[filmscanners] Re: Epson 2200 does it exist?
Thanks to all who replied to my post about apparent current scarcity of the Epson 2200 printer. The scarcity seems to be real. I have a 1270 which works well and will have to suffice until the drought is over, I guess. Thanks again to all. Stuart Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
filmscanners: Re:
At 17:03 13/12/01 +, you wrote: Is there any way that we can suppress the multiple Re:,Re:,Re:,Re: etc in the Subject lines? The subject line length is frequenty too way too long. Ian I am not sure if u already know the answer to your own question but what u r asking is down to those replying to amend the subject line ( if they remember ,that is ) :-) Stuart ps-please note that I did remember
Automatic best focus average solution for selecting focus point? (was RE: filmscanners: VueScan 7.2.11 Available)
I understand what you (and others) are asking for. I'd probably implement this if someone could show (with actual scans) that specifying a focus point manually works better than what VueScan 7.2.11 already implements. Just a thought (not sure how practical this is): Would it be possible to add an automatic multi-point focus option, which would internally manually take focus at say 9 points across the image, then select the best average that represents the happy medium of all these points (perhaps also rejecting points for areas of low contrast), then using that average as the focus value. This way, there would not be much to add to the GUI - just a tick box option (showing the divergence range value might be nice, too). Given I am scanning 1000's of negatives, I don't really have the time to manually select the best focus for each negative. I would be happy to let the scan process take a little longer if it could do something like the above. Regards, Stuart p.s. While on my soapbox here, a quick note of thanks to Ed for VueScan - it saved my bacon with the Nikon 4000ED, given NikonScans's appalling stability.
filmscanners: NikonScan 3.1.1 still crashes ; no better than 3.1 under W2K/dual CPU. Anyone having any better luck?
You may recall that a few months ago I did some extensive tests on NikonScan 3.1's crash problems and reported back to the list. Just tried NikonScan 3.1.1 on my Windows 2000 dual CPU machines. It still crashes for me on the various test machines I have here. This was after uninstalling 3.1, rebooted, installing 3.1.1 then rebooting. As far as I can see, there are no stability improvements in 3.1.1 - if anything, it is significantly less stable than 3.1 was. Has anyone, who was having crashes with 3.1 under W2K single or dual CPU, tried 3.1.1 and had better luck with it? Or are we to assume - surprise, surprise - that once again Nikon has proven their inability to write stable software? (sorry - feeling a bit frustrated here. Grumble grumble...) Stuart
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.
filmscanners: NikonScan 3.11 coming soon - supposed to fix W2K crashes
Hi. An update on the NikonScan 3.1 / Windows 2000 crash problems. Nikon has informed me that they are aware of the problem, and that 3.11 is in testing, due out within the next month or so, to fix the problem. We will see... Stuart
RE: filmscanners: Nikon Scan 3.1 / Windows 2000: Could not open Nikon Scan 3...
Sorry, I should have been clearer: The *application* is crashing, not Windows. Tracebacks of the application's crash show that it is failing mostly in kernel level code, which often indicates a driver problem (it is rare for applications to crash in kernel code rather than in the application code). The OS continues to run fine. I did try reinstalling the Firewire drivers. VueScan runs with on the scanner. I am doing further testing, with three different W2K dual CPU machines, loaded from scratch with clean OS's, to try and pin down the problem. Other than one report from Tom Scale (not sure if he is using single or dual CPU), there has been NOT ONE person reporting that NikonScan 3.1 works without crashing under W2K / dual CPU. I'll summarize back to the list in a week or so. Regards Stuart -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 3:52 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon Scan 3.1 / Windows 2000: Could not open Nikon Scan 3... In a message dated 10/5/2001 9:47:50 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: P.S. I've tried to start VueScan 7.1.20, but that one causes Windows to re-start immediately during startup.. If Windows 2000 crashes, the problem is (by definition) with something in the kernel. Even the most poorly behaving application should be unable to crash a Windows 2000 system. You might try re-installing the driver for the Firewire card, since this is the most likely problem area. Regards, Ed Hamrick
filmscanners: Constant crashes with Nikonscan 3.1/Coolscan 4000ED/W2K/Dual CPUs. Anyone got this combo to work?
