and password to download. Did that, and discovered that the sn only unlocked Polaroid AI and not HDR. I called back again and emphatically stated that I expected my upgrade to cover both, given that I had bought both as a package. (I bought my SS4k before the bundle.) I was given an HDR serial no. So, I received both versions for $45. Lasersoft's software might be great, though it can be buggy. But the company and its policies are anal. I've gone through hell trying to get each version to work. It took me a month to get a vailid sn from them after I first bought the software for $300. Still can't use 5.5 with PCI 5.0 installed. I had to revert to PCI 4.5. I encourage all Sprintscan 4000 owners to raise hell and NOT pay $90 for this upgrade. Lloyd - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 12:40 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Was: Silverfast Help- Cant find Scanner Now: discount upgr... In a message dated 9/30/2001 5:32:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Regarding #2 below, is $45 the "reasonable charge" you refer to? Is there another way to order the upgrade with a purchase after 9/1? Thanks, StephenIf you bought the Polaroid scanner just before September 1, as I did, then it would cost $90 to upgrade SilverFast to the current 5.5 version. They charge $45 to upgrade SilverFast Ai and another $45 to upgrade SilverFast HDR, both of which come with the scanner. If you buy the scanner after September 1, you can upgrade SilverFast to version 5.5 at a reduced cost. I assume they'll upgrade both Ai and HDR at the same time for a a single price, probably $45 (I'm guessing on the price). But you don't really need to upgrade Ai if you don't want to. You can only upgrade HDR. Then do raw scans with either SilverFast Ai or Polaroid Insight and you can process the scans with the upgraded SilverFast HDR with all of the latest bells and whistles. I suspect that Lasersoft realizes few Polaroid users wouldn't upgrade both Ai and HDR for $90 since you really don't have to upgrade both. By the way, I have two different Polaroid scanners. Lasersoft wanted me to pay $45 to upgrade Ai for each scanner and $45 to upgrade HDR (it's not scanner specific as it works only with raw files), for a total of $135. I bitched about that, and some other major problems I had with Lasersoft, and they let me upgrade all three for $45. I felt that was fair. After all, that's all I would have paid them anyway as I'd have only upgraded HDR. I don't use Ai for anything other than making raw scans so I don't need the NegaFix upgrade to it. If anyone knows exactly what Lasersoft charges for the upgrade for Polaroid scanners purchased after September 1, please post it so we all know.
Re: filmscanners: Silverfast Ai and Silverfast HDR
Paul, No, it was Silverfast USA. In fact, your message jogged my memory. In fact, I spoke with Annie during both calls. Perhaps they had not yet formulated their firm policy. I later read here that there was a dispute between Germany and USA regarding this issue. I don't remember which had which position, but it looks like greed prevailed. Lloyd - Original Message - From: "Paul Chefurka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 3:08 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Silverfast Ai and Silverfast HDR > And the chant of the crowd grows louder: "Ham...rick Ham...rick Ham...rick" :-) > > -Original Message- > From: Owen P. Evans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 2:30 PM > To: Filmscanners > Subject: filmscanners: Silverfast Ai and Silverfast HDR > > [snip discouraging customer support story] > > Today I had not had a reply so I sent a second notice and I received a > telephone call this afternoon from their customer service. They do not give > HDR updates for free! They will refund my $45 and we are finished. The > customer service rep, Annie, was very pleasant and firm with the policy. She > felt that maybe Mr. O'Daniel may have been dealing with Germany because > Lasersoft Imaging Inc. of the USA will not do this! > > There you have my experience. As for me; I'm sticking with Vuescan like I > have all year and who updates the product on a weekly basis...FOR FREE! > Sorry for the long post. > Owen > > Owen P. Evans > Osgoode, Ontario. Canada > (near our nation's capital; Ottawa) > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > J.33-3
Re: filmscanners: Silverfast Ai and Silverfast HDR
I purchased my copy of Silverfast prior to the bundle deal. Perhaps that is why I got the break on the version 5.5 upgrade. I am using SF for virtually all my scanning, primarily because of its reputation and the large investment I have in the software . As Polaroid continues to improve Insight, Silverfast will become less and less relevant . Lasersoft's pricing policies have always irked me, forcing one to pay essentially full price for each scanner. I could somewhat understand a premium to support scanners with special features such as ICE. But it is absurd to have to pay if one switches from an Epson to a Umax flatbed, or from one model Epson to another. Lasersoft has administrative problems . As I stated in my original message , I was unable to get SF to work for a month after purchasing it . I was on the verge of demanding a refund when the problem was resolved serendipitously by upgrading to Win2000. I was led to believe by tech support that I was the only customer in the world with my problem and therefore it must be my particular hardware . A short time later , I read on this board of at least one more user concurrently having the identical problem. He was told the same story. Then there was the fiasco with the version 5.5 upgrade . I ordered over the internet on August 4 and received a number to unlock the download site . When I went to the site, the number was useless. In fact, the full version files had not even been made available at that time . Of course , the order page had no difficulty in processing the credit card info . My cc was charged on 8/4. Version 5.5 was made available on August 6. I still had to call to get User IDs, passwords, and serial numbers for the software . This is not how I would want to run a company. As I said , I like the software and that is the only reason I've put up with the company this far . Lloyd - Original Message ----- From: "Lloyd O'Daniel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 5:58 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Silverfast Ai and Silverfast HDR > Paul, > > No, it was Silverfast USA. In fact, your message jogged my memory. In fact, > I spoke with Annie during both calls. Perhaps they had not yet formulated > their firm policy. I later read here that there was a dispute between > Germany and USA regarding this issue. I don't remember which had which > position, but it looks like greed prevailed. > > Lloyd > > - Original Message - > From: "Paul Chefurka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 3:08 PM > Subject: RE: filmscanners: Silverfast Ai and Silverfast HDR > > > > And the chant of the crowd grows louder: "Ham...rick Ham...rick > Ham...rick" :-) > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Owen P. Evans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 2:30 PM > > To: Filmscanners > > Subject: filmscanners: Silverfast Ai and Silverfast HDR > > > > [snip discouraging customer support story] > > > > Today I had not had a reply so I sent a second notice and I received a > > telephone call this afternoon from their customer service. They do not > give > > HDR updates for free! They will refund my $45 and we are finished. The > > customer service rep, Annie, was very pleasant and firm with the policy. > She > > felt that maybe Mr. O'Daniel may have been dealing with Germany because > > Lasersoft Imaging Inc. of the USA will not do this! > > > > There you have my experience. As for me; I'm sticking with Vuescan like I > > have all year and who updates the product on a weekly basis...FOR FREE! > > Sorry for the long post. > > Owen > > > > Owen P. Evans > > Osgoode, Ontario. Canada > > (near our nation's capital; Ottawa) > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > J.33-3 >
