[filmscanners] Re: Cross processed negatives
Try this: Device tab: Media Type: Image Color Tab: Color Balance: None Preben From: Conor Twomey [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi all, Just a quick question, has anybody tried to scan in cross-processed negatives using Vuescan ? Everytime I scan them in the software seems to colour correct to give an image similar to that of normal processed negatives. The scanner I am using is the Canon FS-4000US. I tried mucking about with the Colour Balance but with no joy. Any help appreciated. Thanks in advance. Regards, Conor Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Batch processing, but keeping same folder hierarchy?
My files are ordered in a geographical folder hierarchy: i.e: europe/southern europe/italy/rome/cityscapes Does anyone know how to batch process (image size, tiff to jpeg, etc.) the whole hierarchy and save the results into the same hierarchy(overwriting the original files) or into an identical folder structure? Until now, I have manually moved the files into a copy of the hierarchy after processing them, but now I feel that the number of files and folders are getting out of hand. I use W2K - PS 7.0 and PSP, but I'd be happy to invest in a program that will do the trick! :-) TIA greetings Preben Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Batch processing, but keeping same folder hierarchy?
Hi Mike, Thank you for a very useful tip. It will do what I want - and more! Greetings Preben - Original Message - From: Mike Simmons [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2002 7:45 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Batch processing, but keeping same folderhierarchy? Thumbnailer does what you want for 25 USD. http://www.smalleranimals.com/thumb.htm Mike Simmons At 02:46 AM 8/3/2002, you wrote: My files are ordered in a geographical folder hierarchy: i.e: europe/southern europe/italy/rome/cityscapes Does anyone know how to batch process (image size, tiff to jpeg, etc.) the whole hierarchy and save the results into the same hierarchy(overwriting the original files) or into an identical folder structure? Until now, I have manually moved the files into a copy of the hierarchy after processing them, but now I feel that the number of files and folders are getting out of hand. I use W2K - PS 7.0 and PSP, but I'd be happy to invest in a program that will do the trick! :-) TIA greetings Preben --- - Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Re:Digital PIC
- Original Message - From: Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 6:59 AM Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Re:Digital PIC With all due respect, you are wrong for once... Once? You haven't been around long, eh? ;-) The newest LF digital backs are 12000 x 15990 pixels producing a file of 1.1GB in 48bit. It is the Better Light Super 8K-2 digital back. Its smaller sibling, the Super 6K-2 produces 9000 x 12000 pixels. Furthermore, they go from ISO 200-3200 in 1/10th of f-stop increments. Quite impressive! Phase One has the PowerPhase FX which gives you 10500 x 12.600 pixels, albeit only in 24bit - a file of 380mb. Aren't those scanning backs? If so, sorry, Anthony was right, as he said ONE-SHOT backs... Austin Austin, Antony unilaterally changed the parameters for the discussion to one shot backs - probably unintentionally However, here is my original posting for your info, and, as far as I can see, there's no mention or qualification in it refering to either scanning backs, one shot backs or even three shot backs. The medium/big format professional digital camera backs are now approaching or even surpassing 35mm film quality. -- To which Anthony replied: None of the LF or MF one-shot backs comes anywhere close to film quality. The latest PhaseOne H20 back for MF yields 4080x4080 pixels, or less than one-fourth of a medium-resolution scan of film in the same format. To which I replied: With all due respect, you are wrong for once... The newest LF digital backs are 12000 x 15990 pixels producing a file of 1.1GB in 48bit. It is the Better Light Super 8K-2 digital back. Its smaller sibling, the Super 6K-2 produces 9000 x 12000 pixels. Furthermore, they go from ISO 200-3200 in 1/10th of f-stop increments. Quite impressive! Phase One has the PowerPhase FX which gives you 10500 x 12.600 pixels, albeit only in 24bit - a file of 380mb. - I suggest we leave the dead horse, hide the whip and get on with less OT matters. :-) Happy Easter Monday Preben 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:Digital PIC