Hi. I see that a lot of people have been reporting that NikonScan is very buggy and crashes a lot. I am having similar problems. Has anyone actually got this software to work under W2K/dual CPUs? There don't seem to be any reports of solutions that I can find (but lots of reports of problems). In addition to checking comp.periphs.scanners, I am trying to get a feeling for how common this problem is (and any solutions) so I can harass Nikon. So, has anyone either got: - NikonScan 3.1 to work without crashing on a dual CPU W2K config; or - A solution to stop it crashing It crashes when running as a stand alone application. The system configuration is NikonScan 3.1, Super Coolscan 4000ED scanner, Windows 2000 Server SP2, dual Intel PIII CPUs, 1GB RAM, 4GB VM, IDE drives (some soft W2K RAID 5), SCSI DLT tape backup and CD-R/DVD-ROM, and Epson 1280. NikonVue for the D1X is also installed, and the usual range of Photoshop/PSP/Bibble/Cumulus/etc application software. This system has proved to be very robust and stable - except when running Nikon's software. Nikonscan 3.1 crashes 1 out of 3 times during a scan, and can never complete a batch scan of a strip. Given I have 10,000+ negs positives to scan, this is more than a bit of a worry. Event log just notes the application crashed. Debug tracebacks crashes either in the kernel (most of the time), or in one of the NikonScan DLL's. Crashes are always in the same code locations. Note that when applications crash in kernel level code, it often indicates buggy drivers. However, the scanner is working very well with VueScan. Perhaps NikonScan uses some proprietary calls into the scanner drivers? Turning on/off rotation/ICE/ROC/GEM has no impact on the crashes. Nikon support has been the usual unhelpful We don't know. Although Vuescan works well, I want to use NikonScan because I don't have time to colour balance each negative (no matter what I do, there does not seem to be a white point / colour balance combination that works robustly for VueScan - any tips?). Also, I need ROC/GEM for a slew of 20 year old negs that need cleaning up. Any help at all would be greatly appreciated - I am desperate for a solution. Even just knowing that *someone* out there is successfully running NikonScan 3.1 on a dual CPU W2K system would be of assistance (and what CPUs/motherboard you are using). Please feel free to email me directly at [EMAIL PROTECTED] and I will summarize back to the list. Thanks in advance regards, Stuart
Re: filmscanners: Off topic, tragedy in NYC and DC
At 10:03 11/09/01 -0500, you wrote: Please forgive the TOTALLY off topic post. My thoughts are with any list members any their friends and relatives affected of the attacks in New York City and Washington DC. I want you to know my thoughts are with you. Jack Phipps I'll second that Jack-I'm in Scotland watching the tv news and it is absolutely shocking-reminding me of the time I was in Manhattan and went up the twin towers . You can't imagine the situation in NY Stuart
filmscanners: Re: Duplicate/triplicate messages
I seem to be getting two and three copies of messages but not at the same time-I just got a batch that I recall getting earlier today Stuart
Re: filmscanners: Mr. Impatient - Me! G
I knew I'd seen this b4-it was posted on the 14th August . Message server flipped again :-)) Stuart At 18:58 14/08/01 +0100, you wrote: Hi all, What do I do? I've been waiting over 2 months now for my LS4000 only to be told each week, it will be here next week. *sigh* I rang Nikon UK today to be told that 'oh yes we won't have any more of those for another month or so'. They certainly don't seem to care much about their customers! Hmm I wonder if the purchaser be should be told before he hands over 1300 GBP that it's going to take 3 months to deliver. Naahhh.. ;) OK rant over G. So what do I do, do I cancel my order and take a look at the competition - BTW what competition should I look at? is there any that match or exceed for similar money? - or is it worth the wait, ie stick it out no matter how bad the customer service is. Grr. ;) I am looking to go medium format shortly so maybe this is a good chance to consider another alternative, unfortunately price might prevent me there. Opinions please! :) Cheers, Neil Portsmouth, UK
Re: filmscanners: Silerfast questions
At 17:18 02/08/01 +0100, you wrote: On Wed, 01 Aug 2001 23:04:10 -0500 frankmazz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: The Agfa Arcus 1200 is my first serious scanner. I'm doing bw and color negs; both 4x5 and 35mm. I love it. I never see the model discussed here so I wonder if I've got an unknown jewel or terrible taste (like a whale omelet?) vbg Neither, it's just that most discussion here centres around filmscanners rather than flatbeds which also scan film. But the latter are welcome too. Regards Tony Sleep And as a Snapscan use I think you'll find Vuescan gives excellent scans -i us it for scanning prints and it's better than the supplied software . Stuart
Re: filmscanners: VueScan 7.1.7 Available