filmscanners: OT: Monitor Purchase
I'm thinking of buying a 19" monitor to go along with an aging 17" Panasonic in a 2 monitor setup. The Panasonic would be demoted to the #2 pallette display for Pshop. I've read recently on West Coast Imaging's website that Aperture Grille displays have been the preferred choice for imaging. I understand that Shadow Mask monitors are better for text. WCI mentions problems with cloning on SM monitors. What sort of problems? My Panaflat is a shadow mask monitor, but has developed an intermittent glitch. I don't particularly like AG wire lines on the screen (had that on an old NEC 4FG). Also, because of the chance of getting a lemon, I would like to buy locally (means CompUSA). The choice of AG monitors there is limited. I think the only one is the Viewsonic PF790. They have an Envisions SM monitor with really good specs for $250 through tommorrow. (Of course, I want to see it first.) My experience with monitors in general (and I've bought in the $600-800 range previously) is that they die in 3-4 years anyway, which discourages me from paying a premium. How much of a difference is there between AG and SM monitors for Photoshop work? This new one will be specifically for Photoshop. I don't want to cut corners that I'll miss, but I don't want to blow money either. Any comments on the Viewsonic PF790? If I have to mail-order, I'm leaning toward getting the Lacie Electron Blue III 19". I understand Lacie is offering free shipping for $399. My thinking is that, since their market is imaging professionals, they will have better QC and a friendlier exchange policy should I get a clunker. Any advice will be greatly appreciated... Lloyd O'Daniel
Re: filmscanners: OT: Monitor Purchase
Jim, Thank you for your response . I also run my monitor and computer through a UPS . The first PC monitor I purchased was a NEC 4FG, considered to be the best in its size at the time. We bought at least one more 4FG at the office. Both developed problems within 3-4 years...mine post warranty and theirs during warranty. Those were not run through UPS's though. I still have it after 9 years, but it's pincushioned out and should be junked. My current monitor is a Panasonic PF70 Pure Flat, which was close to if not the most expensive 17" at Compusa about 3.5 years ago. I selected it because it had the best display quality over all others on display, including at least one Sony model.. It's a flat screen and, though Shadow Mask, has great contrast, brightness, and sharpness when it is clear. It has developed an intermittent ghosting problem that is getting progressively worse. Ghost isn't exactly what's happening, but it's hard to describe. The problem can go from minor ghosting to the right of text and icons to green streaks running across the display. I can whap the sides of the monitor at the bezel and clear these up. I originally thought that it might be the video card, cable, or RF from another device. But I've systematically eliminated those possibilities. I've read on the list that most monitors will fail to be able to be calibrated after 3 years of continuous use anyway. I've been calibrating this one for the last year or so with Photocal and the MC7 puck. It still calibrates with no problems. Are you calibrating your Sony's (particularly the 7-year old) to D65 with similar hardware/software? If so, I'll definitely give the Sony's a look. Regards, Lloyd - Original Message - From: "Jim Snyder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 9:52 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT: Monitor Purchase > > - Original Message - > From: "Lloyd O'Daniel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > My experience with monitors in general (and I've bought in the $600-800 > > range previously) is that they die in 3-4 years anyway, which discourages > me > > from paying a premium. > > > I run both the CPU and the monitor through a line interactive UPS and have > never had a monitor die or fail in any way. Of course, I don't buy cheap > monitors, and the oldest monitor I currently own is a seven year old Sony > Multiscan 17se II. I believe the adage "you get what you pay for" especially > holds true in monitors.My latest monitor is a Sony GDM F520. I doubt your > local store will carry a quality monitor. > > Jim Snyder >
Re: filmscanners: Re: Dynamic range
One tidbit that I don't think has been stated: each 0.3 OD equals 1 stop (2X the light. Log 2=0.3) So, all else being equal, a scanner with a 3.6 OD range could distinguish 2 more stops detail than one rated at 3.0 by the same standards. In practice, all else is seldom equal, and the specs are not standardized. The only instance that I would put any stock in comparing these numbers would be 2 scanners from the same manufacturer. An example is Polaroid, who to their credit is conservative in their ratings, rating the SS4000 at 3.4 and the SS120 at 3.9. I'm afraid that marketing pressure must have prevailed with the newly-announced SS4000 Plus. It's rated at 4.2 (to counter Nikon and Minolta) which is clearly just the theoretical A/D range for a 14-bit system. Lloyd - Original Message - From: "Ken Durling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 11:09 AM Subject: filmscanners: Re: Dynamic range > What is the dynamic range figure - i.e.3.2, 3.4 or whatever - a > measurement of? Or maybe I should ask, what is the unit of > measurement? > > > Ken Durling > > > > Photo.net portfolio: > > http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251 > >
Re: filmscanners: scanner for contact sheets
I've been looking for the same animal, but I'd like to have decent 120 final scan capability as well.. I don't think it exists. The new Epson 2450 Photo is at $400, but it's tranny capacity is just 4x9" (morons). This might enable 35mm contact sheets in 2 scans (that'd be close), but would not work for 120. The only solutions I've found are the Epson 1600 Pro (discontinued, but can be found on Ebay for around $600) and the Umax Powerlook III (about $700). Other options, such as the Umax 1100 or the Epson 1680 are more expensive. Lloyd - Original Message - From: "Jules" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 5:11 PM Subject: filmscanners: scanner for contact sheets > subject that's been touched on this list before. > > i want to get a flat bed scanner specifically for making contact sheets for > 35mm film. obviously it needs to be able to handle an 8x11 *transparency*. > it does NOT need to have great color matching but does need a decent dpi. > > i have an epson precision 1200U with the transparency adapter which is fine, > but the scanning area for transparencies is very small (can fit jsut 4 (2x2) > 35mm frames). > > other requirements: USB or SCSI and <$400 > > any ideas? > > -- > j u l e s @ p o p m o n k e y . c o m > http://www.popmonkey.com/jules > >
Re: Can we please move the RAID discussion off-list? (was RE: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images)