- Original Message - From: Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Should we then abandon film and go back to glass plates??? Film NEEDS to be flexible, at least for 35mm and MF, as it rolls up. It is also held flat (as can be) with a pressure plate. A CCD does NOT need, or want to be, flexible in this application. Again, my question is why would one want a flexible CCD in this application? Regards, Austin - Ah, yes.. Why indeed? Maybe you stumbled upon the answer in your statement above: A CCD does NOT need, or want to be, flexible in this application. Maybe it really WANTS to be flexible... I know, it sounds far out, but sometimes, there are more between heaven and earth... And, apart from that, I haven't got the faintest idea... Not a clue! And yet, let's see, perhaps the answer is staring us in the face. - It all started with Art saying: The next thing I'd like to see, if that is the case, is a digital camera that can be updated with a higher res CCD/MOS or whatever, so the whole camera doesn't become obsolete so quickly. Then I wrote: A couple of years ago I bought a few shares in Scitex Inc. after I learned that they had patented a superthin, flexible CCD, I believe it had 3 or 6 megapixels. I had visions (in ungarded moments) of a high density 5GB mini harddisk, in the shape a 35mm film casette with a thin, flexible, 24x36 mm, high resolution CCD sticking out of it. Just dump it into your normal camera and shoot away or change back to film if you prefered that or ran out of storage space P.S. I sold the shares with a loss not too long ago...:-) Preben - To which you quasi retorted: Why on EARTH would you want a flexible CCD for use in a camera of the type you are talking about? Austin I answered (retreatingly): I quote they had patented a superthin, flexible CCD unquote. Because that is what they had invented and patented. But as far as I'm concerned, it might as well have been superthin and stiff... However, I'm sure that you agree that a certain degree of flexibility can sometimes be useful... :-) Preben - Then you rightfully stated: Not in a CCD that has to maintain coplainarity to a very small tolerance due to very limited depth of focus! Austin -- I consequently suggested: Should we then abandon film and go back to glass plates??? Or perhaps all use the Contax III, which vacuum'ed the film to the pressure plate. Anyway, I imagine that it would be quite a bit stiffer than film and held firmly in place by the cameras pressure plate a.o. But that is just my imagination as I have never seen the CCD itself or the physical specs. Preben -- Which brings us back to your question: Again, my question is why would one want a flexible CCD in this application? Ah, yes.why indeed..? Answers on a open postcard, please...:-) Preben Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Re:Digital PIC
Art wrote: I'm still waiting for the reusable film that can be recharged after the images are taken off of it. Preben wrote Art, do you mean almost like a digital camera? :-) Preben Art wrote: snip I haven't yet found a media card that stores the equivalent of 7400 megabytes (36-38 exposures at about 200 megs each), costs under $5, and fits into a canister that weighs about 2 ounces, and requires no energy source to maintain the latent image for years, have you? The medium/big format professional digital camera backs are now approaching or even surpassing 35mm film quality. So we are definitely on the way... and it seems to be a highway with no speed limits! :-) I have a couple of 1GB IBM microdrives for my digital camera (which is not in the league mentioned above) and I just bought several Maxtor 160GB harddrives for 250 US each. So for the sake of the (amicable) argument: If you consider the price of film and development to be US$ 12,- per roll (you will have to develop if you want to see an image and latent images, I belive, deteriorates faster that developed ones), then each 200MB picture stored will cost 33 cents. (This method even forces you to pay for storage of failed pix). On a Maxtor hard drive I can store 1130 200mb images compressed losslessly to 133MB each. That is 22 cents each - and this does not take into account that you can edit all failed shots out of your storage needs. The way I work (sloppily), that is at least 20% on average. Harddrives, like film, can be stored without the need for energy supply. And considering that they contain at least the equivalent of 35 rolls of film, the weight is more or less the same and they take up less space. Unlike film, they will not degrade the quality of the image over time. Furthermore, corrections, search facilities, cross referencing, presentation, delivery, sales etc. are