At 22:37 31/07/01 +1000, you wrote: Hi Flo, That's odd, I just checked Ed's site and the Mac OS file was downloadable for me... Geoff Well it certainly says Mac OS no longer suported Stuart - Original Message - From: Florian Rist [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 8:52 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: VueScan 7.1.7 Available Hi! On 24 Jul 2001, at 13:53, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just released VueScan 7.1.7 for Windows, Mac OS 8/9/X and Linux. It can be downloaded from: http://www.hamrick.com/vsm.html [...] I just wanted to download VueScan for Mac OS, but wasn't able to. On Ed's web site it reads Mac OS no longer supported. Ed, did you realy stop developing the Mac OS version of VueScan? Did I miss something? cu Flo
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
At 15:25 21/06/01 -0700, you wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 03:49 21/06/01 -0400, you wrote: i Roger -thanks for taking the time to reply-you've given me something to think about . basically my reason for buying a digital camera was to use it as well as my other cameras depending on what the intended market was ( yes I know I said I was changing my cameras for a digital :-)) ) . Most of my work is or will be for websites so my thinking was that digital would be quicker-no processing or scanning. At present I use neg film,get it processed then scan using Vuescan and the results are good. I't's just the time it takes. After what you said maybe I'll just stick to what I've got-trouble is i dont know if there is any way I can get to use a digital camera-see what the results are like and decide from there -if I was buying a car I could take it for a test drive but maybe I could hire a camera for a few days . regards Stuart Just wondering, if glamour a code word porn these days... No :-)) I have seen output from digital cameras used for quick model portfolio work, and it looks very reasonable. If you are making work for the web, I doubt that whatever defects digital manifests would be very meaningful. At the end of the day, the web is a digital media, and so most of the translation removes the majority of film qualities anyway. (I am speaking here about higher end digital cameras 2-4 megapixel with good lens and exposure option). Heck, not to over due the old saw, but... we're speaking of jpegs at 72-120 dpi, aren't we? Yes Stuart Art
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
At 13:52 22/06/01 -0700, you wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just wondering, if glamour a code word porn these days... No :-)) My reason for asking this actually had a purpose, beyond the humorous. Getting quality color processing for certain type of images can prove problematic in certain parts of the world. I'd think (why would I know? ;-)) that this is an area where digital proves quite, shall we say, convenient, as the instant films used to be. Art- I live in Scotland which is hardly the most liberated of countries -believe me -and it is relatively easy to get film processed but I appreciate what you say about digital avoiding any potential problems in this area. I have seen output from digital cameras used for quick model portfolio work, and it looks very reasonable. If you are making work for the web, I doubt that whatever defects digital manifests would be very meaningful. At the end of the day, the web is a digital media, and so most of the translation removes the majority of film qualities anyway. (I am speaking here about higher end digital cameras 2-4 megapixel with good lens and exposure option). Heck, not to over due the old saw, but... we're speaking of jpegs at 72-120 dpi, aren't we? If these images will never require reproduction in another form, such as printed hard (now I'm speaking glamour!, not as above, so no snickering) copy, then the digital will do well. However, if you might be eventually selling images in other formats, or have clients who require other formats, unless you are using fairly expensive 'state of the art' cameras/backs, you might find you cannot get the quality your clients might require or expect. I would be supplying websites so I probably wouldnt need to produce prints etc . I would know before the shoot if the output was intended for ,say magazines, so would shoot transparencies ,if that was the case Stuart Art
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
At 03:49 21/06/01 -0400, you wrote: i Roger -thanks for taking the time to reply-you've given me something to think about . basically my reason for buying a digital camera was to use it as well as my other cameras depending on what the intended market was ( yes I know I said I was changing my cameras for a digital :-)) ) . Most of my work is or will be for websites so my thinking was that digital would be quicker-no processing or scanning. At present I use neg film,get it processed then scan using Vuescan and the results are good. I't's just the time it takes. After what you said maybe I'll just stick to what I've got-trouble is i dont know if there is any way I can get to use a digital camera-see what the results are like and decide from there -if I was buying a car I could take it for a test drive but maybe I could hire a camera for a few days . regards Stuart So, are you planning on using a digital camera for your glamour photography? Ouch! I can't see how you'd be happy with the results compared to what wet processing in a commercial