[filmscanners] Re: Canon S9000 test better than Epson 1280
The review does not seen to address the issue of print longevity. We know what to expect with the Epson. Does anyone have longevity information for the Canon, ie; has Wilhelm tested it? Regards, Ron Carlson - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 11:43 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Canon S9000 test better than Epson 1280 I just read this review which says the Canon S9000 images look better than the Epson 1280. Any one here have any personal experience with the Canon? How good is the Color profile? http://www.techtv.com/products/hardware/story/0,23008,3373126,00.html Bob Kehl -- -- 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: Polacolor Insight version 5.5.x
Hi David, I presume PCI will support the SS4000 as well as the SS4000+. Can I download it without removing version 4.5? If so, can I install it without removing version 4.5? I ask because, up to this point I have only needed to scan slides and my set up is working fine for that but I'd like to start scanning negatives as well. This is a kind of critical time period work flow wise for me and I'm reluctant to change anything that might make it diffiult to restore my status quo. I have two versions of Photoshop on my hard drive, why not two versions of PCI ?. As you know, I'm a big fan of Polaroid and I'm glad you guys are hanging in there. If only Polaroid could swim on the merits of it's scanner products alone. Best of luck, Ron Carlson - Original Message - From: Hemingway, David J [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 7:54 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Polacolor Insight version 5.5.x Hopefully my late next week PolaColor Insight 5.5.x will be post on the support section of www.polaroidwork.com. As usual this latest version is available at no charge by download. This version has dropped support for the Sprintscan 35 scanners and the Sprintscan 45/45Pro. There are previous version supporting these scanners available for download. The new features are as follows: 1. Support added for the SprintScan 4000 Plus scanner - This scanner features Firewire (IEEE 1394) or USB connections and offers a color bit depth of 14-bits per channel. 2. SprintScan 120 interframe gap support - On the Preview tab, a new Media type now allows you to preview an entire 6 x 24 cm, medium format film strip. This provides greater flexibility in finding and cropping all medium format film sizes. Note: In this version of the software, you are still limited to scanning a maximum length of 9 cm. Panoramic formats will be fully supported in the next release of PolaColor Insight. 3. Resampling - If you scan at less than the scanner's optical resolution, you can now select an interpolation method, which will let you produce a higher quality low resolution scan. 4. New Film Profiles - New color slide profiles have been provided for all supported scanners. This feature adds better color fidelity and reduced noise in dark colors. 5. Additional Preferences - A new Preference allows you to turn off rotation on final scans. This can speed up the processing of large images. Edit menu Preferences Scan tab. -- -- 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: Quad-black inks/Epson ink usage
If, as I believe, the Epson 1290 is similar or the same as the 1280 in the US, it is a six color printer with a cartridge that has a chip on it. If I am correct, the 1290 will not be able to be adapted to a quad ink set for black and white prints. I used to follow the Epson printer list referenced by Tony and at that time, most of the black and white printers (the people not the machines) were using the Epson 1160 or 1200 printers and going with the piezo system developed by Jon Cone and available from a company called No More Carts. If I wanted to go that route, I would contact Jon Cone and/or No More Carts and get their recommendation regarding which printer (machine) is the best current option. Hope this is helpful. No More Carts and probably Jon Cone as well should have a web site. Regards, Ron Carlson - Original Message - From: Tomasz Zakrzewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 10:13 AM Subject: [filmscanners] OT: Quad-black inks/Epson ink usage Below is my question I originally posted to www.photo.net but maybe because of badly chosen time (Christmas) no one responded. I'd appreciate your help. I want to try bw digital fine-art printing with Quad Black inks from Lyson with Epson 1290 or 890 printer. What average ink usage do you experience? How often do you change the black color ink cartridges? I'm also curious about the usage of Epson original inks when printing color images. An additional question: can I get equaly good results with Quad Black in Canon S800 printer as with Epsons? It has the benefit of removable cartridges and heads so I could switch from color to bw without a problem. If you answer, please state print format (A4/A3) so that I can calculate cost of a single printout in photo-quality. Regards Tomasz Zakrzewski www.zakrzewski.art.pl -- -- 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
Re: filmscanners: Polaroid SS4000 / 4000+ / 120 ???