all much easier from a digital than an analog archive. Of course, you also have to pay for a computer system etc But I assume that we already have that! :-) Greetings Preben Art wrote: snip I haven't yet found a media card that stores the equivalent of 7400 megabytes (36-38 exposures at about 200 megs each), costs under $5, and fits into a canister that weighs about 2 ounces, and requires no energy source to maintain the latent image for years, have you? Art Art wrote: I'm still waiting for the reusable film that can be recharged after the images are taken off of it. Preben wrote Art, do you mean almost like a digital camera? :-) Preben 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:Digital PIC
Art, My previous answer crossed your message below, sorry about that. Ok, lets suppose that we got re-usable film tomorrow: How would you store the images after you have taken them off the film at 200MB each - in order to re-use it? Also, at what price do you think a re-useable film would sell? Still 5 dollars? Lastly, unless you want to run to the lab on an hourly basis, you would still have to carry dozens of (expensive?) rolls with you...and possibly computers, memory cards, chargers etc... When I travel, I often carry 75-150 rolls, depending on the length of the job and I am not always happy to develop locally. However, its a very nice thought with great potential for some market segments. greetingsPreben - Original Message - From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2002 2:11 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Re:Digital PIC Digital Cameras certainly have their place, and you'll get no argument about it. It is just that an erasable reusable film would have many advantages digital cameras do not. It is still the cheapest method to temporarily (assuming it could be reused) storage method. When I go on a shoot, or a long travel, I bring dozens of rolls of film. To have that kind of storage with a digital, I have to buy and bring a bunch of flash mem cards, or a hard drive or a laptop, and a lot of batteries, and chargers, etc. Further you can update your image capture technology just by buying a new roll of film... try to update the MOS or CCD sensor in your digital camera! So, if the technology of film could be made reusable, it would bridge the two worlds. Art Ezio wrote: You missed to mention that DIGITAL FILM is re-usable. Try to multiply 5$ of a cheap film (cost without dev. and contact sheet etc. ) by 200 ... or more ... the result will be leading to a good reason to go digital. Also , digital means post-processing capabilities : color , contrast, framing etc. etc. easy and fast and OVERALL under my personal control and decision ... while films are expensive and almost impossible to post-process properly unless you have a lab at your disposal ... I don't have that and I guess the amateurs and some pro do not have also. In my opinion digital doesn't substitute ordinary films , but it is a great integration either for amateurs either for pros . Sincerely Ezio Ezio's e-photography site : www.lucenti.com 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: depth of focus in scanners old Kodachromes
Thomas, Thank you for an interesting technique and the insight on Kodachromes... Preben - Original Message - From: Thomas Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2002 8:40 PM Subject: [filmscanners] depth of focus in scanners old Kodachromes I scan historic Kodachromes, which are often badly warped. I have SS4000 and VS. I borrowed an idea from the Leitz Focomat enlarger. This works great on warped slides. I remove the film from the mount. I use one anti-newton ring glass out of a Gepe slide mount and put it on top of the slide. I use #5 or 6 frames in the Polaroid film holder because they have full borders. This puts glass on top of the slide to flatten it, but none underneath between the scanner and the image. No matter how bad the slide is, the scan is tack sharp from edge to edge. From February 1939 to about 1952, Kodak put a varnish on the processed slides to help prevent scratches. (after that time, the processing was modified and the emulsion was chemically hardened). I have been using Edwall film cleaner to remove the varnish. Removing the varnish helps considerably. I heard from National Geographic last week that they use Anchor P-150 PIT-GO Film clean to do this. (the change in processing was accompanied by a change in the mount. If you have a red-back Kodachrome with two lines of text, you can assume that 99% of them are varnished. One-line redbacks are 100% varnished. The white back I have never seen varnished.) I bought Vuescan, Silverfast full version and downloaded the new Insight scanner programs, and spent days comparing them. Vuescan gave the best shadow detail of any of them. The early Kodachromes are very contrasty. I bought several extra film and slide holders for the SS4000 on ebay and have made modified holders for odd size slide films, including the 828 bantam size (looks like a 35mm but is a little larger) and the pro-instamatic square size. Thomas 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: Re:Digital PIC