I, for one, am extremely interested in the RAID discussion and want it to stay on the list. It might be technically off-topic, but is useful knowledge for anyone comtemplating mass storage of images scanned from, uh, FILMSCANNERS. There are a lot of threads on this list that I'm not interested in. Rather than being a topic-nazi, I am not too lazy to use the DELETE key. Try it. Lloyd - Original Message - From: "Stuart Nixon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 10:30 AM Subject: Can we please move the RAID discussion off-list? (was RE: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images) > Can we PLEASE take this RAID discussion off-list? > > It is not directly related to scanners. And there is enough misinformation > being thrown around here that it is just confusing everyone. > > There is plenty of reference information for RAID systems on the web and > elsewhere; we don't need to clutter the list up with this IMHO. > > If people want reference information on RAID systems, such as the fact > that RAID 0 is indeed less reliable than a single drive or RAID 1 or 5, I > refer > you to information such as: > http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/perf/raid/concepts/relRel-c.html > http://www.usbyte.com/common/raid_systems_3.htm#Extended%20Data%20Availabili > ty > http://204.56.132.222/courses/CIS312J/FAQ/raid-faq.txt > http://www.dansdata.com/raid.htm > http://www.csr.city.ac.uk/people/lorenzo.strigini/A701/A701material/lecture8 > /A701.8.FTnotes_010312A.pdf > http://www.sas.com/partners/directory/sun/wp/raid.txt > > Thanks > > Stuart > > p.s. I saw some Mac users were asking about IDE RAID systems. > Have a look at the new IDE/SCSI RAID 5 boxes from Promise and others, > which have IDE drives, and SCSI out. > http://www.promise.com/Products/UltraTrak/UltraTrak100%20TX4%20&%20TX8%20Dat > a%20Sheet.pdf > A 8 x 100GB IDE drive system gives about 700GB of usable space. I like > these > external RAID boxes, because they are low cost, have hot swappable drives > and power supplies, and plug straight into a Mac/PC/Unix SCSI controller. > > > [Original message] > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Austin Franklin > Sent: Tuesday, 13 November 2001 10:53 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images > > > > MTBF of a RAID-0 system (or dual cpu/memory where one unit CAN > > NOT continue > > without the other) will always be lower than a single drive unless the > > standard deviation (they never quote SD) of the MTBF is zero. > > Well, if you take duty-cycle into account, which MTBF calculations do, you > will actually get higher MTBF for RAID 0, simply because the main failure is > the servo actuator, and when it is only being used for half the time...MTBF > will increase. > > > The reality for MTBF of a RAID-0 will lie in between. > > But that means it doesn't change compared to a single drive... > > > Cummalative failure rate is a much more useful figure for us and > > for a small > > number of fairly reliable inter-dependant devices this is nearly > > an additive > > figure - but not quite. > > That I completely disagree with. It is absolutely NOT additive. In fact, > as I pointed out above, you may get HIGHER reliability by using RAID 0 > simply because of duty cycle and the common failure mode, both of which are > a very important part of MTBF. > > > Seagate reckon about 3.41% (flat-line model) will fail during the first 5 > > years of use (assuming you only use it for 2400 hours a year [6 > > 1/2 hours a > > day]) : > > > > http://www.seagate.com/docs/pdf/newsinfo/disc/drive_reliability.pdf > > If you read that article you referenced, when they talk about multiple > disks, they are talking about multiple PLATTERS in a single disk, not > drives, so you can't derive the numbers you did for multiple drives from > that article. No where in that article did they discuss multiple drives. > > >
Re: filmscanners: ADMIN: Play nice, or else.
Tony, I appreciate your effort in maintaining the list, and would hate to see it go away. It seems to me, however, that how best to store images generated from filmscanners fully satisfies the "issues arising from the use of" clause in the charter, and is therefore not off topic. I agree that the thread degenerated into less practically useful info than I had hoped to glean from it. Lloyd - Original Message - From: "Tony Sleep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 9:31 PM Subject: filmscanners: ADMIN: Play nice, or else. > On Thu, 15 Nov 2001 08:43:37 +1100 Kevin Power > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > > > 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. > > Unortunately the remote admin of this list does not permit such easy > interdiction. All I can do is remove people and keep them removed. > > It is quite clear from the list charter that this list exists for the > purpose of discussing filmscanners. I understand that sometimes > conversations veer off topic, but I expect contributors to exercise > restraint and take OT threads off list if they cannot be kept brief. > > Good manners are mandatory. Argument about ideas is fine, personal attacks > are not. > > If anyone feels they cannot stick to the rules, they have two choices : > leave, or be removed. > > Frankly I have had such a lot of trouble with this list lately, with admin > taking up so much time I seldom have time to read up to date, > let alone participate. 250 bounce mails today, and that after I spent >1hr > weeding dead addresses; complaints from list members about conduct of some > participants; inquiries about getting on or off the list, and so on. > Furthermore the hosting renewal is so expensive that I am beginning to > wonder why I don't just close it. > > I would rather not, because it is genuinely useful to a lot of people, but > I would ask everyone to think carefully about whether what they are about > to post is (a)a genuine question or (b)helpful, polite, relevant and of > interest to a filmscanner community of ~1,500 people. IF NOT, DON'T. > > Here is the introductory text everyone gets when they subscribe. Please > read it :- > === > Welcome to the filmscanners mailing list. Please read the following. If > you have subscribed to this list previously, please note that some > commands and addresses have changed since October 2000. > > By participating in the filmscanners list you agree to these terms, > and you should save a copy of this message for future reference. > This document is also available at www.halftone.co.uk and you may > also subscribe or unsubscribe from there. > > You can instead subscribe to a Digest sent each day, > or, during busy periods, more often. The Digest contains all > messages posted to the list on that day, as a single email. > Many people prefer this to 'real time' receipt of many separate > emails. HOWEVER PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS DIGEST IS READ ONLY : YOU > CANNOT POST TO THE LIST IF YOU ARE A DIGEST SUBSCRIBER. If you wish to > post you will need to subscribe to the list proper. Please do not mail me > and complain about this, this aspect of configuration is outside my > control. > > ADDRESS FOR POSTING CONTRIBUTIONS > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ADDRESS FOR COMMANDS eg 'help', 'subscribe' etc > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > HUMAN ASSISTANCE (last resort please!) > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > HOST WEBSITE > http://www.halftone.co.uk Tony Sleep Photography > > UNSUBSCRIBING > Please see the COMMANDS section below > > LIST CHARTER > This list exists for the purpose of: > > - discussing purchasing decisions > - discussing issues arising from the use of filmscanners > - discussing reviews and other material available on WWW > - disseminating news of new film scanners, drivers and >software > - notifying you of updates of http://www.halftone.co.uk, >the host of this list > > RULES > > 1. Posting in plain text is required; HTML or MicroSoft > formatted email is not welcome as it adds to bandwidth and > many mail clients cannot understand it and present an > illegible mess. MS Outlook users should take special care to > turn off the default HTML by selecting 'Send as plain text'. > > 2. Posting encoded image binaries is permitted if they are > relevant, but please keep file sizes below 80k. Use JPEG > image encoding, and MIME attachment. Larger files will > be bounced by Majordomo. However a better mechanism is > to display the image on a web page and post the URL in an > email. You may only post images which fulfil legal > requirements regarding copyright. > > 3. Off topic messages. Whilst it is the nature of list discussions that > ongoing conversations will sometimes veer Off Topic, I ask that members > use restraint and good judgement. OT discussion
Re: filmscanners: Polaroid SS4000 / 4000+ / 120 ???