David, does this imply that the 4000+ and the 120 have the same or very similar Dynamic Range ?? Regards, Ron Carlson - Original Message - From: Hemingway, David J [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 11:57 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Polaroid SS4000 / 4000+ / 120 ??? Lloyd, The SS4000+ will be selling for less than the prices you mentioned although not for the current SS4000 price. Hope that will take some of the sting away but frankly I don't own anything electronic that is not worth a mere fraction of what I paid for it two years ago. If you sold you current scanner for $300 - $500 and applied that to a new plus you will be in good shape and you still will be able to get those great sharp images at maximum OD in a single, time saving pass . Also in hindsight I would have sold my Polaroid stock a year ago!! :) Thanks for buying Polaroid in the first place!! Regards David -Original Message- From: Lloyd O'Daniel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 6:36 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: 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: X-ray scanners/etc
It seems to me the question is whether the suspension of the rule is reserved to the FAA and whether, in fact the FAA has suspended the rule as opposed to rule being ignored by local security inspectors. I would feel a lot better about not being able to have my film hand inspected if I could believe there was some rational basis to the notion that having film x-rayed somehow improved security rather than being simply a convenience for the local security people. I believe that some local security people are using 9/11 as an excuse for a power trip and I dont think it has to be the way I experienced it after 9/11. Regards, Ron Carlson - Original Message - From: Jeff Spirer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 10:26 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: X-ray scanners/etc FAR 108.25 http://www.faa.gov/avr/AFS/FARS/far-108.txt Note that (b)(3) says that rules can be suspended fairly arbitrarily, although it is couched in language that makes that a bit obscure, as it states everything in terms of certificate holders rather than the public. However, this is the way in which the entire regulation is written. At 08:56 AM 11/25/01, Robert Meier wrote: --- Jeff Spirer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Having read the entire FAA regulations, I will point out that the regulations have ALWAYS allowed for immediate suspension of the film check provision. The right to suspend is not in any way connected to 9/11. Jeff, can you provide a link to the text that allows the suspension of hand checking film. Just for my personal interest. Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month. http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1 Jeff Spirer Photos: http://www.spirer.com One People: http://www.onepeople.com/
Re: filmscanners: Novice scanner
John, it may be that your banding problem is scanner related but usually banding is a printer problem. If you haven't already done so, read page 73 of your 1270 owners manual. After a year of no problems, I had to align my print heads to get rid of vertical banding that suddenly started appearing. If you need to go through that proceedure, you may need to go through it a number of times before the test patterns are correct. I had to use a 10X loup to read the patterns. Horizonal banding is usually fixed be cleaning the print heads. That is a simpler process but you may need to repeat it two or more times. I presume that you know that sharpening can greatly increase the apparent grain you are seeing. Sometimes you can help by selecting the sky (if thats where the apparent grain problem appears or is worst), applying the gausian blur or the dust and scratch filter, then reversing your selection and just sharpening the rest of your immage. The difficulty is in the selection process for me. If you really want to learn this stuff, I't suggest you get a copy of REAL WORLD PHOTOSHOP 5 by David Blatner and Bruce Fraser. You can probably find it on the web for under $35. Do not get the 6 version unless you plan to upgrade your software. If you cann't find it, let me know and I'll see what I can do. Good luck, Ron Carlson - Original Message - From: John Pendley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 6:44 AM Subject: filmscanners: Novice scanner Hello everybody, I'd like to introduce myself and ask for some help. I've been lurking for about a week and haven't seen anything aimed low enough that I could profit from it--at least not now. I'm a retired teacher (English); I have been an avid amateur photographer for even longer than I taught. For years, I did my own BW work in a wet darkroom. I mention these things only to give you some indication of my helplessness and frustration with newfangled technology. I have an Acer ScanWit 2720S and Epson 1270 printer, and I'm using Photoshop 5. The scanner sat here for months while all sorts of friends and technical support people tried to keep Windows 98 from installing its SCSI card right where it created an IRQ conflict. Windows XP saved the day, and I've taken my first tiny steps. Here are some of the problems I've encountered. I'm sure all of them are elementary to you--in fact, I hope they are. ...All of the prints I've made so far, color and BW, exhibit excessive grain. I'm told that it isn't really grain, and I agree that it probably isn't since it is quite prominent in BW images shot with Ilford Pan F, a film that has no grain problems. ...In color prints, this grain has color. A shot of a white church has no apparent evidence of it in lighter areas, but in mid-range areas, it is distracting. The white walls of the church look like they have measles: there are tightly spaced red dots everywhere. The same is true of the shingled roof, though some of these dots are green and maybe other colors as well. BTW, everything I've done so far has been on Epson Premium Glossy paper. ...Some of the prints are banded, but not all. In one case, there even appears to be banding in the scan! But in scans that have no apparent banding, I still get banded prints at times. ...I'm very frustrated that I can't dodge and burn in BW images. I've read an article about simulating these functions by using multiple layers, but I haven't learned about layers, yet, and the whole thing was over my head. I feared that this technology would not satisfy me after so many years in a darkroom, but I thought it would at least give me acceptable results in color. So far, it's worse than I expected. I'm sure that much of the problem is due to my lack of knowledge and experience with the software. I also suspect that some of it may be the fault of the scanner. I've thought about upgrading the scanner. Recent threads have concentrated so much on the Nikon models and their problems with DOF, so I'm leery of buying a Nikon. A friend who has the Coolscan 4000 ED talks like he wishes he had his Polaroid SprintScan 4000 back. But Polaroid's business problems are not encouraging. Not much has been said in the past week about the Canonscan 4000. I've read glowing reviews of it on the web, and its price is certainly attractive. It seems slow but excellent in all other respects, and I'm probably never going to be one who must scan large numbers of images in a short time. I know nothing about Minolta scanners except what I've read here. The problems I mentioned about the results I am now getting are the most discouraging. If they are easily solved, the ScanWit may be all I need, although I do like large prints. If you think a change in scanners would help, I'd be interested in your recommendations. Regards, John Pendley
Re: filmscanners: Slide scanner question.
