[filmscanners] Re: Tips For Sharp Scans Using Nikon 5000 ED
On 28/09/2009 Karen and John Hinkey wrote: I managed to get my old SS4000 to work for a while and compared scans of the same slide between the SS4000 and 5000 ED and found that when using Vuescan the results were very similar regarding sharpness, although the raw image came out noticeably better with Vuescan. I found that using NikonScan did not produce quite as sharp of scan for whatever reason. Anyone have hints as to why the NikonScan image was not quite as sharp? Did I have some basic parameter wrong? The usual issue with Nikon scanners is focus. Their LED lightsource is not as bright as other mfr's conventional lamps, which compels a faster lens with shallower depth of focus. This makes Nikons sensitive to film flatness. It's been years since I used Nikonscan but my recollection is that the focus area was configureable - you could focus manually on any part of the frame or set the scanner to autofocus on it. VS may just be making a better automatic choice. But I am guessing. However I'd look at perhaps changing the area that NS is set to use if it is indeed still possible. I don't know whether VS supports the hopper, but do some research before committing to it. All NS hoppers have a mixed reputation, for jamming and misfeeding, and if I remember right, there is the additional limitation that exposure used for the first slide is used for the entire batch. -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Polaroid Sprintscan 4000 DIY repairs
On 19/09/2009 Tony Sleep wrote: http://tonysleep.co.uk/polaroid-sprintscan-4000-diy-repairs Now with a few small additions and edits for clarity. NB this is not currently indexed from my site menus as, like a bunch of similarly hidden motorcycle features it is really off-topic for the site, so the direct URL is the only way of finding it. -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Polaroid Sprintscan 4000 DIY repairs
http://tonysleep.co.uk/polaroid-sprintscan-4000-diy-repairs I hope it helps :) -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Cleaning SS4000 scanner
On 20/07/2009 Tony Sleep wrote: There is a 3rd screw down a hole (top rhs of the cover, as shown), and the 4th retains the cover over the stepper mechanism - the slim rectangular box protuberance that your LH sketched blue line crosses. Essentially, there is a screw in each of the 4 corners of the transport cover. On second thoughts this may be wrong, my memory seems to have holes in it... the 4th screw may not be in the stepper cover but also down a hole, bottom RH corner of the transport cover. Anyhow, one way or another there are 4 screws that retain that cover. -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Cleaning SS4000 scanner
On 19/07/2009 sn...@cox.net wrote: James wrote this last month. At the moment, I have my SS4000 apart and I have removed 10 (not 6) self-tappers but see no way to remove the carriage. I do have the lamp off, however. It was me who wrote the report originally. I removed only the lamp carrier (2 screws) and the front upper portion of the film advance housing (4 screws), then decided any further dismantling looked too hard and probably unnecessary. Access to the reflex mirror is limited, through a roughly 20mm x 15mm aperture in the bed of the film carrier, but I found it was enough to be able to thoroughly clean the mirror with a DSLR sensor cleaning pad on an angled arm (I use Green Clean, the wet pads have a plastic arm, and I heated and bent one about 45 deg). My mirror had been utterly filthy with thick dust. Once I'd done that I could shine a torch onto the mirror and was able to see the lens cell reflected. That was perfectly clean, so I left it alone. Just as well, getting to it would require an awful lot more dismantling. The only other thing I did was to wipe the parts of the coarse and fine carrier advance worm gears and support rods that I could see, using a pad with some WD40 to remove old lubricant. I then dribbled a little light machine oil onto the rods and some light grease onto the worm gears. As expected, after reassembly, the carrier movement distributed this to the areas I couldn't get to just by scanning a few frames. The sound of the mechanism changed noticeably, sounding less strained, during the first couple of scans. All the internal dust I could get at was removed at the same time, especially the little sensor notch toward the rear, LHS of the carrier mechanism. I have no idea how this sensor works - it doesn't even look like a sensor just a V-shaped notch in plastic - but that is what detects the filmstrip holder is not the mounted slide holder. Mine was filled with fluff that wanted to stay there. You can figure out where it is from the design of the Polaroid brush (which I don't have). Just cleaning that mirror has made an amazing difference to scan quality. It also now very seldom fails to correctly recognise the filmstrip holder at the first attempt. I think I've had 2 misfeeds in maybe 30 loads. It had been driving me crazy before, misfeeding about 2/3 the time. Any suggestions? Is there a site with some images of this process? I spent some time with google but was not successful. The only page I know of is http://pages.videotron.com/tiller/SS4000faults.htm which won't tell you much -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: sale value for used Polaroid SprintScan 4000
On 16/07/2009 li...@lazygranch.com wrote: The Polaroid is in worse shape for resale u nless Microtek is servicing them. As far as I know Polaroid still offer service support http://www.polaroid.com/service/index.jsp -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: sale value for used Polaroid SprintScan 4000
On 16/07/2009 Paul Patton wrote: I thought the Polaroid Sprintscan was still highly regarded as a filmscanner. Is it really only worth $50.00 or is my informant wrong? See items 160348227611 160345106356 - both sold at $200 BIN. -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Epson Perfection V750-M Pro Scanner,
On 14/06/2009 Preston Earle wrote: I need to replace my ScanDual III so I can scan 40 or so rolls of old 35mm bw negatives. Will this scanner scan 35-mm negs to give results similar to a filmscanner? According to at least one review I read, IIRC the answer was a qualified 'yes' for the V700/V750, at least for medium format - there was a direct comparison with a Nikonscan 8000. See the V750 and V700 reviews at http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Menus/reviews.htm -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Epson Perfection V750-M Pro Scanner,
On 13/06/2009 James L. Sims wrote: With the support for my Polaroid Sprintscan 120 now unavailable, I am looking for a replacement. Vuescan should resolve antique s/w issues on Windows, though SCSI support may become more awkward I believe ASPI drivers are available for Vista. On Mac I don't know with current OSX, but similar was possible. Same applies to SCSI Nikons etc. Regarding physical service, I recently popped the lid off my Polaroid 4000 (4 lever tabs) as it seemed to have got rather flary and low contrast with some strongly backlit slides that included bright backgrounds, despite living under a dust cover when not in use. Half a dozen self-tappers later and I was able to remove the lamp holder and the top of the film carrier carriage. I was then able to clean the angled mirror with a DSLR sensor swab - it was covered in a thick layer of dust. Inspection with a torch showed the lens to be clean, reflected in the mirror. I then cleaned every trace of dust and dirt from the mechanism surfaces I could get at, and wiped and re-lubricated the helical carriage advance screws. Result : a total transformation! Scans bright and clean, loads more shadow detail - virtually everything in Kodachrome. No flare and colour much easier to get spot on. The mechanism sounds happier for lubrication too. No more misfeeding neg carrier either, which the scanner has been mistaking for the slide carrier half the time, for about the last 4 years. I wish I'd done it earlier, as I now think I should really rescan quite a lot. Has anyone had any experience with Epson's V750M? The specs. look impressive if they hold up. No experience, but if I had the money I'd have bought one to scan the relatively small amount of 120 I have. From reading reviews the V750 is very little different from the much cheaper V700. Lens coating seems very slightly better and you get Silverfast with the 750. Most important factor appears to be stand-offs for the film carrier, which can be improvised. Personally I'd use Vuescan anyway. -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Cleaning SS4000 scanner