lab can do for you. Resolution is lousy and you can't get the look and feel from it that wet film and paper will give. That's very important when shooting people because everyone knows what good skin tone looks like and, in my opinion, no digital process (even via filmscanning) can match the quality and appeal of wet chemistry slides or prints, especially with skin tones. (Others may disagree with me, but that's my story and I'm sticking to it.) Digital has its place if you need speed (news photographers) or want to do compositing in Photoshop, and filmscanning is far superior to a digital camera if you can afford the extra step, but digital in any form ought to be the choice of last resort, in my opinion. If, on the other hand, you want to use a digital camera for proofing instead of Polaroid film, then you may be on to something. Polaroid film is awful stuff for proofing (sorry Mr. Hemingway), so digital should be able to compete with it very well. So far as using your infrared strobe with the Nikon camera, if the camera has a hot shoe or a PC connector (depending on what your IR strobe uses), then you should be able to use the IR strobe on the camera with no problem. Hot shoes used to have a single contact right in the center, and the newer hot shoes for dedicated strobes simply added some extra contacts around that center contract. So any old non-dedicated strobe should still work since it uses only the center contact, but it would operate without some of the automatic features of the dedicated strobes. That assumes that the voltage on the contacts of the non-dedicated strobe don't exceed the rating of the camera. And that's an issue since a lot of newer cameras can't handle more that 12 volts or so and most older strobes, and most current studio strobes, place over 100 volts on the strobe contacts. So, if you fry some electronics because of what I told you, remember that I told you not to use a digital camera in the first place! In a message dated 6/20/2001 10:01:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am presently considering the purchase of a digital camera . I do some glamour stuff and use studio lghts utiliising an infr-red trigger . i had been looking st a Nikon Coolpix 995 brochure and it only mentions the use of a Speedlight ,both built in and separate . What I was wondering is if anyone has one of these cameras or its predecessor and knows if normal external flash units can be used . I appreciate nikon trying to promote its own products but If only Speedlights can be used then it looks like Nikon are going to lose a sale . regards Stuart
Re: filmscanners: Viewing Software
I am presently considering the purchase of a digital camera . I do some glamour stuff and use studio lghts utiliising an infr-red trigger . i had been looking st a Nikon Coolpix 995 brochure and it only mentions the use of a Speedlight ,both built in and separate . What I was wondering is if anyone has one of these cameras or its predecessor and knows if normal external flash units can be used . I appreciate nikon trying to promote its own products but If only Speedlights can be used then it looks like Nikon are going to lose a sale . regards Stuart
Re: filmscanners: Viewing Software
At 13:22 20/06/01 -0400, you wrote: Stuart, You should consider joining a CoolPix 990 forum, like: http://www.egroups.com/group/coolpix990 Issues like this are discussed on a somewhat regular basis. I figured out how to use my studio strobes with my CoolPix during the first week I owned the camera about a year ago. I used a small external flash pointed away from the subject (with the internal flash turned off) to set off my DynaLights. Thanks for the link Not much to do with Viewing Software. No possibly not -that just happened to be the subject on the mail I used and forgot to remove the subject . I will disregard the sarcasm in your message Stuart Larry I am presently considering the purchase of a digital camera . I do some glamour stuff and use studio lghts utiliising an infr-red trigger . i had been looking st a Nikon Coolpix 995 brochure and it only mentions the use of a Speedlight ,both built in and separate . What I was wondering is if anyone has one of these cameras or its predecessor and knows if normal external flash units can be used . I appreciate nikon trying to promote its own products but If only Speedlights can be used then it looks like Nikon are going to lose a sale . *** Larry Berman http://BermanGraphics.com http://IRDreams.com http://ImageCompress.com ***
Re: filmscanners: Viewing Software
I might be reading it incorrectly but it seems that Portfolio Desktop Edition expires after 30 days -am I wrong and if not not would it not seem to be pointless to d/load it for the purpose asked by Bob Turner ?? Stuart At 12:22 09/06/01 -0400, you wrote: Check out Extensis Portfolio. Cross platform, all formats, slideshows, select galleries, etc. You can place Portfolio Viewer on the CD, if the recipient doesn't have it. The viewer is free. You need to make a catalog first, place it on the CD with the images along with a copy of the viewer. http://www.extensis.com Dear all, I have only recently started burning my pics to CD and would like some software that will display thumbnails and the full size images directly from the CD. Does the list have any recommendations as to a software package that I can place on a CD of images so that the recipient can view these? Bob Turner Dundee, Scotland, U.K. Website : www.bawbee.co.uk