I can give you my opinion on part of this comparison. I have a SS4000, bought 2 years ago at $1425. A friend of mine recently purchased a SS120. I scanned a couple of 35mm slides on his 120 that I had previously scanned on my 4000. My 4000 scans look great, but the 120 scans shows significantly greater detail in highlights and shadows. The dynamic range numbers published by Polaroid seem to be accurate. Frankly, I'm a bit miffed at Polaroid for the manner they have handled the 4000/4000+ situation. I am assuming that the 4000+ will have dynamic range similar to that of the 120. Had Polaroid chosen to market the 4000+ concurrently with the 4000 at a time when one could have obtained a reasonable resale value on the 4000, I would have upgraded to get the higher DR. Instead, they have dumped 4000's on the market for $500 net or so for 6 months, making my scanner virtually worthless. There is no way I can spring $1500 on a plus now. Polaroid loses a sale. They also haven't had a 35mm scanner they can get $1500 for lately. I would think they need the cash. I would say that they deserve their current financial situation in this regard. In hindsight, I would have been better off to have upgraded to a Nikon 4000ED before the legs were cut off the SS4000. I did think of doing this. Poor performance ratings of the Nikon 14-bit scanner vis a vis dynamic range dissuaded me from doing this. Lloyd - Original Message - From: "David Gordon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Filmscanners" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 2:38 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Polaroid SS4000 / 4000+ / 120 ??? > Hemingway, David J [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on Thu, 29 Nov > 2001 12:52:57 -0500 > > >I would imagine one could develop a test that showed the differences but I > >am not sure you would see that much difference on a practical basis. > > This is between the 4000 and the 4000 + ? Would a reasonable person see > any difference between a 35mm scan done on a SS120 against a 4000 or 4000+ ? > > BTW what's happening about the bulk slide feeder device for the 4000? Is > there a chance of seeing an uncut film loader too - something to allow me > to scan a whole roll of 35mm? > > -- > David Gordon > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
Re: filmscanners: Polaroid SS4000 / 4000+ / 120 ???
Cybis, Point well taken. For what its worth, I too have suffered "downsizing" and , you're right, it ain't fun. I apologize for the last sentence in that paragraph. I certainly don't believe the employees of Polaroid deserve their current situation, least of all David. I was thinking more of the CEO, directors, etc. that make the decisions. Of course, those often get "golden parachutes" when their decisions prove to be wrong. Lloyd - Original Message - From: "Cybis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 7:45 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Polaroid SS4000 / 4000+ / 120 ??? > > I would think they need the cash. I would say that they deserve > > their current financial situation in this regard. > > I have nothing to do with Polaroid except that I own a SS4000. I'm shocked > to read this and I feel the need to respond. The financial situation you are > talking about, chapter 11 protection, can potentially lead to Polaroid's > bankruptcy. And bankruptcy leads to social disaster. I myself paid the cost > of > a bankruptcy last month, and 12000 jobless employees ain't much fun! > Polaroid's employees deserve better even if your personal consumer needs are > not fulfilled as you wished. > That attitude is so common these days and very symptomatic of the world we > live in. > > Have a good day, > Luc Busquin > Brussels, Belgium (hint) > > >
[filmscanners] Re: Polaroid Sprintscan 4000
Is the USB on the SS4000+ USB 2.0 or 1.1? Have you compared any scans from the Plus with the SS120? Do you know the rated Dynamic Range of the Plus? I'm hoping it's 3.9 like the SS120, since both are 14-bit systems. That would mean an extra 1-2/3 stops of range over the 4000, which is substantial. Lloyd - Original Message - From: "Tom Scales" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2001 6:24 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Polaroid Sprintscan 4000 Remember, the SS4000+ is BOTH USB and Firewire. Clearly the Firewire performance matches the SCSI performance. Having had the opportunity to test the SS4000+, I have to say it is an outstanding scanner, just as the SS4000 is. Right now, David is absolutely right, though. The differences are small enough that it reinforces that the SS4000 at the current prices is an outright steal. I paid over $1500 for my SS4000 and am still pleased with the investment. Tom From: "Charles Stirling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Personally I am more interested in a SCSI than a USB connection as it sounds like it could be quicker but what do others find in this regard? Charles Stirling 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: Polaroid Sprintscan 4000
I know. I've had my SS4000 for 2 years and am happy. But (significant) dynamic range improvement is probably the only reason I would upgrade short of a scanner meltdown. I'm hoping/assuming that Polaroid is using the same conservative methodology in rating the 120 and the Plus, ergo a real improvement. I did a quick test on a friend's SS120 and found that the same slide had much better detail in highlights and shadows than obtained with my 4000. Someone pointed out to me that here (and I meant to respond...life got in the way) that the highlights should have been matched for a real test. I really didn't have the time with the 120 to do anything other than automatic scans with Insight on both scanners. Lloyd - Original Message - From: "Tom Scales" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2001 2:19 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Polaroid Sprintscan 4000 It's USB 1.1. Never seen an SS120, so I have nothing to compare. I'd bet it was at least 3.9, as the SS4000 was very conservatively rated on Dynamic range. Tom Is the USB on the SS4000+ USB 2.0 or 1.1? Have you compared any scans from the Plus with the SS120? Do you know the rated Dynamic Range of the Plus? I'm hoping it's 3.9 like the SS120, since both are 14-bit systems. That would mean an extra 1-2/3 stops of range over the 4000, which is substantial. Lloyd 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] Flatbed for contact sheets?