On 13/06/2009 Roger Smith wrote: This is very encouraging, Tony. I have had my ancient SS4000 under a cover for several years as well, and I'm sure it could use a similar cleaning. I may give it a try. I take it that re-assembly was not a great problem? It's easy. 4 plastic spring clips release the cover (use a flat-bladed screwdriver to lever the tangs inward, and another to lift the lid slightly). As you remove it, just bear in mind that that lid/top remains attached to the innards by the wiring loom at the front LH corner. Then you need a small Philips screwdriver. 2 screws to remove the 'saddle' that contains the lamp (leave wires attached, just lift it to one side), and 4 to remove the top plastic part of the film carrier mechanism/stepper motor cover. That will give you just about enough room to see the small rectangular hole in the chassis with the angled mirror underneath. I tried removing the dust 'dry' but it was futile, a wet DSLR sensor cleaning pad on a bent plastic arm did the job. A lens tissue with lens cleaning fluid would do just as well. Be gentle, it's surface silvered. With the helicoid, I just wiped off as much old, dry lubricant that I could get to with a bit of cloth wrapped round some stiff wire damped with WD40, then smeared on a little light grease. There are also some visible metal guide rods for the carriage. I wiped those with lint-free cloth and then used a brush with a little light oil. You can't clean and re-lube the whole length of either the helicoid thread nor the guide rods, but operation will distribute the fresh lubricant one you have it back together. All other dust was removed with a dry brush then the used DSLR pad, then the bits and lid replaced. A 10minute job -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Polaroid SS4000 tube
On 04/06/2009 Charles Knox wrote: An extensive search for cold cathode tubes (including both Polaroid and Microtek) didn't bring up anything remotely like it. Any help would be appreciated. Philips are the OEM of most scanner tubes, however identifying and sourcing it may be difficult if it is unmarked. You may have to buy through either Polaroid or Microtek. Polaroid http://www.polaroid.com/service/index.jsp - use the 'Contact us' link I guess. I have sourced lamps for a Microtek35 many years ago. Microtek was happy enough to sell to an end user, but it was 3x the price of the Philips part. The Microtek version had part of the tube painted black to cut flare. I bought the Philips part, ordered through a Philips dealer, and applied the paint myself and it worked fine. -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Advice on scanner settings
On 26/02/2009 li...@lazygranch.com wrote: There is DVD+R and DVD-R. For technical reasons, +R is pr eferred. DVD-RAM is to be avoided. This was DVD+R Nowadays, most publishers have ftp. Yup. Except this was a monstrous 1.5m x 1.5m @300dpi file, which took up most of the DVD and would have taken far longer to FTP than driving, and 'time was of the essence'. For some reason that was never explained the agency insisted on my upsizing it rather than giving it to their printer to do. Fortunately nobody has ever asked me to do similar before or since. -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Advice on scanner settings
On 25/02/2009 Peter Marquis-Kyle wrote: I say scan once, at the highest resolution the scanner can do (in this case 4000 spi), and create the best archive image for whatever use happens later. Agreed. 4000ppi will also reduce any issues with grain aliasing, which can be more of a problem at 2700ppi especially with Nikon scanners because the LED lightsource is semi-collimated. Disk space is cheap compared to the sheer arduous displeasure of scanning! I would also consider using the greater bit depth Carlisle's Nikon scanner can capture, even though this will double the storage space needed for each file. Agreed again. Save as 16bit TIFF because the greater precision is more tolerant of processing, at least until you have completed all post-production. If you aren't likely to want to make further changes at that point the final files can be downsampled to 8 bit. -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Advice on scanner settings
On 26/02/2009 li...@lazygranch.com wrote: I just bought three 1.5 terrabyte drives RAID can add resilience but no way can it be considered safe, so don't forget the other 4! Here I have: 3 x 1TB RAID3 = 2TB 2 x 1TB for backup (on another LAN PC) 2 x 1TB for offsite backup. So that's 7 x 1TB for 2TB of storage. I don't trust HDD's much. -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: ss4000 not initializing
On 23/04/2008 Bob Geoghegan wrote: For people who've opened up their SS4000s, what did you use to unclip the 4 fasteners on the bottom? Gently working them with a screwdriver looks like one way to go. I haven't done it, no need yet touch wood. But I just flipped mine over and had a look and yes, they look like typical wedge-type clips and a flat bladed screwdriver pushed gently inwards should do it. -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: ss4000 not initializing
On 22/04/2008 Bob Geoghegan wrote: I turned on my SprintScan 4000 for the first time in about a year today. The 2 LEDs light up instantly with no flashing from the yellow one and there are no motor noises. Check your SCSI and power cable connectors. I'm not sure the 4000 initialises if the SCSI is detached. Otherwise, is the lamp on, visible through the front slot? It should light immediately when you press the power button, and if the bulb is blown I doubt it's going to go through initialisation. -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Talking to myself...
On 04/04/2008 David J. Littleboy wrote: I moved the Firewire card (an Adaptex AUA-3121 HBA) from my previous previous machine and the 8000 now works. Shame. I was going to offer you $20 for it. -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: spam magnet
On 03/04/2008 David J. Littleboy wrote: Agreed. Take it off list. I'm done with it. It stayed on because of the question of whether or not list members want their email addresses exposed to other list members, risking spam. If anyone has a view either way I would prefer it gets expressed on list so there's some sort of vote. I'll do whichever, it's trivially easy to change the list operation. -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: spam magnet
On 02/04/2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your implication is that I am relying on others (including you) to do stuff for me to avoid spam, while in fact you are doing stuff that *exposes* me to spam. I am doing my bit by having multiple addresses and abandoning those that have been outed -- which happens about once every 18 months. You were asking me to curtail the usefulness of this list to limit your exposure to spam, by suppressing sender addresses. There couldn't be any mailing lists unless they were publically exposed addresses. There couldn't be any support ditto. For some of us email is mission-critical and we can't avoid having a public address that stays constant. That means the common preferred solution is spam filtering. Email RFC's require a postmaster catch-all address for any domain. Whoever runs that account is going to receive spam. Domains cannot be invisible. That too means the common preferred solution is spam filtering. Your approach may work for you, but you're still having to take inonvenient evasive action against spammers and accept a reduction in the utility of email because of their predatory selfishness. I hope we can agree that spammers are the underlying problem here. Now that I know posting to the filmscanners list will expose my email address, I'll take care to never post. Yes, that should work, in the same way that never answering the telephone will completely avoid annoying sales calls. For those of us who have to expose email addresses to the world, spam *is* inevitable. The list itself receives on average 3 attempts a day to *distribute* spam to its 1,200 members, because the address is known to spammers. That is *filtered* out by multiple levels of email filtering and subscription control that also prevents viruses being distributed. If I didn't maintain filters you'd get that crap even if your email address was unpublished in list mails. There is nothing wrong with your approach but it can only work for a minority of people who can burn email accounts as they become unusable. -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: spam magnet
On 31/03/2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know why my email address shows on the replies I made to this board but other people's don't, but the result has been that I am being inundated with spam. The sender's email address appears on every message, not just yours, in the 'from:' header field. The 'sender:' field is filmscanners@halftone.co.uk I can strip the 'from:' field from the listmail headers but you will not know who messages were from without this. This address is used *only* for this scanner forum, and the spam started immediately after my first reply. I run the list and spend a lot of time keeping it safe from attempts to distribute spam through it via 3 separate levels of spam detection. That's why spam never gets onto the list. The same care is applied to trying to keep list members' addresses safe. Only registered users can post through it, and the membership list is not exposed to anyone except me. Needless to say I have never and will never distribute user addresses to anyone. This is located on a server under my desk and is well protected. Occasional hack attempts have got nowhere. The only possible explanations I can offer, and which I can do nothing, are 1. addresses are somehow being harvested from the archive at http://www.mail-archive.com/filmscanners@halftone.co.uk/ That does not present email addresses in clear, but there is a form for contacting the poster which includes the username and host as form field values, ie FORM METHOD=POST ACTION=/cgi-bin/Nomailto.pl INPUT TYPE=HIDDEN NAME=user VALUE=tonysleep INPUT TYPE=HIDDEN NAME=host VALUE=halftone.co.uk INPUT TYPE=HIDDEN NAME=subject VALUE=[filmscanners] Re: Dust brush for Polaroid 4000] INPUT TYPE=HIDDEN NAME=msgid VALUE=[EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply via email tobr INPUT TYPE=SUBMIT VALUE= Tony Sleep /FORM Mail-archive scripting prevents bulk mail through these forms. I am sure they'd spot a scripted harvesting attempt, as it's a separate http: request for every archived msg across hundreds of lists. Highly unlikely. 