I'm still waiting for the reusable film that can be recharged after the images are taken off of it. Art, do you mean almost like a digital camera? :-) Preben Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: New price on Flextight Photo in UK
- Original Message - From: Simon Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] snip Now, given the recent price reductions, for another £1,000 more than the competition, I can't see any reason to consider any other scanner over the Flextight. I am always open to contrary views though, and if anyone can provide good reasons not to go the Flextight route (barring saving the money) then I would take all advice on board. snip While I agree that the Imacon scanner line is undoubtedly high quality, here's a couple of points to remember if you are working with 35mm: You have to unmount/remount each slide and position it in the curved film holder one at a time - this is a major hasle if you are scanning a lot of slides. Second, the Flextight Photo is only 3200 ppi - not REALLY sufficient 35mm resolution for double page spreads in magazines. So, I would have to splash out for the big brother, giving 5700 ppi - but now we are talking a lot more money. I have been very happy with Polaroid's SS4000 - scanned 11.000 slides so far - but there are, fairly frequently, moments where a polarized, dark blue sky on a Velvia comes out a mess - and I wish for an Imacon, somehow hoping that it could solve the problem. I tried the SS120, which I think is a very good scanner if you do medium format, but I did not see any improvement - worth the investment - of my 35 mm scans of troublesome slides. I would like to see the Minolta Multi Pro's 4800ppi and claimed high dynamic range compared with the Imacon Flextight II or is it now III? Preben Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: SprintScan 4000 Dust on Mirror
If the only symptom is a reduced light output, perhaps you can compensate with the lamp setting under options, special ? Preben - Original Message - From: Jeff Stuart [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 1:59 AM Subject: [filmscanners] SprintScan 4000 Dust on Mirror First the warning: unless you keep a dust cover on your scanner when it is not in use you will eventually have to take it apart and clean the reflex mirror. It never occurred to me to use a cover since the optics are deep in the guts of the beast and, I thought, protected from dust. The problem is the scanner is open at both ends, air flows right through. Unless you live in a clean room, that air will carry micro-fine dust which will settle out. The SS4000 has its lamp over the film, reflected by a mirror exposed through a small (3/4 x 3/16) opening in the carrier assembly. Dust falls through this opening and settles on the mirror. Symptom is a loss of sensitivity in dense areas of the scan. It took 14 months for mine to become marginal, and my office isn't especially dusty. Your mileage of course will vary. If your scanner is young, take it from me, make and use a dust cover and you'll never need to know what's in there In every other way I am happy with the SS4000, so I won't second-guess the design. But given the configuration, they should include a dust cover to begin with, in my somewhat jaded opinion. Here's the question: does anybody have a service manual, know where to get a service manual, or have experience cleaning this contraption? I fabricated a little tiny brush and got much of the dust off the mirror (and onto the lens most likely), but to clean it properly looks like it will require removing the carrier assembly and/or a very special little tiny vacuum cleaner. Anyone know? (I have no fear when it comes to taking thing apart except when I see springs. Springs to me are like snakes to Indiana Jones. The carrier assembly has springs, bunches of springs, ugh.) BTW, I have an email discussion underway with Polaroid support, but I am not optimistic this will lead to a clean mirror anytime soon. Thanks, cheers, Jeff Stuart Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Multi-coloured lines in images...