I'm thinking of upgrading my flatbed scanner to one that has a page-size tranny adapter so that I can do digital contact sheets. (I sure wish Epson had thought of that when designing the 2450. :-( ) The idea is to be able to make low-res scans of negatives, preferably while they are still in the Printfile sheets. Is anyone out there successfully doing this? I'd hate to spring for the scanner only to find out that this won't work. The scanner would also be used for finish scanning of 645 and 6x6 negs and chromes, since I can't justify a Sprintscan 120 right now. I am thinking of a Umax Powerlook III or 1100, or a used Epson Expression 1600. I'm a little scared of the 1200x2400 dpi resolution of the Umax as being insufficient. Primary output would be on Epson 13x19" printers. I'd appreciate hearing any positive or negative feedback on these units, or of the concept in general. Lloyd Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
Re: filmscanners: ss4000 repair bill
>From whom did you get this warranty? I called Nikon and was informed that they did not offer extended warranties. I have an 18-month old ss4000. I debating on obtaining the warranty or selling and getting a LS-4000. Polaroid's offer of an extended warranty and their service response has kept me in their corner so far. If I get your deal that might change. Lloyd - Original Message - From: "Edwin Eleazer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 1:48 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: ss4000 repair bill > Good grief! > Now I'm really glad I got the 60 month extended warrenty on my Nikon. > Sounds like $100 well spent now, I wondered before. > Edwin > - Original Message - > From: "Bill Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 2:29 PM > Subject: filmscanners: ss4000 repair bill > > > > My ss4000 was giving me perpetual-motion back/forth motor > > action on initialization, and after pushing a slide carrier > > through slowly a few times with the unit turned off, it > > switched to continuous eject action. Then I got the > > sensor brush & tried that - no effect. So I shipped the > > unit to Polaroid, & just got the estimate, $400 for: > > "Repairs needed: Load motor sensor, cleaning brush, > > cleaned, aligned, calibrate and preventative maintenance > > performed." Cost of estimate if I choose to skip the > > repairs is $125. > > > > Given that others are seeing this initialization problem > > due to sensor failure, I'm suspecting that the root cause > > is a bad batch of sensors. I wonder how much those sensors > > really cost.. > > > > Bill Ross > > >
Re: filmscanners: OT:Ektachrome E100VS bad?
The problem you describe sounds like retained silver. I have recently processed a lot of both E100VS and Provia 100F in Kodak Single-use E6 with no problems. Perhaps you got a bad batch of bleach or maybe had a mixing error? I use a Jobo ATL-2 and perform densitometric process monitoring using Fuji Control Strips. I've been able to get an in-control process with the new E6. The only modification I had to do was to increase Pre-bleach time from 2 to 3 minutes. I run Fuji and Kodak in the same tank and ignore Jobo's recommendation to use longer 1st Dev time for Fuji films. If you use a Jobo or other rotary processor, there is one problem I discovered early on with this E6. One of the Kodak tech docs (I think the one specific to rotary processing) has an incorrect minimum volume requirement per roll of film. It states 235ml/ 2 rolls 135-36 or 120. The other tech doc states 278ml/ 2 rolls, or 139ml/roll. This means that you can't process a full Jobo 1500 tank at the minimum required for the tank. With the old 1 gallon E6, I could run 8 rolls in 1 liter, 125ml/roll. When I did that with the new stuff, I could not get it in control. Once I found the discrepency, I began doing 7 rolls in the 8-roll tank using a liter ( I put a single control strip on reel 8 to monitor.) No problems! I now just make sure I have at least 140ml/roll. As for grain and color, VS is more saturated and grainier than Provia 100F. I use the former now as a faster Velvia substitute. Hope this helps... Lloyd - Original Message - From: "Roger Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 6:59 AM 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: Re: Ektachrome E100VS bad?
Well, Roger, that blows my theories. :-) If you're using a tank, you should have plenty of chemical volume. It's odd that the Fuji cleared and the VS didn't. If the bleach has been mixed for awhile (sometimes I mix it in quantity since it lasts awhile), it might be a good idea to shake it well. As you probably know, bleach benefits from oxygenation unlike the other steps. Anyway, as you pointed out, you can always extend the bleach time or rebleach without any adverse effect on either film. Kodak changed the kit to optimize it for one-time use. I like that because I never reused anyway and the new stuff is significantly cheaper per unit volume. Lloyd - Original Message - From: "Roger Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 2:36 PM Subject: filmscanners: Re: Ektachrome E100VS bad? > At 10:48 AM -0500 5/22/01, Lloyd O'Daniel wrote: > >The problem you describe sounds like retained silver. I have recently > >processed a lot of both E100VS and Provia 100F in Kodak Single-use E6 with > >no problems. Perhaps you got a bad batch of bleach or maybe had a mixing > >error? > > Thanks, Lloyd, I would have thought that too, except the > Provia 100F in the same tank was great. Do you find the new bleach > different from the old? It's certainly lighter in colour. I will be > remixing for the next batch, so we'll see what happens. > Thanks also for the processing tips. I'm not sure I can use > all of them in my simple two-reel tank process, but some of them may > be helpful. I felt the old 1-gallon kits were better, somehow, > certainly a lot easier to mix in smaller volumes and I never had > these odd problems with them. Any idea why Kodak changed them? I've > been using E6 since 1977 (or whenever it came out), and there heve > been a few changes over the years. > > Regards, > Roger Smith >
Re: filmscanners: LS4000 reboot problem
Do you see a significant real world improvement in scans from the LS4000 over the SS4000? Lloyd - Original Message - From: "Paul Chefurka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 12:03 PM Subject: filmscanners: LS4000 reboot problem > I just got a Nikon LS4000 to replace my Polaroid SS4000. It's a wonderful scanner, especially when used with Vuescan. > > However... I'm running it on a Win98SE box with 768MB of RAM Whenever I reboot my system, if the Firewire cable is plugged in the system hangs about halfway into the Windows boot. If I unplug the FW cable it boots properly. It smells to me like an interrupt problem with the Firewire driver (I installed Nikon's upgraded driver from the CD). I tried taking out the SCSI card that was running my Polaroid to see if there was a conflict, but it didn't help. > > Has anyone else had this problem? Any trouble-shooting ideas? Should I consider upgrading to Win2K? > > Paul Chefurka >
[filmscanners] RE: Polaroid's future