2. Someone else on the list now or at some time past, has an archive of past list posts and/or has you in their address book (from list posts) and has a trojan-infected machine that is being used as a spambot. This is far the more likely explanation. Due to the spam, I will be abandoning the address in a couple of days. I would, however, like to know how I can subscribe to the list in such a manner that my email address is *not* exposed whenever I decide to say something. All I can do here is change the listmail headers so that only the orginator's name appears in the 'from' field, not their email address. This will of course make it impossible to send personal email to a list member unless you already know their address, which is why I haven't done it in the past. You lot can tell me which you'd prefer. I will properly unsubscribe before abandoning the email address, but I am delaying its demise until Tony or someone else who knows the answer to my question has a chance to respond. Spam is just something you have to learn to deal with because there are always going to be routes like 2. above. It's a pain, it takes time and costs money. I can't change my address and it's public, I've had well over a million spams in the past 2 years, but thanks to filters I see only a handful a day. I'd be fully in favour of airstrikes because I see no other solution. -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: spam magnet
On 31/03/2008 Sam McCandless wrote: And please feel free to suggest what we might do to help make it less of a problem. Most ISP's offer spam filtering, usually based on Spamassassin or similar, and that works well. Sometimes free, sometimes an additional low cost. Always worth asking because quite often they don't bother to tell users it's available. If not, an easy (but not free) way is to run all your incoming mail through a spam interception service http://www.emailfiltering.co.uk/ Or you can run software locally on your home machine. http://www.spamcop.com lists and compares several (Mailwasher, Spamcatcher, etc) The problem with any of these is that any anti-spam takes a certain amount of time and trouble to keep filters up to date, and maintain black and white lists. Another possibility is to set up a Gmail or Yahoo account purely for lists and anywhere you think might lots of spam. They include filtering. Hotmail do too, but it's deranged and it frequently causes insoluble problems preventing legitimate mail getting through. Hotmail filtering is 2-stage, a user-controllable bit which is fine, and a system-wide bit nobody can control, disposing of incoming mail silently. Hotmail is unsupported on this list and many others because of this; you can use it of you want (many people do), but if you have problems my response will be limited to 'I told you so':) -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: spam magnet
On 31/03/2008 gary wrote: I try to steer the Mac users I know to open source multi-platform programs like Thunderbird for email, Firefox for browsing, etc. Strongly seconded even for us PC victims too :) -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Dust brush for Polaroid 4000]
Don's PDF showing the brush and instructions for use are now at http://tonysleep.co.uk/file-area/polaroid-4000-brush -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Dust brush for Polaroid 4000]
On 25/02/2008 Don Denburg wrote: I will send them to you directly, and to anyone else who is interested--unless there is someplace that I can upload them for general viewing. If you want to email them to me I'll park them on a webpage. -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Dust brush for Polaroid 4000
On 18/02/2008 Arthur Entlich wrote: A scanner question... does anyone know if there is still a source for the little dust brush Polaroid designed for their 4000 series scanners, or is there somewhere I can see what it looked like so I might be able to fashion one? I don't know, but I need one too I think. The 4000 seems to mistake the neg holder for the slide holder rather more often than it used to - about half the time now. Is that a symptom? -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Dust brush for Polaroid 4000
On 18/02/2008 Arthur Entlich wrote: Now that I know there are several people experiencing the same problems, I will try to see if I can find a source or if Polaroid still has anything going. Info posted to this list a long time back indicates it's part number CPS546 and available on request from Polaroid Tech support on 800-432-5355 800 numbers aren't do-able from UK so I never did. -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Dust brush for Polaroid 4000
On 18/02/2008 James L. Sims wrote: Didn't Microtek make these scanners for Polaroid? If that's the case, might try them. Yes, they did, the Artixscan 4000 was their version. Both built on the same production line, but the Polaroids had tighter component spec selection according to Polaroid (who specced it and commissioned the design from M'tek. Polaroid later rather regretted the co-licensing deal they did with M'tek to keep costs down, as they sold far more '4000's than they expected. I may just pop the lid off mine and see if a sable brush or DustOff can help. -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: was: RE: SS4000 ...now: mean people suck
On 17/02/2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think we are much to quick to assign negative behaviours that we experience as being characteristic or a particular nationality or ethnicity. Rather than trying to couch this in National or cultural terms, we should be counseling the offending poster in anger management. All fair comment. Now, has anyone done any scanning lately? :-) -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: was: RE: SS4000 ...now: mean people suck
On 16/02/2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In the current case, the reminder reached me after I had sent the offending post which appeared later than the message from you. I thought that may well be the case. No problem. Most email clients don't handle trimming all that well anyway. The ideal is that they only quote any text highlighted in the original, not the whole lot. Thunderbird manages this (Ctrl/5) as did the Ameol email client I used previously. I never found a way with Outlook Express except to trim afterwards and that is an extra deliberate step that is easily overlooked, and is one reason I avoided using it. As for Outlook, I don't know. -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: was: RE: SS4000 ...now: mean people suck
On 16/02/2008 Arthur Entlich wrote: I won't quote it, but George's comment was as clear as the nose on my face. It was hostile, very directed, and IMHO, very inappropriate. On a hunch, I just checked, and George is a Brit, posting from a BTinternet address. There is actually a cultural collision here in style of expression. Americans are, IME, extremely polite (perhaps because you never know who is carrying a concealed handgun:) and do have a certain formality to their writing style. You see this not only on lists but across US publishing, serious newspapers maintain a formality of style that has largely disappeared in UK after the London 'Times' began using photos on the front page about 30 years ago. To Brits, US prose often seems turgid and verbose. I guess UK expression must often seem uncouth and intrusively direct. I think maybe that accounts for the different perceptions here. To my mind George's expression was tetchy and direct but not intended to cause offence, just to make a frustrated point - which I took to anyway be about quoting. However for Art in Canada and Laurie in USA, it seems to have crossed a line. Not making excuses, but hoping we can understand and move on. -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: was: RE: SS4000 ...now: mean people suck
On 16/02/2008 John Sykes wrote: We generally prefer a stab at humour to make a point and avoid direct insults. Agreed, but did you see GH's comment as offensive? If I'd been on the receiving end I'd have taken it as a reference to the scads of inadvertently quoted text. PgDn to see just how much there was. Anyhow, I've been subjected to far worse (c/o Brits and Australians this week), and generally take the view that deliberate insults say more about the insulter than the insulted. It's only email yatter. PS trimming: in Outlook (as here in Thunderbird) you just select the unwanted text and press delete True, but that extra step is easily overlooked. In T'bird you can just highlight the bit you want quoted and press Ctrl/5 for Quote in Reply (or RMB option) or Ctrl/6 for Quote in Reply to All (ditto), and they get copied into a reply email with no trimming necessary. I've not found a way to do this in OE. -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: was: RE: SS4000 ...now: mean people suck