Hi Eric; You're going to get conflicting answers from different folks on this list. I have the SS4000 and love it and I wouldn't consider the other two for my purposes. If you think you may want to crop your images and you want to be able to make the largest prints you can out of the resulting file, you will want the most resolution you can get. Every thing else being equal, 4000 dpi beats 2700 dpi for file size every time. You no doubt know that Polaroid has filed chapter 11. You have to make your own judgement relative to that. I've had my SS4000 for a year and a half and made hundreds of scans with great results and no problems. For me, ICE is a non issue because with the SS4000, I wouldn't use it if I had it. If you have scratched slides or work in a dusty environment, you experience might be different. Oh yes, I sell fine art nature and wild life prints so I'm a little fussy. Regards, Ron Carlson - Original Message - From: Eric [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 12:48 PM Subject: filmscanners: Slide scanner question. hiya there, I have a quick question for the group here. I am looking for a new slide scanner.. Right now I have a Photosmart scanner with Vuescan software and it works ok, but with tough slides or dark slides they don't scan quite that well. I have been looking at three different scanners. Nikon LS IV Coolscan Nikon Supercoolscan 2000 Polaroid sprint scan 4000 I know someone who has the LS 2000 Scanner and loves it, and I can get one for around $750.00 new . I also have heard about the Polaroid scanner and the 200 rebate they are offering.. Does anyone know about the Nikon LS IV coolscan and a comparison between the three of them? I know some of the specs. of all of them, but what is the best one overall? Thanks Eric
Re: filmscanners: FS4000
Anyone having after sales warranty problems with Polaroid equipment should contact David Hemingway. I know of NOT one and I've been on this list most of the time for the last 20 months. If you've been following the the list, you must know that no other scanner manufactures has a presence here. I have mostly a high regard for Canon equipment ( all my camera equipment is Canon ) but I find your comment about the SS44000 at best , missleading. Ron Carlson - Original Message - From: John Rylatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: filmscanners [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 8:10 PM Subject: filmscanners: FS4000 Having followed the comments on this list for several months now, it appears to me that the FS4000 has had the least problems as experienced by other users, when compared to SS4000 (after sales warranty) and Silverfast (upgrades), depth of field with Nikon etc, and the price is right. I have seen only one negative comment on the FS4000, and that was due to a noisy filmholder feed. My OS is Windows Me with 512 Mb RAM, USB connectors, and Paint Shop Pro 7.04. As a result I am looking to purchase (for non commercial use) the FS4000 on the US market. Does anyone know who is offering the best deal? Comments appreciated. Regards, John.