David, Let me add my voice to those who hope you will be part of that entity (if you desire so). I went through a 6 month long careful decision a couple years ago deciding between a SS4000 and a Coolscan 2000. Polaroid's emphasis on customer service, which in no small part was personified by your presence, swayed me to the SS4000. I have not regretted it. I am happy that I repaid that in a small way by swaying a friend of mine who was leaning toward a Coolscan 8000 to get a SS120. He, too, is very happy he did so. I just hope that whoever buys Polaroid's scanner division shares Polaroid's commitment of customer service, and has the good sense to make people like you a part of that. I'll never be a CEO. But, I can't for the life of me understand why Polaroid would shrink back to its core instant film products as I have read. It seems to me that instant film is on the way out, since digital cameras are getting better at a increasing rate. They, too, provide instant feedback. I'm a metallurgical engineer involved in metallography and failure analysis. A few years ago, we used a lot of Type 55P/N and smaller pack films in documenting failures. We now use digital cameras both in general and on our microscopes. I see scanners as more of the future than I do instant film. Regards, Lloyd -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Hemingway, David J Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 9:26 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Polaroid's future Jeremy, Not right now. Between you and I , I expect the scanner business to be sold off. Several companies are bidding. After that we will see. I expect but am not sure I will be part of the new entity. David Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Some findings/thoughts on the Sprintscan 120 (comments verywelcome please)
I have the SS4000, but I have access to a friend's SS120. Your experience does not mirror his or mine. We both actually prefer Insight to Silverfast for routine scans, although we primarily scan chromes. The only negs I've done on his machine are circa 1980 Kodacolor and VPS 645's. In that case, I did raw scans there and did the processing here with Silverfast HDR or Photoshop. Results were very good. Have you tried Silverfast? If/when I can afford it, I might go for a Flextight Photo as well. They are considered a cut above, and priced accordingly. The only caveats I have with that scanner are I believe you have to unmount 35mm slides and cut negs individually or into very short strips. From a film handling and storing viewpoint for me, that would be a headache. Lloyd -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Simon Lamb Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 2:23 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Some findings/thoughts on the Sprintscan 120 (comments verywelcome please) I have had some private communication with Art Entlich regarding the SS 120 and he has been, and is continuing to be, very helpful and supportive. I though I would share some of the comments that I made with the group to see if anyone has any comments to make. All would be welcome. I have scanned quite a few slides so far and have had varying results. The film term in Insight for Kodak Porta 160 is way, way off. The resulting scan bears absolutely no resemblance to the original neg. or even the prints, and required so much work in Photoshop to recover it that I gave up, it just seemed unrecoverable. I think the film terms in general within Insight need to be reviewed. Scanning using the generic slide terms when using Provia also produced bad results. The only good scan I got was using the generic slide term when scanning Kodak E100VS. As for black and white, after over ten attempts with Scala, Delta 100 and Delta 400 I gave up. The scans where very dark, the black point stopped dead on all scans at about 30, as if all the pixels at that end had been pushed up against a wall. So, I moved on to using Vuescan. The Provia scanned well although the colour accuracy was not too good. My Nikon Coolscan LS30 produced a better scan from a colour perspective, although obviously not as detailed. The Delta 100 scan was one of the best black and white scans I had ever seen. Absolutely perfect tonal balance and immense detail. The Scala was good but lost some detail in the highlights. The Porta 160VC was detailed but there was a significant amount of white speckling all over the scan. I assume from this, and the fact that the Insight term produced the worst scan imaginable, that the SS 120 just has difficulty with the Portra emulsion. A shame, since my LS30 scans it very well. So where am I now. Well, the SS 120 can obviously produce detailed scans, but I will have to rely on Ed Hamrick's Vuescan to get them, especially for black and white which is a big proportion of my work. I am not really happy about relying on third party software because should Ed decide to pack it in then I will have a scanner from which it will be difficult to get the results I need. The carriers are fiddly. In many cases the 6X6 film does not lie perfectly flat in the carrier, and it is impossible to line up a strip of 35mm unless you leave the carrier slightly undone. Most of the scans I did using Insight required a lot of work in Photoshop to get them close to what I wanted, and some were just too far out to be workable. I think I will return the SS 120 and try the Flextight Photo. I did find when comparing it side by side with the SS 120 in the store that the Photo just about always reproduced the image as near as possible to the original colour, contrast etc. The built in film profiles seemed to be accurate. It may take twice as long to scan, but I may save that additional time not having to do so much in Photoshop. Your comments on my findings would be welcomed. I know a lot of people use the SS 120, so either I am doing something wrong or they just put the effort in to correct images post scanning. I was using Insight 5.5.1. Regards. Simon 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: Some findings/thoughts on the Sprintscan 120(comments verywelcome please)
Hi Art, One of each. :-) He has a newly acquired G4 Dual 1 Gig. I have an Athlon 1.4 running XP Pro. Lloyd -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 5:41 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Some findings/thoughts on the Sprintscan 120(comments verywelcome please) Hi Lloyd, I'll ask the question that Simon may have anyway... What platform are you and your friend using, Mac or PC? Art Lloyd O'Daniel wrote: > I have the SS4000, but I have access to a friend's SS120. Your > experience does not mirror his or mine. We both actually prefer > Insight to Silverfast for routine scans, although we primarily scan > chromes. The only negs I've done on his machine are circa 1980 > Kodacolor and VPS 645's. In that case, I did raw scans there and did > the processing here with Silverfast HDR or Photoshop. Results were > very good. Have you tried Silverfast? > 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: SS 4000 Plus
This might be redundant, but it worked with my 4000 and XP Pro (not the same, I know). Install Insight with the scanner off & disconnected. Shut down. Connect and power up the scanner, allowing it to fully complete its calibration sequence. Then, boot and hope that Plug and Pray finds the scanner and gives you the "new hardware installed and ready to use" message in the systray. If you have tried this unsuccessfully, my apologies. Good luck, Lloyd -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 4:30 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] SS 4000 Plus I just received my SS 4000 Plus and can not get it to run on Windows XP. It is connected via USB. I have tried Insight 5.5, 5.5.1, and even, as was suggested a week or so ago 5.0 (though this only contains the 4000 drivers and not the 4000 plus drivers) with no luck. When I use the Add Hardware Wizard the drivers are not found. When I show it what folder the drivers are in it sees the folder as empty, though if I look in the folder outside the Wizard I see the files are there and I can even start Insight, though it tells me no scanner is connected. Polaroid has not responded yet. Anyone have any other ideas...otherwise the scanner will have to go back. 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: OT: which wintel OS for digital imaging?