Re: filmscanners: Viewing Software
Just ignore what I said earlier-i found the freeware browser Stuart At 12:22 09/06/01 -0400, you wrote: Check out Extensis Portfolio. Cross platform, all formats, slideshows, select galleries, etc. You can place Portfolio Viewer on the CD, if the recipient doesn't have it. The viewer is free. You need to make a catalog first, place it on the CD with the images along with a copy of the viewer. http://www.extensis.com Dear all, I have only recently started burning my pics to CD and would like some software that will display thumbnails and the full size images directly from the CD. Does the list have any recommendations as to a software package that I can place on a CD of images so that the recipient can view these? Bob Turner Dundee, Scotland, U.K. Website : www.bawbee.co.uk
filmscanners: Re:
Hi guys -this is a message for anyone in the UK who is wiling to do me a favour . I am presently using a flatbed to scan printsmainly to send to websites and would like to invest in a slidescanner so I can use slide film instead and get the best of both worlds but dont want to jump in with both feet until i know what i am getting . What I would like is someone to scan a couple of slides for me and either e-mail them or save to a floppy or CD . All expenses will,of course be reimbursed. regards Stuart
Re: filmscanners: Large collection - full frame projection via DLP PowerPoint
At 11:19 28/05/01 -0400, you wrote: I would think that a digital camera with Macro and Zoom capabilities on a copy stand would do a great job on the flat copy. Obviously lighting would have to be balanced for color and glare to get the best results. One of the cameras with an LCD viewfinder that rotates off the lens axis like the Nikon 990 etc. would work. I think it is also possible to set up the camera to preview to a monitor. I don't have a specific camera to suggest but in the days when I did film/slide presentations we would have loved such a setup. The negatives and transparencies are another issue. I cant speak about negatives but I am sure Fuji make a device you fit on the front of a digital camera and insert the slide in to it and copy on to the digital camera Stuart Although I believe some users have had success with a similiar setup to the above and shooting down through the film into a light box. But the quality will not be as good as a film scanner. Ira Ira Beckoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Marvin Demuth [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 8:57 AM Subject: filmscanners: Large collection - full frame projection via DLP PowerPoint My current project is to take a large collection of multi-format negatives and transparencies (35mm to 4x5), bw color prints (billfold to 8x10) to scan them into JPEG for insertion into PowerPoint 2000 slides for full frame projection via DLP (Digital Light Processing) at 600x800 pixels. I have started with the flat art and have found the process slower than I would like for it to be. I love the concept of looking through a 35mm single lens reflex finder, composing the photo, exposing the photo and then quickly moving to the next subject. Is there any scanning process that accommodates this approach? Any one have ideas as to ways to approach this project? Has any one handled a large project of this type? If so, how did you approach the project? Marvin Demuth
RE: filmscanners: SilverFast SE 49USD
At 21:13 09-04-01 -0400, you wrote: Mikael wrote: SilverFast SE . Scanner software . A light version of Silverfast Ai. Guides the novice user step by step to brilliant images. (Silverfast own text) - Below is a quote from the Silvefast website and what confuses me is it says Silverfast SE is designed to work wit all major scanners but then goes on to say -currently we offer Se for Epson scanners - so does it work with other scanners ??? Stuart "SilverFast SE is designed to work with all major scanners while SilverFast DC-SE is designed to process data from all digital cameras. Currently we offer SilverFast SE for Epson scanners, and DC-SE for working with images on your local drive."
Re: filmscanners: Genuine Fractals
At 18:52 05-04-01 -0700, you wrote: When I tried to use Genuine Fractal, I saved a TIFF file produced by Vuescan to GF's STN file in Photoshop. When I retrieved the file and tried to scale it, I saw a thumbnail of the photo that had a heavy pattern embedded. When I opened the scaled image, the photo had the pattern overlay (I am guessing here) that all but obliterated the image. Does anyone know what I am doing wrong? Is this a license disabling device? GF came with no instructions and no serial number. I did not even see a serial number insertion on the installation. Are you sure this isnt the criss cross pattern produced by the trial version of Vuescan which can be removed by inserting your reg no in the box in HELP/ABOUT Stuart Any reference to documentation would also be helpful. Thanks, Doug Landrum, Digital Dunce.
Re: filmscanners: Windows XP, the good, the bad, the ugh!