On 16/02/2008 Arthur Entlich wrote: Those are all things you have control over, rather than asking people to change their behaviour on your behalf. Personally I read George's complaint as being about untrimmed posting, not on Laurie's writing style as such. Please everybody DO TAKE CARE TO TRIM POSTS. Art has a point that members of the list can skip messages, but that is not true for 568 members of this list who are on a daily digest and receive the preceding 24hrs traffic concatenated into one large message. That becomes quite impossible to read and grows exponentially as a result of repeat unselective quoting. I won't even mention the needlessly slow distribution, wasted bandwidth and the server brought to its knees ;) -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] ADMIN: Re: SS4000 SCSI under Vista
On 14/02/2008 gary wrote: This may be an issue how how Vista is marketed in the UK. PLEASE trim your posts! There is no need to quote the entire thread and it is agony for people on the digest. -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: SCSI support on a Mac Pro
On 11/02/2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: USB2 is just as robust if not more so than Firewire; it was USB 1.1 which was not as robust as Firewire. Yup, nothing wrong with USB2 (so long as it's not plugged and unplugged too many times). I have lots of USB and no FW in use, never had an issue. But somewhere I read that Firewire-SCSI adapters were an easier and simpler engineering prospect, and potentially less prone to driver issues than USB2-SCSI, because FW and SCSI were releated protocols. That's not to say there are problems with USB2-SCSI in practice, of course. -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: SCSI support on a Mac Pro
On 11/02/2008 Stan Schwartz wrote: I don't know if the SS4000 is Scsi-1 or SCSI-2. SS4000 is SCSI-2, definitely. I'm still using mine :) -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: SCSI support on a Mac Pro
On 11/02/2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Evidently, this adapter/converter still is on the market; but it works only with SCSI-2 from what I have been able to determine. As far as I know, all filmscanners that appeared with SCSI interfaces used SCSI2 standard, even though they only achieved SCSI1 speeds 1-3MB/sec across the bus. I'm not a Mac person, but I thought there were Firewire-SCSI converters too, and that was a more robust solution than USB-SCSI because FW and SCSI are more closely related. Or have the latest Mac's dumped Firewire too? Leopard seems to have been Apple's Vista! -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Now this is a scanner
On 09/08/2007 gary wrote: As you probably read, they are scanning the old Apollo moon film. The scanner in the link above is the type of scanner used for this project. Coo. You don't see those on eBay too often. But I bet it's just a repackaged Panasonic digicam ;) -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Batch scanning : Braun Multimag 4000
A FAQ is : how do I scan large numbers of slides without spending the rest of my life doing it? There aren't too many affordable solutions, but for anyone confronting this problem this one is worth registering. There is an interesting review of the Braun Multimag 4000 filmscanner by Jonathan Eastland, at http://ajaxnetphoto.blogspot.com/2007_01_01_archive.html It's a neat device designed to use magazines of mounted slides for batch operation. However the review, which is generally positive, includes the following, slightly disappointing summation of the chances of avoiding the countless man-years of post prod arising from scanning large numbers of Kodachrome originals:- 'ICE does not like conventional silver halide black and white emulsion; neither does it much like Kodachrome, which is essentially a black and white film with the special colour dyes added in processing. On close inspection, the majority of images so processed did not appear to lose time's accumulated foreign matter; their original colour was changed by ROC to something definately not Kodachrome and GEM got rid of what it perceived as noise so well, the final files were all but useless.' Priceless :-) -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
On 05/07/2007 David J. Littleboy wrote: I don't buy it. AIUI the colour fringing is a combination of chromatic aberration in the lens and Bayer colour interpolation. Vignetting is due to the microlenses presenting a smaller effective aperture to off-axis rays. You get both together, but they're distinctly different in their origins. -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
On 05/07/2007 gary wrote: Seems to me the camera should be able to compensate for the vignetting. It knows the lens and the sensor, so it should know the light falloff. There are software strategies for dealing with both vignetting and chromatic aberratuon artifacts, also barrel/pincushion distortion and just about any other drawing issues that lenses get wrong onto a flat surface, but processing power so far means they're post-prod techniques done on the computer rather than in cameras. The Leica M8 Kodak sensor uses microlenses that are progressively angled toward the lens axis to increase light-gathering power near the edge of the frame. Vignetting still occurs with short lenses at wide apertures, but given the short back focus of the lenses involved, presumably it'd be worse without. Then you have Olympus producing telecentric-ish lenses so off-axis rays are perpendicular(-ish). If all else fails I still have the Kodak Brownie 620 I was given as a kid, a tin box with a 2 element lens stuck in the front. That wasn't perfect either, but I can't say it mattered :) -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
On 06/07/2007 Arthur Entlich wrote: Does anyone know if there is a chart which shows depth of focus at the film plan versus aperture of lens used? No, but the plane of focus itself is not flat, it's usually a section of a sphere that is only part corrected to flatness. This becomes an issue when focussing wideangles at wide apertures, especially. If you use a focus aid or AF at the image centre then re-frame to put it near the edge, it'll be OOF. I used to do enough of this that with a 24mm f2 that I bought a plain matte screen without any focus aids so I could focus as framed. It can be quite a handy property since edge of frame close objects can be in focus at the same time as more distant central ones, without having to stop down to provide as much DoF as expected. If you photograph a flat wall with such a w/a, you can see the problem; the edge-of-wall to lens distance can be substantially greater (nearer infinity) than the centre ditto. This would mean the lens needs to be racked in further for the edge image to be sharp, more extended for the centre. Constant subject-lens distance d implies a part-spherical plane of focus of radius equal to d. The back focus of the lens b is also a part-spherical surface of radius b. For longer lenses with narrower angle of view none of this is really noticeable, as the smaller section of a sphere is near enough flat and DoF hides the effect. We need spherical film or sensors - but the radius would be different for each focal length dammit. -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] ADMIN : UNSUBSCRIBING
Want to know how to unsubscribe? READ THE FOOTER OF EVERY LIST EMAIL PLEASE, FOR INSTRUCTIONS. IE Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body If you have problems or don't understand PLEASE MAIL ME PERSONALLY mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ***NOT*** THE LIST. I am happy to help. SENDING UNSUBSCRIBE REQUESTS TO THE LIST WILL NOT WORK UNLESS I HAPPEN TO READ IT. IT JUST MEANS SEVERAL HUNDRED PEOPLE POINTLESSLY GET YOUR REQUEST. How hard can it be? Really!? -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
On 10/06/2007 Arthur Entlich wrote: However, the evolution in digital is rapidly reaching the point where the current technology is more than adequate for most people until that camera fails to work. I read this week that the leading 8 mfrs of digital cameras expect to sell 89m cameras during 2007, up 18% on the previous year. Few digital compacts seem to be engineered to last more than 2-3 years, Even with recycling that's a lot of landfill. It's only a matter of time before we see $20 disposable digicams with built in memory, battery and cheap CMOS sensor. The surviving photofinishing trade will love them, as they'll be designed as drop-off and get back prints (chosen at a console) and a DVD. So I think that's a perfect excuse to buy a Leica M8 and save the planet :) -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Initialization problem with Polaroid SprintScan 4000
On 10/06/2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Next to this second port is a switch marked SCSI termination on/off. Am I correct in my assumption that so long as this switch is turned on, the scanner is internally terminated and no terminator block is needed? Yes, sorry, I had forgotten about that. Mine is in the middle of a chain with another scanner beyond it wearing a termination block. -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