Your experience is exactly as mine with Symantec products. The only one I will run is NAV, and I'm thinking of going to McAfee next time. Lloyd -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 8:44 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: OT: which wintel OS for digital imaging? Except for Norton Anti-Virus all the other Norton System stuff has never done anything for me but cause headaches and more problems. In my last notebook, whenever I installed Norton (I forget what it was called System Works?) the a drive went dead and whenever I uninstalled it it worked perfectly. Every time I have installed those types of programs I have had more difficulty then without them..my experience only. Howard Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Scan Elite & XP?
Well, that's true for XP Home. But, as I understand it, XP Pro is to replace Win 2k and is in fact NT6. Usually, MS discontinues OS's they've replaced. But the various W2k Servers are still current, and they still might sell W2k Pro to placate the inertia of corporations. Lloyd -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Op's Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2002 12:49 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Scan Elite & XP? I don't think that XP supersedes W2000.XP replaces 98,ME. Rob 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: Re:Computer size: RAID
My current system is an Athlon 1.4GHz with 1 80GB single drive and 2 40's in RAID0. The motherboard is an Iwill KK266-R and I won't get another. I hope your mobo doesn't use the Megaraid controller, because it has been a source of problems for me. My belief now is that, if I really need RAID, I will get a REAL RAID card such as the Adaptec 2400. I'll do that once my image files get too big for 1 drive, and I'll probably run RAID5. Initially, I had the RAID set up as the boot drive and had numerous corruptions and data loss. The computer without warning wouldn't boot. I'd have to fully restore. I've since made the 80GB the boot drive and (knock wood) this hasn't happened since. Incidentally, the 80 is not even on the RAID side of the mobo. It's in one of the standard IDE ports. The only option the megaRAID gives you to run a single disk is to make it a 1 disk stripe. That seems oxymoronic to me. I've read that the Highpoint controllers have a Just Plain Old Disk setting for that purpose. Oh, BTW, the RAID on my system doesn't bench any faster, and in some cases slower, than the 80. I'm using Quantum Fireballs in the RAID (the 80 is a Maxtor), and I read after the fact that they don't perform well in RAID0. One of the PC mags recently did an exhaustive test and concluded that RAID 0 is faster on writes, but slower on reads. For video editing, that extra write speed would be important. For stills, much less so. I'm planning on rearranging my system to get rid of the RAID. I plan to make one 40 the boot drive with OS, games, and maybe secondary backup partitions. The 80 would handle main apps and data partitions. The other 40 would be entirely for compressed backups. Lloyd -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of John Matturri Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2002 12:07 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Re:Computer size: RAID > > To carry disk performance to the max, go with > > a striped SCSI array of 15000 RPM drives! > > Very expensive, though. Also, one thing tends to lead to another: If > you use 15000 RPM drives, you soon have to start worrying about > keeping the whole machine from melting down in its own heat. > I'm getting a system with 1.5 GB of RAM and 2 80MB 7200 drives (CPU: Athlon 1800+). Aside from possible video-editing, would there be a reason to set the drives up as RAID-0 (which is supported on the motherboard I'm using so doesn't add to the cost). Opening and saving 128MB files might be faster but would PS in general be faster given that I assume there would be little need to go to the scratch disk with that much RAM. Trying to figure out whether any increased performance would be worth the loss of data if one of the drives goes. On my current system I use the second disk for daily incremental back-ups (without full mirroring) which would be useless with the level 0 RAID. How, also, does RAID interact with PS's desire for partitions? As for any future large video editing project it might just be better to dedicate a couple of drives in RAID to the editing at that point. Comments on my reasoning on this (or lack of it)? -- John Matturri words and images: http://home.earthlink.net/~jmatturr/ 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: Umax experience
Again, your experience is opposite to mine. The Umax website indicated that I would have to upgrade the firmware on my scanner to use it with WinXP. I had a several-email correspondence with Umax on this, getting pricing info, etc. They knew I was buying a used scanner, which does them no direct good. They gave me directions on how to find the firmware version so that I could get that info from the seller. When he informed me that the firmware was old, the Umax guy found out that they were out of stock. He offered to rob one of their scanners to get me the firmware prom. As it turned out, my unit worked fine with the old firmware. My Umax contact said that there was no other benefit to the new firmware, and to use the scanner as is. Lloyd -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of HPA Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 8:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Umax experience I have had a very poor experience with Umax, because the factory will not do email support and requires you to phone them. Even if your unit is under warranty you have to pay for the phone call, so my phone bill shows a charge of $15.75 for waiting over half an hour on hold, and that is PER CALL. If they send you the wrong part they want you to pay them $10 just to listen to your problem on the phone (you have to have your credit card in hand). The dealer who sold me the scanner spent five months trying to order a simple transparency cable for the scanner and could not get it from the factory, even though it is on their website as a standard part. So I had to do it. By the time I added up postage, phone bill, etc., this cable cost almost $100! I will never buy Umax again Tom Robinson 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: Umax experience
Laurie, Bummer on the Powerlook II. In general, I agree with everything you wrote below. In this particular case, I got lucky. I did research the site before I bought and found a Magicscan upgrade version that was XP compatible. I had actually been shopping for a scanner for contact sheets for awhile. I didn't want to put the $$$ in for a new Epson 1680. I narrowed my choice to either a used Epson 1600 or a new or used PLIII. I did take note that, for the longest, Umax's site stated that their scanners were not XP compatible. Totally amazing to me that they were that slow in upgrading. I bid on 1-2 epsons and did not bid on Powerlooks until I knew they had compatible software. Of course, I knew that I could use Vuescan or (gulp) buy Silverfast. Have you tried Vuescan with your PLII? The problem with the old firmware in PLIII's with XP was that it caused multiple device manager entries for the scanner. The new Magicscan and a registry fix on the Umax site caused my scanner to be listed properly without the new firmware. Lloyd -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Laurie Solomon Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2002 11:43 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Umax experience Lloyd, I have a Umax Powerlook II, which I like very much; but I have had problems getting it to function in twain mode under Windows XP when using upgraded Magicscan and Binuscan software. Upon checking the Umax web sight, I found no upgrades for that scanner when it came to software that would work with Win XP; a call to Umax did not help either. They suggested trying the Win 2000 upgrade which enabled the MagicScan twain to work so that the scanner could be used; but the Binuscan PhotoPerfect portion did not work. Moreover, for some reason, the MagicScan twain would not work with programs such as OmniPage and OmniForm. My point is that your experience seems to indicate that, as is often the case with many support staffs, they really do not always know what they are talking about when they give advice. In your case as in mine, it was not the scanner hardware or firmware that would not work with WinXP but the damn software, which they do not really keep up todate in terms of upgrading and which the web site is totally ineffective in providing good substantive information on. Their sight when it comes to support and upgrade information is lacking. Their telephone support service can be expensive as pointed out and generally not all that helpful even if you get through, despite the fact that the personnel may be very nice to deal with and attempt to be helpful. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: SS4000 on Windows XP