At 19:56 27-03-01 -0800, you wrote: Windows XP is getting the best overall reviews I've seen since Win 95, which might be a bad omen ;-) Seems it has cleaned itself up quite a bit, while basically stealing a lot of look and feel from the Mac OS. I believe it is based upon WIN 2000. I also understand one big problem is that it requires registration on line, and that it "records" which computer it has been placed on. There is a problem if you change motherboards or other major components because the registration process is designed to prevent the OS from being installed on numerous computers. You then have to go to Microsoft, hat in hand, and ask for permission to reinstall on a "revamped" system. A bit like buying a video or a book and not being able to take it to your new house :-)) Stuart
RE: filmscanners: VueScan, Insight, Epson (David H.) take note)
At 19:16 23-03-01 -0800, you wrote: I on the other hand find that VueScan produces much better results than Insight 5.0 with virtually no twiddling at all. Can anyone suggest a site where insight 5.0 can be located regards Stuart (Scotland)
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan
At 21:15 20-03-01 -0800, you wrote: I find that very interesting, if accurate. Especially after he encouraged the flood of this exact group with literally hundreds, if not thousands, of messages regarding his Vuescan product. He was very willing to use this group to advance his product sales and acquire free public input of valuable suggestions that otherwise he would have had to pay consultants for and free beta testing. Snipped Art Well said Art-I think you've hit the nail right on the head Stuart
Re: filmscanners: New Nikon Scanner pricing in the UK (LS-40, LS-4000)
At 22:01 19-03-01 +, you wrote: Pete Cutter -love the name :-)) Stuart
RE: filmscanners: Vuescan
At 15:37 12-03-01 -0500, you wrote: Would someone in London PLEASE get Ed a Kodak RFS 3600 to play with??? I'd love to try the program... Rick And a Black Widow flatbed please Stuart -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jules Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 3:38 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Vuescan - Original Message - From: "Rick Berk" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 10:35 PM Subject: filmscanners: Vuescan Hey Ed- I just got the Kodak RFS 3600, and was interested in giving Vuescan a try, but I went to the website and was hoping to see some screen shots or something... any chance you could add some? you don't need screenshots, vuescan is just a dialog box with a bunch of tabs. it doesn't look pretty. but that's okay because the scans do and that's what matters. i have officially and exclusively switched to vuescan as of monday (after a week of playing with it and reading this list feverishly) (i was using nikon scan before, i have a nikon ls2000). the results i'm getting are simply astounding. ~j
Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
At 08:23 10-03-01 -0800, you wrote: Stuart wrote: Once again, everything you say is likely true in the United States of Waste and Consumption, but it sure isn't true here in Western Canada, and I bet it also isn't true in Europe, Australia, and most other places. Art What !!- u mean there are other countries in the world apart from America -well blow me down . Stuart (Scotland ) One of the newer PC vendors in town (here in Oregon, U.S.A.) is a Tiny one from the U.K., and they advertise they have the best deals. so I'd then assume that the U.K. would perhaps have even lower prices than here in the U.S. (and this area has generally low prices with heavy competition from small chains like Fry's and klone-stores on most every corner). Mike K. I don,t think that the UK has low prices for anything -except maybe wages Stuart
Re: filmscanners: RE: Win2k and application RAM
At 11:51 07-03-01 +, you wrote: I think you will find that it will see all the memory IF its matched to the board. you can check your boards needs by visiting www.crucial.com just have your motherboard number and revision handy. I had a similar problem but bought 4x256mb dimms from them and my machine fairly whizzes along now. regards Michael Wilkinson. And don't forget that they have a European site for those who live in Europe Stuart http://www.crucial.com/uk/ 106 Holyhead Road,Ketley, Telford.Shropshire TF 15 DJ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.infocus-photography.co.uk For Trannies and Negs from Digital Files ## - Original Message - From: "uoton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: RE: Win2k and application RAM : 1.28GB. Well, it does not. I put in two 512MB and one 256MB dimm into it, it : only sees : 768MB. I settled with only 512 in it.
RE: filmscanners: Where to buy a LS-4000
You could try www.speedgraphic.co.uk in the UK. They had one listed on the last price list they sent me. Tempting... Their website still says that they're due in March/April (so they might have them...) at 699 and 1199 inc. VAT for the two new models. Stuart
Re: filmscanners: Negative cleaning
At 18:44 24-02-01 +, you wrote: Tony, the cleaning fluid sold by Kami , DC 2001 - Is this available in the UK and from where ?/ regards Stuart
Re: filmscanners: JPEG files (A bit OT)
At 09:19 19-02-01 +, you wrote: Guys Gals, has anyone bumped into any software that gives the details of a JPEG image header; ie. image size, date made, compression ratio et cetera.Thanks in advance.Chris. Certainly ACDSee gives some of this info in the properties menu re each image Stuart
RE: filmscanners: storage
At 13:56 17-02-01 -0500, you wrote: Adaptec easyCD does have a "verify after write" switch ... it is however, in unintuitive location ... 'file|CD layout properties' ... Not only is it 'unintuitive', but misnamed. It is labeled 'Automatically verify file systems'. I would have never guessed that it meant (from help): I am using easy CD creator 3.5c but I can't find that option anywhere ??? Stuart at it compares them AFTER they have been recorded...