Re: filmscanners: Website ref. re - Pixels per inch vs DPI
In this context, you are right on Denise. Regards, Ron - Original Message - From: Denise E. Kissinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 7:03 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Website ref. re - Pixels per inch vs DPI The Canon Elan is an excellent camera (I have one) and everyone knows that it's the quality of the lens not the camera that you need. Denise - Original Message - From: Paul Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 2:06 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Website ref. re - Pixels per inch vs DPI well thats an astonishing amount of work on this site, and very interesting reading, but what dropped my jaw was that he did the tests on a Canon Elan with a Canon 28-105mm lens to judge the quality of 35mm vs 5x4 (among other things) with this is plainly ridiculous I'm not trying to be a snob here, but really, you gotta get hold of a good pro 35mm camera before doing such tests, paul http://www.users.qwest.net/~rnclark/scandetail.htm
Re: filmscanners: NikSharpener Pro
Thanks to all who responded. I found it.Regards, Ron - Original Message - From: Les Berkley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 1:26 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: NikSharpener Pro On 9/10/01 6:59 AM, Ron Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Les, I looked but couldn't find it. Where on Katrin's web site did you find it. Regards Ron Hi! It's in the Tutorial Files section under one of the later chapters (I forget which). It is called smartsharpen.atn or something very close. Les
Re: filmscanners: NikSharpener Pro
Hi Les, I looked but couldn't find it. Where on Katrin's web site did you find it. Regards Ron - Original Message - From: Les Berkley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2001 12:24 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: NikSharpener Pro On 9/9/01 9:35 PM, Brian D. Plikaytis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom, I find your comments intriguing. Could I ask a few questions? I find that when I sharpen using Photoshop tools, there is oftentimes an artificial dark or light line (sharpening artifact) that appears at the juxtaposition or boundary of a dark and light area. This causes me to spend a good deal of time cleaning these things up. Does this this sharpening plugin eliminate this problem? If it does I would say the price was worth it. I would be most interested in your observations on this. thanks, Brian Hi! I'm sure the legendary Johnny Deadperson will weigh in on this, but I find Nik Sharpener utterly useless-- it ALWAYS oversharpens, no matter what settings I use. I can do a better job with careful settings on PS's USM tool, sharpening individual channels, etc. The BEST way is to use one of the PS Actions that creates a custom edge mask for you image before you apply USM. I forget the URL for Johnny's versions, but there is also a very good one from Katrin Eismann at www.digitalretouch.org. Les
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Give up guys. This fellow knows it all. He doesn't need us so we'd be well advised not to bother reacting to his nonsence. Regards, Ron - Original Message - From: Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 11:29 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging Johnny writes: you know how it'll turn out Virtually everyone uses the same machines. I'd be very hard pressed to identify the work of one lab as opposed to another in film development.
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
How about a third as expensive. I've hauled film around in my carry-on lugage for years and to all parts of the world including Russa, East Africa, and China and never had a problem although sometimes the film was scanned eight to twelve times before I got it home. Thats for ISO 100 to 400 film. I understand it's a different matter for the really fast stuff. At any rate, I've never been refused hand inspection at the carry-on inspection station when I've requested it. I always repack my film in clear plastic cans (no longer necessary with Kodak slide films) and then into one quart clear zip-lock bags. Each bag will hold 15 rolls of 35 mm film. Regards, Ron - Original Message - From: Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 3:39 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging Buy film at your destination, and have it developed there before you return. Unless you are venturing into the Third World (and even if you are, sometimes), this will give you photographs just as clean as taking your own film with you in both directions, and the danger of fogging (or other unpleasantness) is eliminated. I've never understood why photographers lug hundreds of rolls of film around the world when film and development are available practically everywhere on the planet. What's so special about film and development at home? - Original Message - From: Lynn Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 22:59 Subject: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging Some weeks ago there was a thread about fogged negs from airport X-rays. This is to put everyone on notice that if you travel in the US, fogging is a strong possibility, because it just happened to me on a trip from Cleveland to Seattle--neither of which are particularly effective smuggling ports. I am not from Jamaica, I am not Black (well, not very much, anyway--not noticeably), and my family has been out of the smuggling business for at least 300 years. Yet my film got nuked, either at Cleveland Hopkins or at SeaTac (I'd weigh it as 70% likely SeaTac, on the conservative side--there's little need to take Ohio pot to Seattle!) This definitely pisses me off, and I wrote and sent corroberating pic to the (US) FCC in charge--for whatever good that will do. I'm hoping that the people who control air traffic in the US can at least read! But judging from the people I've seen at the check-in gates, I wouldn't count on it. :-( Anyone wishing to dialogue with me on this subject, please contact me off-list, because I frankly don't have time to survey the List at this point in time. I'm just coming on--then dropping off again--to warn you all to use the lead bags when you travel (as if that would help), or buy film at point of destination and mail it back home. What a complete PITA. Best regards--LRA PS--I really miss you guys, but it can't be helped. :-) _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Re: filmscanners: Change the flamin' subject line!