On 08/06/2007 George Harrison wrote: Thanks for the link below but I am damned if I can see any images at all ! George Harrison If you need convincing, download and print at 16x12 some of the sample full res images at http://www.steves-digicams.com/cameras_digpro.html Select the camera (link) you are interested in., eg http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/5d.html Then select 'sample pictures' from the 'review index' drop-down menu on the LHS of the page that appears. eg http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/5d_samples.html Pick an image eg http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/eos5d/samples/IMG_0533.JPG (this is a good one as the exact same scene has been photographed for most or all reviews, so you can see how a 10D, 1DS, 1D-2N, 5D etc differ and compare) If possible, print them at a fairly large size, because it gives a much more realistic idea of how they compare with film images, either made in the darkroom or scanned. In most respects, IMO, 1DS, 1DS-2, 5D comes close to 645 and in some ways better, in others not. The whole MF vs 35mm digital debate is contentious and perhaps a bit spurious - if you're happy with even a Box Brownie that's good enough - but http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/1ds/1ds-field.shtml is a good piece and his observations match my own. MF is going to recover it's tech advantage as MF backs improve. Image quality from the latest Hasselblad (can't recall the model, integrated back, huge cost) is just astonishing. Digital's Achilles heel is that fine detail below Nyquist gets brick-wall abstracted to aliased mush which contrasts badly with the overall tonal cleanness. Film degrades more gracefully and isn't clean to start with. I use 10D (retired except occasionally) and 1Dmk2-n and have used a 5D - which produces IMO among the best files in the business. I am picky and for me the 10D images start falling apart when printed 12x8 and the 1Dmk2-n manage as big as I ever print (A3). I have never liked bigger than 16x12 for 35mm film anyway because it's too much for the format, and in fact 14x9 is my preferred size. I also use Rollei 6000 MF and have used Hasselblads, so am familiar with MF quality. I loved TMX100 in Rodinal for MF BW, extreme sharpness. Actually, I haven't touched the Rollei kit for a couple of years, it's redundant now and just not worth selling, but maybe there'll be a dig back I can afford someday. -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
On 09/06/2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hmmm. Interesting and quite contrary to my own experience and others. 6 mp DSLR's could not hold a candle to a properly scanned piece of 35mm film in terms of image quality, detail, resolution and enlarge-ability. :-) I said it was contentious. In absolute and abstract terms I'd agree with you. A decent 35mm, scanned, has all those things (and I found a long time ago that scanning post prod gave me better prints than I could achieve in the darkroom - and I was a fairly expert BW printer after 25yrs of it). But whether it matters is a more important but subjective question. For years I used a 10D with no sense of loss because images were almost always going to repro, and seldom used A4. The gains, in terms of control, tonal smoothness, and saved time vastly outweighed the fact that they'd look worse as a 16x12 print which would never get made. Although one client did get me to blow up a couple to 1 x 1.5m, and they were surprisingly fine so long as you were near the proper viewing distance. If you went close, ugh, but then 35mm film would be too. Another issue that pushed me toward dig was that the materials I liked best had either disappeared or had been replaced by updated inferior (but less noxious) ones or truncated ranges (Agfa papers only in the top selling grades - what idiots). Now they have gone completely. And another was client requirements. 4 years ago I took 800GBP worth of stale paper and chemistry to the tip because nobody ever ordered prints anymore. Clients had begun to insist on dig. delivered electronically, for the obvious cost savings as much as anything. Film is not dead, and I hope it never is even though I appear to have left it behind, but it has become a shrinking, specialist niche far faster than anyone expected. There are a lot of losses and downsides to this evolution, and gains as well, but they really aren't what anyone expected. They are a nothing to do with image quality, which is and always was a matter of 'good enough' rather than a techie theological debate. I'm in the middle of writing a series of blog pieces about this. -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
On 09/06/2007 James L. Sims wrote: I think that digital imaging definitely has a place in this list, Tony. I have confidence in and great respect for the core group of this list. Digital imaging, film scanning and digicams are still evolving. Just some of the issues are RAW file converters, practical limits of pixel density - have we reached it? How much do we really need? And the digital archiving issues, just to name a few. I think you have a blue ribbon group contained in this list, Tony. Please keep it going, I am amazed to see it leap back into life, it saves me worrying that the server has clagged:) I'm happy to let it mutate to accomodate changed conditions, though I wouldn't want to see it become a minor and pointless clone of [prodig]. -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Initialization problem with Polaroid SprintScan 4000
On 09/06/2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: couldn't figure out how to pop the top off to look for dust because there were no screws The rectangular slots in the base provide access to plastic clips which retain the cover - by the look of it, I haven't tried. They're a fairly standard form of screwless retention and need to be levered gently with a flat screwdriver blade to unclip at the same time as lifting the case lid slightly. Before you do that I'd check your SCSI card is properly seated in the computer (remove and reinsert), and make and remake cable connections and remove and replace the SCSI terminator block. If the scanner is chained with other SCSI devices, remake the connections at all of them. Trying a different terminator will also be worthwhile. The intermittency says its almost certainly a poor connection somewhere or dust/dirt, rather than a big expensive fault. You just have to find it :) -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
On 09/06/2007 R. Jackson wrote: to fully resolve the grain structure of film takes WAY more resolution than you need to replace it as a capture medium. Yup. At one time I had 4,000 8,000 and 12,000ppi scans of the same bit of film. 8,000 was clearly better than 4,000 (not hugely, but clearly), but 12,000 still showed further improvement albeit diminishing returns. 12,000ppi recorded the grain topology more accurately. Now, an information theorist will tell you that's a waste of effort because the image itself has far lower spatial frequencies than all those pointless wiggly edges of clumps of grain. And they'd be right, except the film image *is* the grain rather than what it encodes, and you can see a difference with mushy grain that just doesn't look right. But that's the difference between photographers and information theorists, taste and judgement ;) None of this matters much if you don't print big enough for it to matter or don't care, and I've never longed for more than 4,000ppi personally. -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
On 09/06/2007 Henk de Jong wrote: The Canon 5D looks like an interesting camera body and even more now I have read that I could (re)use my Contax, Yashica and Tokina lenses. A friend fitted Leica R lenses to his 1DS-2. http://www.cameraquest.com/frames/4saleReos.htm -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Nikon LS30 Vista
On 09/06/2007 David wrote: I wonder if anyone has been able to get a Nikon LS30 working with NK scan and Vista. There are no drivers for the SCSI card. Has any one found a workaround ? You won't find any support by Nikon, but I believe Vuescan will happily do it. Trial version from www.hamrick.com - and read Ed's notes about ASPI. -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
On 09/06/2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This conflicts with claims that it is beneficial to scan at 4000 dpi or higher resolutions. Am I likely seeing the limitations of the optics of my scanner rather than of the information capacity of the film? Anybody know how well the optics of the Polaroid SprintScan 4000 compares with those of Konica-Minolta or Nikon scanners? The main issue with scanning at lower than 4000ppi is grain aliasing on some materials (grain sizes near the Nyquist limit cause aliasing artifacts which look like exaggerated and false-colour grain). This isn't totally avoided in 4,000ppi+ scanners and Nikons have always seemed more prone due to the semi-collimated LED lightsource. Nikon 2700ppi models were especially prone, and most claims to see ISO100 grain in scans were nothing more than visible grain aliasing. I've only seen it twice with Polaroid 4000, in some overexposed Fuji200 col neg and in TMax3200. There is nothing you can usefully do with such images. I can't answer your optics question; all seem at least adequate. And normalising the images via bicubic resampling means all bets are off regarding a meaningful comparison - it's useful but it's not very kind to image detail. -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Initialization problem with Polaroid SprintScan 4000