I'm running mine on XP Pro with no problems at all. Lloyd -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Edward F. VanderBush Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 10:49 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] SS4000 on Windows XP Is anyone running this scanner (non plus) on windows XP? Any problems? I am planning to get this scanner and need to do a reinstall and am wondering what to go with. Thanks, ED 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: Polaroid - scanner line ends and SS120 glasscarrier availabile soon
Art, I'm planning on asking some pointed questions too. I have contacted Polaroid about renewing my extended waranty on my SS4000. They are quite happy to do that, and I was told they would be selling scanners "for the rest of the year". So far, phone tag has delayed my decision. If I reup, that gets me to late May 2003 and I want to be assured that the scanners will be supported that long by Polaroid, not Microtek. My experience with Microtek support years ago would cause me to swap scanners before dealing with them. I hate to see the SS120 go. I believe it is superior to the Nikon and, based on my impression of their previous models, the Minolta. I had hoped to buy one someday, but soon isn't in the cards. The CDW ad says the SS120 Plus is discontinued. I'm hoping that just means an end to the Silverfast/Binuscan bundle and not the hardware. I doesn't make since to introduce a glass carrier for a product after it is out of production...does it? Lloyd -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 8:43 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Polaroid - scanner line ends and SS120 glasscarrier availabile soon Hi Simon, I am going to try to get some more details about this situation. Have you been told that this is try of all products in the Sprintscan line, or just the SS120? Also, are you sure this isn't just a situation for non-North American distribution. Lastly, it is certainly possible the name will be changed after a sell off of the division. I'll see what I can dig up about this. Art Simon Lamb wrote: > Two pieces of information gained from a chap at Polaroid digital. > > 1. As someone suggested a few days ago, once all remaining stock of > the Sprintscan range are sold there will be no more and production has > ceased. Firmware upgrades will continue to be made available when > required. > > 2. The glass carrier (a full length carrier the same size as the > existing 120 carrier) will be available to order from the end of next > week (in the UK at least, maybe now or sooner in the US) at a retail > price of £85 + VAT (cheap compared to the £300 Nikon carrier). It > will require a firmware upgrade which will be available on the > Polaroid web-site. > > I wonder and hope that someone might pick up the scanner line. I > think Polaroid, very much in the same vein as Apple, have taken the > basic Microtek technology and made a scanner that looks as good as it > scans. You can have form and function, and it is sad that Polaroid > will not be proving that in the future. > > Simon > 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: Monitor calibration offer, kind of OT
Alex, How do you like your Iiyama? I'm looking for a 19" and have narrowed down to either the 454 or the Viewsonic P95F+. Lloyd Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Scanner for contact sheets
I don't know whether Silverfast can separate 36 frames in a single scan on the Powerlook III, because I don't own it. I agree with you that it's overpriced, as are all versions of Silverfast. The company is a bunch of thieves. The Powerlook III can batch scan up to 12 separate frames using its film holders and the Umax Magicscan driver (or, I imagine, Viewscan). Lloyd -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Tim Atherton Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 9:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Scanner for contact sheets I think it's actually a function of the Silverfast software that comes with the scanner. not sure if you can get that for the smaller epsons (and it costs much more than it's worth). tim > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tomek > Zakrzewski > Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 2:23 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Scanner for contact sheets > > > Tim Atherton wrote: > > I just plonk neg sheets on the 8x10 tranny bed of my cheap/used Umax > > Powlerlook III - gives pretty nice "contact sheets" (main use for > > the powerlook is 8x10 film). > > I wrote improper topic of my initial message, it should have read > "Automatic batch scanning with moderate resolution". That's what I > really need. Apart from my LS-4000ED I also have Agfa Arcus 1200 > flatbed scanner and I scan my negs in acetate sheets with it, but even > without the sheets the quality of the images is awful from the start. > I need a scanner that is able to scan automatically the whole > roll, save it > to disk as separate images and the quality of the pictures should > be enough > for viewing and assessing sharpness, exposure etc and also good enough for > web presentation as 300x450 pixel jpegs. > I don't want to do it with my Ls-4000ED as it takes too much time, I risk > earlier breakup/cleaningg of the scanner and I don't want to buy the roll > film adapter. > > I saw the Epson 1680 working and that was it - the whole roll being > scanned while the operator went for his coffee. He scans these > pictures for printed > magazines he makes and the quality is just perfect for the purpose (it's > something like "Time Out" in London) > > Will the Epson 2450 do the trick, apart from that it can only scan 12 > frames in one batch? > > Regards > > Tomek > > -- > -- > 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] Sprintscan 4000 Plus Discontinued?
I read recently (here, I think) that someone had been informed that the Sprintscan 120 had been discontinued. I just checked the Polaroid website and, in fact, it is the Sprintscan 4000 Plus that has disappeared. The 120 and 45 are still shown. Has anyone read any announcements of the SS4000+'s demise? Naturally, I just upgraded to one. :-( Lloyd Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] JPEG2000 as archive format
Having just recently upgraded to Photoshop CS, I've been playing around with the JPEG2000 plugin. I'm considering using that format to save 16-bit film scans from a Sprintscan 4000 Plus using the "lossless" setting. This would help reduce the 115 Mb file size of those scans. (I'm using NEF for my Nikon camera files.) One problem I have is that I am now using Imatch as an Image management program. Imatch will catalog JPEG2000 only if I select the "JP2 Compatibility" option in the Pshop plugin. Adobe states generally that this causes color restrictions. And, I have to select the "restricted ICC profile" option in these images. I can't find a detailed explanation of exactly what limitations on color and color management this "restricted" profile or the use of JP2 compatibility causes as opposed to the extended JPF format. Does anyone have any thoughts On the suitability of lossless JPEG 2000 with and without JP2 compatibility as a scanner archive format? Thanks, Lloyd Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