filmscanners: Using Vuescan to scan prints
Looking ahead to my getting a neg/slide scanner I downloaded Vuescan to see what it was all about -Up to now I have been using Fotolook and Fotosnap with my Agfa Snapscan flatbed ,this being the software supplied with it . Even with the crosshatching on the trial version i can see that the quality of the scans is far better than with F/look and F/snap. so i will be paying the $40 as soon as i can . I understood that Vuescan was intended for slide scanners -can anyone explain why it is so much better than the twain software i am using at present ?? regards Stuart
Re: filmscanners: Re: looking at the Sun
At 21:16 03-02-01 -0800, you wrote: I'm sure others will chime in on this one, but I can't let that advice go unanswered. Just because the image in an SLR viewfinder is replected up through a pentaprism and a ground glass screen is no reason for complaisance about looking at the sun with such a camera. The efforts to make the screen view as bright as possible makes the light level in the eyepiece just about as dangerous as looking at the sun directly. True, there is some reduction, but in many cases, if not most, it is still bright enough to blind in a short time. Don't do it! Of course, a sunset may have the light attenuated enough by the atmosphere to make it safe. But, if it is uncomfortable to look with the unaided eye, don't gamble on looking through the viewfinder of an SLR. Thanks Herschfor supporting my views on this -There are enough warning given out at Eclipse times for folks to realise the dangers of looking at the sun -we all know how it hurts just glancing at the sun with the naked eye stuart
Re: filmscanners: The K in CMYK
At 19:06 02-02-01 -0800, you wrote: Hello List, Just out of old fashioned curiosity: What does the K in CMYK stand for? Tom Hi-well would you believe BLACK Check this URL Stuart http://webopedia.internet.com/TERM/C/CMYK.html
Re: filmscanners: x Stuart !! was .. Black Widow or Slidescan Transp'y Adaptor ???
At 18:19 02-02-01 -0600, you wrote: Stuart, Ezio is right. I got one of those little slide adapters with my HP 6300. It's a real joke. I can't believe HP ever made it. I had the same experience as Ezio, except I didn't have to get on my knees and make peanut butter, because I gave up after two or three tries. (Ezio, I guess you have greater perseverance than I do.) Anyway Stuart, if you value your time at all, take the advice you're given and get a real filmscanner. Bob Kehl Hi Bob-I'll send you my address-USD will be fine :-)) I'm not so sure we are comparing like for like here -this Black Widow TA got pretty good reviews here form several sources and its a good price -i think I'll try it anyway and let you know cheers Stuart - Original Message - From: Ezio [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 6:35 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: x Stuart !! was .. Black Widow or Slidescan Transp'y Adaptor ??? Sturat this Black Widow stuff it is exactely the rip-off I had from HP. Then ... if you want to try it ... I can send it to you for free ! It costed to me ... 3 years ago ... 1 month of pure and siny Italian cursing . This is quite enough for me ... I had to get on the knees on some peanuts for 1 week to pay my sins !! .. and to buy a REAL film scanner to be able to scan my slides ... more over ... it is impossible to scan films with this ... the orange casting of the dye is not removable at all . I am not kidding ... when I say I will make you trying ... then eventually either you send it back to me in Italy either you send few bucks to pay it whenever you will decide to keep it . .. Ezio. __ Well it doesn't require power, it has no moving parts and simply sits on top of your scanner its dimensions are H x 100mm, L x 170mm W x 90mm. With a specifiction like this all that's left is for some impressive reviews from magazines and users to let you see what they thought. FilmSCAN 35 produced for Black Widow by SlideScan 'The Results: Quite simply brilliant.' 'All scans I made were superb.' Scanned Image quality 27/30 Ease of use 28/30 Build quality 16/20 Value for money 19/20 'A neat gadget at a fraction of the cost of a dedicated accessory slide scanning adaptor'... its a simple and very neat bit of kit - and very cost effective to boot.' Doug Harman, Deputy Technical Editor, Amateur Photographer Magazine, 29th January 2000. Sincerely. Ezio www.lucenti.com e-photography site - Original Message - From: "Stuart" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 1:12 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: x Stuart !! was .. Black Widow or Slidescan Transp'y Adaptor ??? Hi-here is the url for this device Stuart http://www.blackwidow.co.uk/cgi-bin/bwshop/bw.cgi?ACTION=ENTER+SHOPthispage =frameset.htmORDER_ID=!ORDERID! At 09:22 01-02-01 +0100, you wrote: Stuart, It might be that ''Black Widow'' or ''Slidescan'' adapters are using a different set of tricks to cheat the flat bed scanner and to succeed to scan slides on a flat-bed , but I wasn't able to find any description of this devices on the Web. By the way ... when scanning slides ... this devices are they really letting the scanner to focus on the film surface ? In facts the reflection of the light coming from the lamp is not the only point when scaning slides. To exactely focus the film surface is one of them ... the 1 or 2 mm distance from the glass given by the slide frame is important enough pushing the optical resolution toward the edge. Not to mention all the other factors to be considered. I am firmily convinced that flat-bed scanners cannot succeed in having even a lousy chance to scan slides. Sincerely. Ezio www.lucenti.com e-photography site - Original Message - From: "Stuart" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 2:46 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: x Stuart !! was .. Black Widow or Slidescan Transp'y Adaptor ??? The point u r missing as far as I can see is that the Black Widow and Slidescan slide adaptors are totally different from the transparency hoods you are talking about -these are a prism device that siits on top of a flatbed and is not made by the scanner manfrs like the HP device-test reports from magazines are good stuart At 02:14 01-02-01 +0100, you wrote: Rob is a real gentleman ! The definition he gives about the pure sh@# sold by HP as Slides Adaptor is opening my old wound ! The results are not poor ... simply are not there . After 3 months of absolute pain and real cursing in Italian (the worst possible and the most siny ... don't we have the Pope . ? ) I have given up (it was 3 years ago with a very expensive 6200c ... totally useless ...) and I have bought a Nikon LS-30
Re: filmscanners: x Stuart !! was .. Black Widow or Slidescan Transp'y Adaptor ???