On 07/06/2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have been having a problem with my Polaroid SprintScan 4000 scanner. Polaroid technical support hasn't been very helpful, so I'm wondering if someone out there might have experienced this problem and know something about the cause/solution. When I turn my scanner on, the green and yellow LED lights on the scanner come on and remain on solidly. Normally, during start-up the yellow LED blinks, which according to Polaroid documentation, means the scanner is initializing. Obvious things first: the bulb is working (visible through front slot)? And you are not trying to power up with a filmholder installed? (the 4000 cannot initialise with a filmstrip holder inserted - have to do that first, then insert). Otherwise dust, perhaps. During initialisation the scanner winds the transport to a WB calibration position and then parks it ready for the filmstrip holder to be inserted. I believe there's a photocell which is part of this cycle which is prone to dust problems. I'd pop the lid off and see if there's anything that can be cleaned with a soft brush or air-duster (but be very careful with keeping the aerosol upright, as a jet of propellant will leave a hard to remove residue). It may be a good idea to check lubrication on the transport threads too. Mine still works. I'm amazed :) -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Strange light spill-over in Nikon LS-8000 scan
On 27/05/2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: . It almost looks like a faint light leak into the dark areas -- a slight fogging of the some of the dark areas. Probably flare, which although it could be just an inherent lens defect is often dust or contamination on the optics of the scanner indicating a need for cleaning. If you don't keep the scanner under a dust cover when unused it is common. Also sometimes lubricant can get onto the optics. Since there is almost no dark shadow detail in this particular image, you may be able to get rid of it simply by clipping the black point a little. -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] ADMIN: LIST BACK
The list should now be operating normally again. Regards Tony Sleep Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Vuescan and 64bit Windows - Ed's reply
On 05/06/2006 James L. Sims wrote: I am not impressed with ASUS web support. After all the great reviews about ASUS, that was a letdown. IME Asus are one of the better mfr's, with generally solid boards and a decent record of fixing things that don't quite work. I have used them a lot - 3 here at the moment. I'd also agree Gigabyte are solid. It seems the mobo market moves so fast that early BIOS and driver revisions are often flakey. www.amdmb.com is a very good support forum for all AMD boards, though overrun with crazed overclockers. If there's a known problem, it will usually be found there. One to avoid at all costs is DFI, the only mobo (Lan Party NF2) I have ever thrown away because it was so utterly broken. Superb press reviews, and hundreds of people at amdmb.com with boards that just could not be coerced away from terminal BIOS self-corruption. Mine even destroyed a CPU. They switched production from Taiwan (for the pre-production boards that press got) to China (for the crap punters got) and about 30-50% were rubbish. Most mfr's had trouble with early NF2 boards, but at least Gigabyte and Asus fixed theirs. Nowadays I deliberately lag a bit behind the cutting edge, it's cheaper and less frustrating and reliability is worth more than an extra 10-30% speed. Tony Sleep Tony Sleep Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Vuescan and 64bit Windows - Ed's reply
On 04/06/2006 James L. Sims wrote: But just as the restart was completing, I encountered the much feared blue screen. I wont bore anyone with the details but I finally was up and running some seven hours later, with the updated drivers. Oh I hate weekends like that :-} Too often, by half. Glad you got it sorted eventually. Regards Tony Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Vuescan and 64bit Windows - Ed's reply
On 02/06/2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, the technique works for the KM Scan Elite 5400 II, but doesn't work for the Nikon LS-8000. Maybe Ed could find a fix for that. Ed's reply:- On 03/06/2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here's a more complete scanners.inf file. I thought the extra entries wouldn't be needed - the GenScanner entry is supposed to pick up most SCSI and Firewire scanners. Regards, Ed Hamrick You can download this file from http://tonysleep.co.uk/scanners.inf (embarassed note : the above is a development website I wouldn't be using at all except for the ongoing screw-up over the halftone.co.uk domain. Almost nothing is visible, it is all locked down. So if you go looking around be prepared to be puzzled and disappointed. The only photo on the site which is presently visible to guests is on the home page). Tony Sleep Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Vuescan and 64bit Windows - Ed's reply
On 02/06/2006 James L. Sims wrote: I have a 32-bit device on a computer running Windows XP 32-bit that regularly fails to see one device unless it's activated and the computer restarted - much like the behavior that I experienced with Win 2K. That's normal and correct behaviour for SCSI. You can go into device manager and refresh the view instead, and it should be seen. Once seen, you can turn the device off and on at will, and won't have that problem again - until you reboot with the device powered off. Tony Sleep Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Vuescan and 64bit Windows - Ed's reply
On 03/06/2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But even with the Nikon LS-8000 loaded using this new file, Vuescan still crashes the system immediately upon starting. I wish the blue screen of death didn't pass so quickly so I could read what the issue was. Loading the KM 5400 II and my Epson 3200 with this file seem to work fine and Vuescan operates normally with them. I also downloaded the very latest version of Vuescan (8.3.50, I was using 8.3.47 before) just to make sure that wasn't an issue. Copied to Ed. As I say, he tends to fix things that are broken once he knows about them, so don't give up yet :) Tony Sleep Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Vuescan and 64bit Windows - Ed's reply
On 03/06/2006 James L. Sims wrote: These are USB devices, Tony. Ah, OK. That is weird, then. I've used USB USB2 a lot and not had any problems like that. Is the controller on the motherboard? If so, it might be worth looking for updated motherboard drivers, or trying a PCI card USB adaptor instead. Tony Sleep Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Vuescan and 64bit Windows - Ed's reply
On 03/06/2006 Tony Sleep wrote: Is the controller on the motherboard? If so, it might be worth looking for updated motherboard drivers, or trying a PCI card USB adaptor instead. Sorry, too much hurry. I could have been clearer. I meant 'updated BIOS and chipset drivers' for the mobo. Back to fixing the wife's carb's... Tony Sleep Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Vuescan and 64bit Windows - Ed's reply
On 03/06/2006 Laurie Solomon wrote: If you have connected the devices to an unpowered hub Oh yes, what Laurie says, in spades. I sometimes forget there are such things as unpowered hubs. They're more or less completely useless. A single USB port is specced at 0.5amps, and a large proportion of USB peripherals push that limit, so if you have 1 plugged into a hub that doesn't provide any extra power, it falls in a heap. Tony Sleep Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: large scanning project
On 31/05/2006 James L. Sims wrote: I downloaded a profile from Ian Lyons' Computer Darkroom website ( http://www.computer-darkroom.com/home.htm )several years ago that seems to work much better than the OEM profile. I tried that. It helped a bit, provided you did a profile-to-profile conversion in PS and avoided the broken driver CM entirely. The Epson canned profile was terrible. I spent ages, and GOK how much paper and ink trying to get good prints. The inks were shockingly temporary anyhow. I did think about converting the 1200 to Piezography, but had so little confidence in it by then that I bought an 1160 instead. In the end I bought a 1290 for colour and gave the 1200 to my sister, for her kids to use. I can understand companies writing off a model some years after production has ceased but three years is a bit soon. Sadly, you're right. The industry standard now is epitomised by Dell, whose attitude is that once a machine is out of warranty it is obsolete and none of their concern; you should buy a new model if you want support. Yes, I have a Dell Latitude, now on its 3rd keyboard and 2nd motherboard. I learned my lesson with the purchase of a new Gateway computer in 1996. I custom built my first machine in 1997 to replace it. Yep, same here, all self-built, except it's not possible with laptops. Dell wouldn't sell me parts, only an extended warranty (at 525GBP!). Ebay has kept this thing going. I won't buy another Dell. Again, sadly, Ed's software won't cure my 64-bit driver problem. Interesting. Why is that? I'm still on 32bit, but does 64-bit have a different driver architecture? AFAIK Vuescan makes no use whatsoever of the mfr's 32bit driver, so long as it can talk via ASPI or whatever driver layer is needed for the data interface, it works. I am sure I have used VS with various scanners without installing any mfr. s/w, or is a native OS driver for the scanner invoked? Tony Sleep Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Vuescan and 64bit Windows - Ed's reply