Amen! I had 116 messages in my inbox when I downloaded my mail tonight and 31 of them were from Anthony most of them repeating some bull about Polaroid primarily reflecting a closed mind. He's not going to change his mind guys, why do you bother to try to enlighten him? At least take the OT stuff off list. REgards Ron - Original Message - From: Mark T. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 5:11 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Change the flamin' subject line! Jeez, guys. If you put half the effort into upgrading that you put into arguing philosophical minutiae, all of your systems could be updated and put through a rigorous crash testing program by now. :) And when things drift off-topic, howz about remembering to change the subject line? Then those who are completely disinterested (or is it just me?) can trash the messages with nary a glance... mark t At 11:46 AM 27/08/01 +0200, you wrote: Can you guarantee that every one of my applications will run on it without change? How do I support my 1800 Type 1 fonts, for example? How does it handle dongles? How well does it work with PPTP and DSL? ad infinitum
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Hi Andrew. This was a subject of intense discussion on this list about a year ago last spring. From those threads I concluded that the gold dye CDR's were the most stable. As I understand it the patents for the gold dye is or was owned by Mitsui and I have used Mitsui gold CDR's exclusively since a year ago last May. Kodak also makes CDR's using the gold dye (presumably under licience) (or at least they did and I believe they are equally well regarded). For a source, I use Cascade Media ww.( cascademedia.net/cgi-bin/cascade/cdr ). The last box I bought cost me $32.50 for a box of 25. So far so good - no problem. Regards, Ron - Original Message - From: Andrew Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 7:04 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans? What CDRs would be the good quality ones? Thanks! Andrew Robinson Tony Sleep wrote: On Mon, 6 Aug 2001 19:01:11 +0100 Mark Edmonds ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Basically, I am looking for a long term (20 years+) storage medium to archive my scans on. I don't have faith in CDR a STUFF CUT Any advice on this matter gratfully received! Good quality CDR should last a lot longer than that, 50-100+ years. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: 35mm filmscanner choice
Hi James, Before you decide, consider whether you will always be using the entire area of your 35mm negatives. I do a lot of song bird photography and song birds are quite small and shy. As a consequence, in order to get an image that takes up a significant portion of my final print, I'm often using only a portion of the 35mm frame. My prints range in size from not quite 7X10 up to 12X18. For a 11X14 print, I'd like to start with a file size of at least 30 MB. For me, 2900 dpi would be a significant handicap. I have a SS 4000 which I dearly love. I clean my slides well before scanning and I work in a low dust enviroment so I don't really miss ICE. I have no direct experience with Genuine Fractals but for modest file enlargements, I have read a number of posts on this or another list (I don't recall where) compareing GF to Bicubic interpolation in Phototshop which I use all the time. That said, I'd really like to have a copy of Genuine Fractals. There used to be a trial version for down load on the net but I heard that Alta Mira (sp?) sold GF to Corel. I'm a Canon camera fan but in scanners, I'd go with Polaroid. I'm sure you'll get some advice to the contrary. Seems many on this list either love or hate one make or another. Good luck with your choice. For an impartial statement on Quality, you might want to check how many refurbished units are available on E-Bay for each brand. Regards, Ron Carlson - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2001 5:04 PM Subject: filmscanners: 35mm filmscanner choice [apologies if this already posted] I have been a long time list lurker and will shortly take the plunge for a 35mm scanner. I have read most of the online reviews as well as list traffic on the scanners which I think would meet my needs. (The best I can buy for around $1,000, thus eliminating the Nikon 4000 dpi from the running) It seems my choices are the Nikon IV ED, Polaroid SS 4 or the Canon FS4000, The Polaroid scanner offers much for the money, but no FARE or ICE, yet good software, ie Silverfast. (Polaroid's current financial situation certainly makes me a bit nervous as well) I have read several negative comments on sharpness about the new Canon scanner yet read a reasonably positive review on Imaging Resources (Dated 6/27/01) which seem to address the sharpness issue. (http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN/FS4000/FS40A.HTM) Last but not least the new low end nikon IV ED is tempting with ICE3 but only 2900 dpi. Will the decreased resolution of the Nikon be offset by the Genuine Fractals software??? Will it make a difference in the quality of the final output (see below) I plan to use the scanner to produce 11 x 14 quadtone prints via piezography from 35mm negatives, both color and black and white. (as well as maybe some color work) Would greatly appreciate input from owners of any of the above scanners Thanks, James Beckett
Re: filmscanners: Polaroid SS4000 ext. warranty and Bulk Slide Feeder