A big thank you to Arthur, Ian, Les, Mark for replies to this problem I'm glad to hear that changing your scanner, Ian, apparently solved your problem. As I implied, if not stated directly, these lines are not from the scanner per se: when I move the scanner to another computer, they don't appear. Also, when I use another scanner with this computer the lines still appear. If I transfer clean files from another computer some of them will end up having lines! They are static, they don't blink or flash and they don't move around the image if you re-open it. Although if you re-open it there might be an additional one. If I save the image to another computer, the lines are still there. They seem to appear in PSP as well as PS. I'm still trying to solve this and working on suggested remedies - but as it is OT, I suggest that you contact me off-list at [EMAIL PROTECTED] if you have any (much appreciated) further suggestions. Preben - Original Message - From: Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 9:53 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Multi-coloured lines in images... Preben, I have exactly the same problem on my HP Officejet 1150c scanner. I cleaned the glass, mirrors, lens and even the ccd window but no improvement. I changed the cold cathode lamp with no improvement. As this problem is also seen when use the Officejet as a stand alone copier it eliminates any issue with my computer, e.g. video card. I suspected that the ccd is failing and tried to mask off a section of it to see if that section still showed the problem. This was impossible to do due to the calibration sequence which because of the masking was getting too little light and reported that the lamp was failing (but it was new) Two days ago I bought a new 2400dpi flatbed scanner for not much more than the 250UK pounds which HP wanted just to look at my Officejet. Ian - Original Message - From: Preben S. Kristensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 11:40 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Multi-coloured lines in images... Good evening from Italy. I'm experiencing between one and four thin lines in almost half my images. The length, position and orientation seems completely random. The colour is dependent of the background colour (it is the complimentary colour more or less) and the thickness of the lines are mostly one or two pixels, but can also more rarely be three or four pixels wide. I first noticed them in connection with scanning and thought that one of the scanners had a problem, but I have since seen them on transferred images (there was nothing wrong with the images on the other computer. I suspect a loose connection in the computer somewhere, but I have reseated all the cards, cables and memory sticks and I still get the problem. SS4000 - MSI 2380 raid MB - 1.3 GB DDR - Athlon 2000+ - Raid 0 150 GB - matrox 450 (32MB) - Sony FW900 - adaptec 2904 - W2K - PS 6.01 and going nuts! Any solutions??? Or is it Nero, the black sheep's long distance curse? :-) Preben -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: ADMIN: List charter alterations
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I therefore propose a few revisions to the list charter. (1)On Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays, list discussion. cut Tony, Are these times GMT based? Also, would it not be a good idea for you to be able to remote-zap offenders' hard disks - again regardless of sort or make? Apart from these minor things, great! I'm confident that it will create much needed order on an otherwise chaotic list. Preben Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Digital ICE
and Digital PIC our new process for scanning exposed undeveloped film. Jack, This sounds interesting, but how will it work?? Preben Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: JPEG2000
Has anybody on the list tried the JPEG2000 file compression. Preben Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: slide holders for sprintscan
Dan, This is such a common thing to happen that it must be considered a design fault - and I think that replacement holders should be offered for free or at a particular low price (cost price?) by Polaroid - after all, it's a piece of plastic - what say, David?? That not being the case: I have quite a few slide holders, most of which have had broken (cracked) flexible slide arms (around 15). I have repaired them using the very liquid (for high penetration and making a mess :-) ) version of superglue. Open up the crack by pressing moderately hard on the slide arm while applying the glue (don't break it completely off!). Close it and insert a little folded piece of tissue betwen holder and arm to close the crack and create a bit of pressure while drying. Dry off excess glue at once. If this fails, then - repeat above operation - glue a small, oblong piece (say 4 x 6 mm) of plastic on the side of the arm where the crack is (one millimeter thickness is enough). Take care that the thickness allows the slide to be inserted (try it out without glue first on a working arm). Preben - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 9:35 PM Subject: [filmscanners] slide holders for sprintscan I called microtek to see if I could get one of their slideholders for their artixscan 400T, since it will work with the sprintscan 4000. They will sell me one for $60. Yes, that's SIX-OH DOLLARS -- WOW. Even polaroid sold them for about $15, and BH/Adorama used to sell them for $12. If you had premium support through polaroid, you used to be able to buy them discounted for as low as $9. But, sixty bucks!? I even had her find one and look at it and describe it to me to be sure this was, in fact, that very item. I think I'll pass while I still have one that's fully in tact. -- --dan Photo Gallery: http://www.danheller.com/ 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