On 31/05/2006 James L. Sims wrote: By the way, Tony, please check your clock, this message was time stamped 3/31/06 1:05 PM. Yes, sorry about that. I had been using some accounts s/w for which I needed to fake the time date, and forgot to set it back. Tony Sleep Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: ADMIN: domain transfer issues
On 25/05/2006 gary wrote: The trouble is it takes a really good digital camera to equal a film camera plus scanner. Well, yes, but the time and hassle saving is colossal. I still scan film, and will be doing so for many years, but it's all archive. I've shot 2 rolls in the past 3.5years, which I had to, to match older projects. I need an MF scanner for some 6x6, but am waiting for prices to fall on eBay:) Tony Sleep Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] ADMIN: domain transfer issues
As posted today at www.halftone.co.uk - please see below. This may have implications for the filmscanners list, as if I cannot get the domain released I shall have to change the list address. More later on that. Regards Tony Sleep == www.halftone.co.uk - the home of Tony Sleep Photography and the filmscanners mailing list - is presently unavailable due to Pipex failing to release the domain for transfer as instructed 14 May 2006. Sorry, but rather than have it vanish without trace at some time that suits them, I thought it best to pull the site and tell everyone what was going on. I apologise for any inconvenience this causes. However the site was horrendously overdue for an update, but had become an unmanageable sprawl of ancient static HTML. It was simply not worth attempting given the negligible facilities (no scripts, no database) available with this ISP. If you are looking for subscribe/unsubscribe instructions for the filmscanners list, please see below. The filmscanners reviews are now outdated and I no longer review them due to the excessive amounts of time and lost income it involved. I do not intend reinstating them. Try the Wayback Machine archive of the web at http://www.archive.org/web/web.php if you are looking for an old review. The photography and much more (folios, exhibits, stories, tech stuff, blog and whatever else I feel like chucking in) will reappear shortly at the all-new CMS-based www.tonysleep.co.uk. However that site is still in development, and access to content is variable at present, depending on what I am working on. I had hoped to manage the transition rather more smoothly but reckoned without Pipex. So Halftone.co.uk is now in limbo for the time being. If you have any inquiries or concerns please contact me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] My current email address [EMAIL PROTECTED] still works, and will remain my main address as it is so well known - but there are bound to be a few days disruption whenever I eventually manage to move the halftone.co.uk domain. Alternatively, phone me on +44 208 840 3463 (0208 840 3463 within UK). The filmscanners list The list is still active but quiet, with few postings. Everyone has bought digital cameras, or now knows what they are doing :-) The archive is at http://www.mail-archive.com/filmscanners@halftone.co.uk To subscribe : send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with subscribe filmscanners, or subscribe filmscanners_digest, in the msg subject or body if you prefer digest delivery rather than individual mails. To unsubcribe: send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe filmscanners, or unsubscribe filmscanners_digest, in the msg subject or body, depending on which you are subscribed to. The address for postings to the list remains [EMAIL PROTECTED] See you at www.tonysleep.co.uk I hope... - Tony Sleep 25 May 2005 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] ADMIN : List Archives
A list member, Dieder Bylsma, has pointed out that there is an archive of the filmscanners list at http://www.nabble.com/Film-Scanners-f95.html This may be useful to some of you, since it presents a tidier threaded view that the existing http://www.mail-archive.com/filmscanners@halftone.co.uk Unfortunately the Nabble archive doesn't go back very far, just to summer 2005, when someone - not me - signed up a delivery address. Unfortunately the archive of the early years of the list, which was hosted by a member at http://phi.res.cse.dmu.ac.uk/Filmscan/ is long since gone. Regards Tony Sleep Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Howtek 4500 drum scanner for 35mm slides
On 12/02/2006 Ed Verkaik wrote: Anyone on here ever used a Howtek 4500 drum scanner? Someone told me it will blow away the best dedicated slide scanners. It has the potential to exceed anything CCD scanners achieve, but you may not need the extra quality. There's an old reference Howtek drum scan on the filmscanners section of my old site, www.halftone.co.uk - soon to go to the great bit bucket in the sky. I've used a Nikon 4000ED for awhile and am basically happy but have always wondered if a cheap, used drum scanner would be worth getting. Is there enough of a quality difference for either stock or fine art? It really depends on usage. Drum scanners are far less sensitive to image defects. They also need more operator expertise and are more hassle. Would all slides (35mm) need to be wet mounted? Yes. Drum scanners score badly on convenience, which is why they have largely fallen into disfavour. And of course cost. Tony Sleep Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: question about scanning and color profiles
On 12/01/2006 Stan Schwartz wrote: I played with the monitor ICC profile. I could not browse to a file named 'monitor.icc' as my system doesn't seem to have a monitor.icc Just type 'monitor.icc' into the field, I think - it's a VS default setting that is meaningful to the prog., not a real .icc file. Which is somewhat confusing. Tony Sleep Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Flatbed for prints only
On 16/12/2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was hoping to find a flatbad for around $100. Format no bigger than std 8.5x11 or A4 (or close to it). I use a crummy, cheap Canon Lide 50. Originally bought for messing about with Profile Prism. Its LED lightsource is relatively un-metameric compared to other types, with inkjet inks. It blows the socks off the c.1997-8-9 Umax Powerlook II I use solely for making contact sheets from 35mm (it has a 10x8 film hood, and can take the glass bit of a Paterson contact frame). The Canon was around 60GBP /~$100USD, but I bet they're cheaper there. The Umax once retailed at around 2000GBP but now go for 70GBP on eBay. I'd be surprised if you needed anything better : colour accuracy, speed, ease of use, shadow noise, optical sharpness and resolution are just absurdly good for the price. Being picky, it loses just a tiny bit of shadow detail. It's barely larger than A4 and 30mm thick. The Umax is a huge slab, 25x the volume. Both work with Vuescan. Tony Sleep Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] ADMIN: Msgs not appearing?
I'm seeing occasional message posting attempts failing because they are misaddressed. The address to send to for distribution to this list is filmscanners@halftone.co.uk *NOT* filmscanners_owner If you send to any other address it will not work, so please re-send. *AND* If you send from any other address than your subscribed address, mail will be presumed an attempt to spam the list and will silently fail. Regards Tony Sleep - http://www.halftone.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Archives (and BW inks)
wrote: How long does it take for a posting to get into the archives? Normally about 24hrs, but mail-archive.com have been having one of their fraught periods of upgrades-that-go-awry over the past week, and some archive material may have been lost. So don't rely on the archive at present! In fact your mail was distributed to the list OK, it just hasn't had any replies. Unfortunately, the only BW system I know of that entirely escapes metamerism is Cone Piezography - see http://www.piezography.com/ - and I don't believe they cater for HP printers. I use Piezography inks myself, in an Epson 1160 + CIS. MIS Quad black and Lyson inks are other monochrome possibilities you may want to investigate, but they are not total cures for the problem. Regards Tony Sleep - http://www.halftone.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Modern photography...
wrote: I think item 3 might be the culprit. Nice theory but the mould doesn't seem to show any preference for the film rebate, which is where handling has occurred. Regards Tony Sleep - http://www.halftone.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Modern photography...
bob geoghegan wrote: Conditions are the big variable for mold I've been reviewing scanning 300+ rolls of 25-year old Tri-X HP5 negs that were well washed, stored in mostly good quality plastic pages, Glassine pages in loose leaf binders here, in a steel storage cabinet subject to normal UK indoor conditions. The vast majority of negs are completey unaffected, the damn stuff seems to make a beeline for the only few images I like. I almost wonder whether it is because they have periodically been removed and used in the enlarger. Regards Tony Sleep - http://www.halftone.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Modern photography...