Thanks David. Your presence on the filmscanner list alone is a strong argument to go with Polaroid. Regards, Ron - Original Message - From: Hemingway, David J [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 9:09 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Polaroid SS4000 ext. warranty and Bulk Slide Feeder Ron, Call the 800 technical support number and request the brush for the SS4000. There is a sensor internal to the scanner that can collect dust preventing the scanner from finding it's home position. This brush attached to the front of the carrier. After powering down the scanner you manually pass the carrier back and forth to clean any dust off the sensor. I do not think it is to late to purchase a service contract. I will have a service representative email you directly with details. Regards David -Original Message- From: Ron Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 12:29 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Polaroid SS4000 ext. warranty and Bulk Slide Feeder David, what free brush and how do I order it? I hadn't heard of an extended warranty. My SS4000 is 15 months old, I suppose it's too late for me to get one now --- not that I need it at the moment. Regards, Ron - Original Message - From: Hemingway, David J [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2001 10:07 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Polaroid SS4000 ext. warranty and Bulk Slide Feeder Preben, I guess I am happy to hear from you :). The bulk feeder is going to be available to the best of my knowledge. Good things don't come quickly :). Each market sets it's own sales and marketing strategies. I was not aware specifically the Europe did not offer an extended warrantee on the scanners. I do know it is not available on film recorders supposedly because Europeans do not purchase them, a cultural issue I am told. I will pass on your comments to my corporate brothers in Europe. Glad you are pleased with your SS4000. be sure to order the free brush to clean the sensor. Regards, David -Original Message- From: Preben Kristensen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2001 5:08 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Polaroid SS4000 ext. warranty and Bulk Slide Feeder This is for David: The extended warranty offer seems to be valid only in the US - now, why is that? Are you planning to cut your sales to only US as well? Or are you selling inferior (Monday/Friday production) units outside US - so it is not worth doing? :-) Please pass this one on to the gods! We are now rapidly approaching the first year anniversary for the impending arrival of the bulk slide feeder. How should we celebrate that? :-) Apart from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the performance? :-) Well, apart from that, I have been extremely happy with the SS4000 which, for a long time was the only suitable machine on the market for my needs! And I have not (touch wood)had any reason to test the repair service in Italy. Greetings from Preben
Re: filmscanners: Polaroid SS4000 ext. warranty and Bulk Slide Feeder
David, what free brush and how do I order it? I hadn't heard of an extended warranty. My SS4000 is 15 months old, I suppose it's too late for me to get one now --- not that I need it at the moment. Regards, Ron - Original Message - From: Hemingway, David J [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2001 10:07 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Polaroid SS4000 ext. warranty and Bulk Slide Feeder Preben, I guess I am happy to hear from you :). The bulk feeder is going to be available to the best of my knowledge. Good things don't come quickly :). Each market sets it's own sales and marketing strategies. I was not aware specifically the Europe did not offer an extended warrantee on the scanners. I do know it is not available on film recorders supposedly because Europeans do not purchase them, a cultural issue I am told. I will pass on your comments to my corporate brothers in Europe. Glad you are pleased with your SS4000. be sure to order the free brush to clean the sensor. Regards, David -Original Message- From: Preben Kristensen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2001 5:08 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Polaroid SS4000 ext. warranty and Bulk Slide Feeder This is for David: The extended warranty offer seems to be valid only in the US - now, why is that? Are you planning to cut your sales to only US as well? Or are you selling inferior (Monday/Friday production) units outside US - so it is not worth doing? :-) Please pass this one on to the gods! We are now rapidly approaching the first year anniversary for the impending arrival of the bulk slide feeder. How should we celebrate that? :-) Apart from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the performance? :-) Well, apart from that, I have been extremely happy with the SS4000 which, for a long time was the only suitable machine on the market for my needs! And I have not (touch wood)had any reason to test the repair service in Italy. Greetings from Preben
Re: filmscanners: Time to upgrade: Opinions wanted
I couldn't be happier with my SS4000 and I can't imagine that any of the other scanners in the same price range as competition for the SS4000 output ( from slides at least ). I've been using mine for over a year with absolutely no problems. It put me in the business of selling fine art prints which I hadn't even seriously considered previously. I go over my slides with a Kinetronics StaticWisk brush befor scanning and I keep a plastic bag over my scanner when I'm not scanning. I doubt I average 3 minutes per image cloning away dust and those are the scans where I forget to ask Insight to treat for normal dust. I never use the heavy dust option in Insight. Of course I live on the north end of the Olympic Peninsula so that may help. When I'm judging or critiquing slide competitions, I'm always amazed at how many dirty slides are entered. Clean your slides before scanning and keep the dust out of your machine and I don't see the need for ICE except for scratches and similar damage. If you've got a bunch of old slides that have not been well cared for, that is probably a different story. I'm sure the Nikon fans and maybe the Minolta fans are going to disagree with me so I'm going to put up my schield and duck back in my foxhole now. Whatever your choice, I wish the two posters upgrading good luck and happy scanning. Ron Carlson - Original Message - From: Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 4:24 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Time to upgrade: Opinions wanted Based on http://www.samcos.com/rick/equip/scannertest/ssvsed.htm ( if done accurately) SS4000 is overall better than Nikon 4000. Since Nikon IV is not as good as his more expensive brother (this is easy to see!) the Polaroid is a clear winner. With no real knowledge about CanoScan FS4000US and Dimage Scan Elite I would still consider them somewhere in Nikon IV/4000 category. Based on this assumption SS4000 is the best scanner in $1700 category sold for about half that much. Can anybody confirm this? Any thoughts?