The point u r missing as far as I can see is that the Black Widow and Slidescan slide adaptors are totally different from the transparency hoods you are talking about -these are a prism device that siits on top of a flatbed and is not made by the scanner manfrs like the HP device-test reports from magazines are good stuart At 02:14 01-02-01 +0100, you wrote: Rob is a real gentleman ! The definition he gives about the pure sh@# sold by HP as Slides Adaptor is opening my old wound ! The results are not poor ... simply are not there . After 3 months of absolute pain and real cursing in Italian (the worst possible and the most siny ... don't we have the Pope . ? ) I have given up (it was 3 years ago with a very expensive 6200c ... totally useless ...) and I have bought a Nikon LS-30. Sincerely. Ezio www.lucenti.com e-photography site - Original Message - From: "Rob Geraghty" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 12:29 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Black Widow or Slidescan Transp'y Adaptor ??? Stuart wrote: I am considering buying one of these transparency adaptors -it is a prism that sits on top of a flatbed and the neg or slide fits underneath. has anyone bought one and if so can you offer an opinion on the merits of it?. I've used a similar device made by HP for their flatbeds. It works, but the results were very poor on the scanners I tested. OK for web use only, useless for printing or more than 80x600 resolution. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Flatbed Scanners CDROM Burners
At 19:32 31-01-01 -1000, you wrote: FWIW, the Feburary issue of Popular Photography has a rewiew of 10 Flatbeds, an interesting article on CDROM Burners (particularly for those considering purchasing one but wanting to know more) and six links to their "Top photo sites of the month" Mike Which country is this magazine published in ?? Stuart
filmscanners: Black Widow or Slidescan Transp'y Adaptor ???
I am considering buying one of these transparency adaptors -it is a prism that sits on top of a flatbed and the neg or slide fits underneath. has anyone bought one and if so can you offer an opinion on the merits of it ?. they cost about 45 UKP Stuart
RE: filmscanners: Vignetting?
At 07:35 31-01-01 -0800, you wrote: If you had a wide enough lens and pointed the camera in the direction of the sun, then the effect would be circular (altho with respect to the sun, not the lens). shAf :o) But,of course ,no-one would do so while looking through the viewfinder as this would be extremely detrimental to ones eyesight and if the shutter was released would it not burn the blind ?? Stuart
Re: Odp: Hello
At 03:04 PM 10/26/00 +0100, you wrote: Don't forget that Nikon has had big problems with their stepper motors in the current LS-30 and LS-2000 models, which has resulted in many people having to send them in for repair. Mine (LS-30) took three attempts to fix, but thats another story. My LS-30 also went back for motor related repair shortly after I bought it 18 months ago. I am pleased to say that Nikon fixed it for free, was very courteous, and I have had no problems with the stepper motor now for over a year. ICE is nice. I do have a yen for 4000dpi and 3.6 Dmax, though. __ Stuart 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: LS 2000 Installation Questions
SCSI ID 7 has nothing to do with IRQ 7 on a PC. A SCSI controller has IDs 0-7 associated with the SCSI board. It is safe for you to follow the instructions and set the SCSI ID to 7 as required. It will not conflict in ANY way with your line printer port. At 08:41 PM 10/9/00 -0400, you wrote: I just purchased the Nikon LS 2000 Scanner. My question is as follows: 1. The installation manual states that the scsi id must be 7. (I assume that is IRQ 7) If it is, my printer lpt 1 ecp port uses 7. What do I do, the manual says you cannot change it. I called Dell and they say not to change the printer. 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. __ Stuart 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.