Re: filmscanners: Time to upgrade: Opinions wanted
My SS4000 came with a SCSI card for my PC. - Original Message - From: Douglas Landrum [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 8:08 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Time to upgrade: Opinions wanted What are the interfaces - USB or SCSI? Do you need a separate card. I have USB ports but no SCSI, so I opted for the Coolscan IV. I figured a good SCSI card would add about US$150 to the cost. I like the LED lighting source and the dynamic range. My read on low cost 35mm film scanners is that dynamic range is the key factor. Nikon publishes a better dynamic range for the Coolscan IV over the LS-2000, higher bit depth and higher ppi value too. Everything that I found to read before I bought gave the edge to the LS-2000 over any other non-Nikon scanner. I figured that the Coolscan IV would be a better LS-2000. I also like the ICE, GEM and ROC. The performance of the Coolscan IV has met or exceeded my expectations. So far I have sized prints to 15X10 with the Genuine Fractals that comes packaged with the Coolscan IV with incredible detail, better detail than an Ilfochrome of the same size enlarged on my Durst M601 with a Rodenstock Rodagon 50mm and no digital noise. I have never seen a jaggie. I think that the Polaroid would be worth a hard look at the current price. Its price exceeded my limit when I looked. But with no IR dust elimination, I think that I would still opt for the Coolscan IV. Nikon's 24/7 telephone support in the US instantly bailed me out of configurations problems. Unlike some others, I have had no problems with NikonScan 3.0 and now 3.1. But also get Vuescan. It's a great $40 program and does some things better than NikonScan, I like NikonScan better only for color negatives. Vuescan is better for Kodachrome and most E6. I have not yet formed an opinion on BW negatives. Good shopping Doug - Original Message - From: Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2001 7:23 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Time to upgrade: Opinions wanted What about Polaroid Sprintscan 4000? The price tag is the same as Coolscan IV. Canon CanoScan FS4000US is about $100 more, Dimage Scan Elite 2820dpi is almost $300 cheaper. I am facing the same though decision. Hopefully somebody will bring some light.
Re: filmscanners: which scanner for slides ? ( SCSI vs USB )
If you want to turn on your SCSI device after your computer is already booted, No problem. Just right click on MY COMPUTER, left click on properties,select DEVICE Manager tab and left click on REFRESH and then OK. This is for a windows machine. I don't know what you need to do for an Apple machine. Regards, Ron - Original Message - From: Steve Greenbank [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 5:08 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: which scanner for slides ? 3. Minolta may be USB, but USB devices has the advantage of being hot-swappable which means they can be turned on after the computer has been booted, and it will be detected. If I remember correctly, SCSI devices need to be turned on before you boot the system, in order for the SCSI controller to detect it. Generally in Win 9x/ME you can turn any device on and go to device manager of system properties and click on refresh and the device will work. Remember with USB you can take your scanner anywhere and plug it into any modern machine - you'll probably need to install some drivers as well. The downside is speed and some USB devices don't like some USB controllers. My USB controller on a Via KT133 motherboard is a complete PITA. Steve
Re: filmscanners: which scanner for slides ? ( SCSI vs USB )
It has always worked for me. I believe that the device manager refresh I suggested accomplishes what you suggest just as if the SCSI device was on at Windows Boot up. This is a proceedure that I nearly always use with my SS 4000. It has never failed. Try it. Regards, Ron - Original Message - From: James Grove [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 11:50 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: which scanner for slides ? ( SCSI vs USB ) I dont think that will work, as many SCSI devices have to be seen by the SCSI BIOS on boot up. -- James Grove [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.jamesgrove.co.uk http://www.mountain-photos.co.uk ICQ 99737573 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ron Carlson Sent: 04 June 2001 06:32 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: which scanner for slides ? ( SCSI vs USB ) If you want to turn on your SCSI device after your computer is already booted, No problem. Just right click on MY COMPUTER, left click on properties,select DEVICE Manager tab and left click on REFRESH and then OK. This is for a windows machine. I don't know what you need to do for an Apple machine. Regards, Ron - Original Message - From: Steve Greenbank [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 5:08 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: which scanner for slides ? 3. Minolta may be USB, but USB devices has the advantage of being hot-swappable which means they can be turned on after the computer has been booted, and it will be detected. If I remember correctly, SCSI devices need to be turned on before you boot the system, in order for the SCSI controller to detect it. Generally in Win 9x/ME you can turn any device on and go to device manager of system properties and click on refresh and the device will work. Remember with USB you can take your scanner anywhere and plug it into any modern machine - you'll probably need to install some drivers as well. The downside is speed and some USB devices don't like some USB controllers. My USB controller on a Via KT133 motherboard is a complete PITA. Steve
Re: filmscanners: which scanner for slides ? ( SCSI vs USB )
It works on my wife's Win 98 SE machine and her SCSI flat bed. Regards, Ron - Original Message - From: B.Rumary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 9:29 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: which scanner for slides ? ( SCSI vs USB ) In 01c0ecc2$a1908ef0$6401a8c0@jamesg, James Grove wrote: I dont think that will work, as many SCSI devices have to be seen by the SCSI BIOS on boot up. It certainly does *not* work on my Windows 98 machine - the SCSI devices all have to be on at boot-up. Brian Rumary, England http://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm
Re: (O) SS4K Shadow noise
In Lepps evaluation, the SS4K was tested with Insight v.4 instead of current the current version. I don't know how that may have affected the test but my experience is consistant with what Bruce Fraser reported. As much as I respect George Lepp, in this instance, I think Bruce is correct. Regards, Ron - Original Message - From: "bjs" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 5:27 PM Subject: Re: (O) SS4K Shadow noise - Original Message - From: "Johnny Deadman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Filmscanners" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 4:00 PM Subject: Re: (O) SS4K Shadow noise Hemingway, David J at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The SS4000 does very well in the shadows as reported by several reviews and particapants of this list who use or review the SS4000. The following is from a review by Bruce Fraser: The dynamic range of 3.4 seems conservative-starting with high-contrast slides, we obtained results with shadow detail comparable to that in scans from scanners with a quoted dynamic range of 3.6-and at 4,000 dpi, the scanner offers the highest resolution in its class. This reflects my experience. -- Johnny Deadman And for a totally opposite conclusion read this review: http://www.pcphotomag.com/content/pastissues/2000/july/scanner.html Don't ask me who's right...I haven't a clue... :)) Cheers, Byron The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest. The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
Re: questions
Thanks David. Regards, Ron - Original Message - From: "Hemingway, David J" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 7:52 AM Subject: RE: questions I would expect "Beta" to be posted on the web site within four weeks or sooner. Unless the software Gods aren't smiling. David -Original Message- From: Ron Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 16, 2000 1:13 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: questions David as long as you're answering questions, any news about when we can expect Insight v.5? Regards, Ron - Original Message - From: "Hemingway, David J" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 8:29 PM Subject: RE: questions Raw scans are pretty ugly but do have all the data from the ccd. This is typical of the beast. In Insight you can elect to embed the scanner profile which will make the image more presentable when brought into Photoshop. David -Original Message- The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest. The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest. The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
Re: digital imagery Code of Practice
AIUI - Original Message - From: "Tony Sleep" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 16, 2000 5:46 PM Subject: Re: digital imagery "Code of Practice" The section titled RGB (quoted below) advises not applying unsharp masking to files to be sent out for repro, but I don't remember hearing this one before. I usually apply minimal unsharp masking to files to send out. Can someone shed light on this issue? AIUI that is absolute bll*cks. AIUI rather more USM than you'd normally want to apply is advisable for repro, and even more again for BW. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest. The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
Insight v.5
Hi David Hemmingway: How is Insight v.5 coming along? IMHO Insight is wrongly depreciated and I'm waiting impatiently for the next version. Sure hope it doesn't get sidetracked by Polaroid's other new projects. Regards, Ron Carlson The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