wrote: There is nothing like BW negatives for longevity. You think? I'm scanning negs from 20-30 years ago before it's too late. Mould is a big issue and a swine to try and fix. These were very well processed and washed but ironically that encourages mould. OK, storage in a humidity and temp controlled environment, with filtered atmosphere to keep the spores away, would produce a different outcome, but acetate film base is unstable anyhow. I don't seem to have that problem yet myself, but I know of one photographer who has widespread vinegar-rot syndrome on negs of similar age to my own. http://www.rit.edu/~661www1/sub_pages/acetguid.pdf So BW film is in general no better than an inkjet of mediocre longevity, or a CD carelessly stored. Shoot on Estar base and invest in a clean room to do better. I've dispensed with wet printing a couple of years ago, after 30yrs of fighting the materials. Cone Piezography produces a very different sort of print, but likeable in its own terms and digital workflow has overwhelming advantages and control (specially where mouldy negs are concerned). Besides all of the bromides I really liked have either been discontinued or sanitised to mediocrity for HS reasons. There is simply nothing around that comes close to, say, the original Agfa Record Rapid, stuffed as it was with noxious Cobalt and God knows what. There are technologies for printing dig on bromide or Ciba for those who can't accept inkjet aesthetics, eg http://www.owenboyd.com/index.html Personally I love the smooth tonality of dig, even for BW. I mostly used the finer grain films, TMax CN, Delta, XP1/2 anyhow, to escape grain. Before those, I used solvent developers, or pushed ISO125 in 2-bath rather than put up with the offensive mush. Regards Tony Sleep - http://www.halftone.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: New member
Bosko Loncarevic wrote: Is there a list archive that I could consult before asking a question(s) that may have been thoroughly discussed in the past? Hi, Mail headers contain the archive address, posting and unsubscribe addresses and instructions. Unsubscribe info also appear in the mail footers. If your mail client does not show headers, 'message : properties' will do so. The archive is incomplete. The list used to be archived by a list member, who vanished and the archive along with him, after a couple of years. The present archive goes back a couple of years but with a large hole of several months when it broke. Regards Tony Sleep - http://www.halftone.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Nikon LS-30 -- strange behavoir
Peter Marquis-Kyle wrote: I'm annoyed to find it now produces files with a weird waviness. See the effect here: http://www.marquis-kyle.com.au/mt/000689.htm Throw it back at the service technician, it clearly hasn't been tested or repaired as properly as they stated. Unless there's a transit screw done up somewhere still :) I'd hazard a guess that something has not been done up properly or a cable dressed incorrectly, which is causing uneven movement of the film stage. However, do try it with Vuescan if you aren't using that already, as it uses different SCSI commands to NS to eliminate the fringing problems often seen in the LS30 due to mechanical resonance. I doubt it will fix the problem, but a change to the waviness will tend to confirm a mechanical glitch rather than driver or electronics. Regards Tony Sleep - http://www.halftone.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: List membership ... please
Frank K-F wrote: Tony . is this list still active? I lost contact when my new Thinkpad arrived .. have been mostly a lurker .. and wish to add my name to the daily summaries. Active, but no msgs for a while. I see you've moved yourself to the digest OK, but obviously don't expect any digests if there's no traffic;) Regards Tony Sleep - http://www.halftone.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: archiving scanned images to DVDs
wrote: I mistakenly purchased a box of DVD+RW discs rather than the DVD+R discs. I recall there was an issue with CD-RW media not being as durable as CD-R media. How about rewriteable DVD media? Does the same difference hold for DVD? AIUI CD-RW media are actually slightly _more_ stable, given dark storage in good conditions. I wouldn't trust anything to long-term storage on DVD however. The dyes are different to CDR/W, and some assessments have estimated safe archival life as 3-4yrs max. There are also issues around DVD's being unreadable on drives other than that on which they were written, something I have been personally bitten by with some DVDR supplied to clients, and also a DVDR supplied to me by a friend. When this happens, you can see the dirs and filenames OK, but can't actually open the files. Regards Tony Sleep - http://www.halftone.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Blue gray random pattern???
Brad Davis wrote: I intentionally left out one datum that supports a mobo problem. His sound system is not working correctly, it isn't stereo, he only has one channel It's dead tedious trying to pin these things down, but those 3.5mm stereo jack sockets are awful things - it's easy to lose a channel because of no more than a bad contact there. I lost sound on the PC I use for music, last week. It turned out to be a dead spot on the 2-gang volume control on the amp it's plugged into. Move it a mm either way and all was fine, I discovered after about an hour checking connections among the spaghetti. Doh. We've got ...7 PC's around here, 3XPP,1 W2k SP1 (essential for USB),3 W98SE. None give any trouble with USB/USB2. IME it either works fine or it doesn't at all. Once drivers are installed, it just works. Even when a USB peripheral mfr's device drivers are hooky, or the install buggers up, the OS level stuff that drives USBis unperturbed - it's just that particular device that doesn't work. Plug something else in and it's fine. If it's a DFI Infinity or Lanparty Athlon mobo, throw it away now, the QC is terrible - BTDT, twice. If it's an AOpen P2 MX-something of a few years ago, check the capacitors, they went through a bad patch... Regards Tony Sleep - http://www.halftone.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Blue gray random pattern???
Brad Davis wrote: I wouldn't expect the interface to put in such an even (if random) dot pattern. I have no idea how XP might be at fault, but the one thing that would seem to be common is the XP driver for USB(12). No such problems here with XP USB2 and scanners or anything else. If he's tried different interfaces and scanners, it sounds like dirty/bad mains supply or RFI, or low volts on the USB perhaps. Early VIA chipsets were awful for this, they'd sag badly if asked to supply anything like the 500mA USB is specced for, and some peripherals just wouldn't work at all. But that will only apply if he's using USB hung off the PC's internal USB ports (powered from the mobo). If he's using a PCI card with USB ports he'll have to look deeper (and if he isn't, he should try one as a priority, as they circumvent the mobo USB chipset's limitations). It may also be worth trying the scanner hung off a *mains powered* USB2 hub, in case the power supply from the mobo chipset is dirty or failing. Not all scanner drivers like hubs though, so this could create new problems. If none of that helps, I think he's going to have to - try the scanner on a different PC in his home - try the scanner on a different PC somewhere else - try his PC and scanner somewhere else - try the PC and scanner at home on a decent UPS to establish whether it's the PC or his mains supply. If it is his PC, and a PCI USB card doesn't fix it, I think he's then looking at establishing whether it's the PSU or mobo, by substitution. Check the voltages in the BIOS. A careful visual inspection of the mobo may help pin it down. Look for leaking/bulging/corrosion-covered electrolytic capacitors especially. Regards Tony Sleep - http://www.halftone.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: List future
Brad Davis wrote: In part, because I much enjoyed reading the list when there was more activity, I asked if there was a way to get it moving again. You seem to have done just that:) Asking questions, or putting up points/observations for debate will do it. Regards Tony Sleep - http://www.halftone.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: List future
LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: But if your analysis is correct and traffic is negligable because most of the knowledgable users have adequate knowledge and are using their older models of scanner and not keeping up with the newer models, then eventually there will not be a group of informed contributing subscribers around to sustain the list as a dedicated reference forum or to provide that expertise tommorrow. All true. You can't escape entropy... There are two schools of thought about this; I take the other school and bind precisely focussed lists without OT to be both boring and lacking in any feeling of community among the subscribers who remain impersonal anonymous entities or institutional memory since members tend to treat the list as a technical support line only and lurk until they need something but rarely contribute information or feel obligated to do so. Also entirely true, successful lists are communities and social places too. Which is why I've always tried to use a light touch with OT stuff, only intervening when I start getting complaints about excessive rudeness or pedantry. People who make up the the sustaining contributors to any list tend to leave even if the list is useful when the list becomes one where the same issues and questions repeatedly come up, the same discussion recirculate over and over repetitively, and nothing new and interesting is introduced. Ironically, it is OT discussions that add the spice and novelty to the list conversation that keeps the list alive and interesting to those who tend to be the sustaining contributors since they frequently are the ones who are giving out most of the information and rarely need much from the list by way of useful information having been there frequently in the past and acquired an adequate library of useful information already. Yup. Balance is essential. But successful lists start from a point of fulfilling a need moving eventually to a fulfilled need. The arrow of time. With respect to diluting the list and digital imaging being a large topic that grows like topsy, you do not have to cover the total workflow. The list could be a dedicated conduit to the topic of digital capturing of imaging and restricted in its focus and scope to that portion of the workflow so as to cover digital capturing processes utilizing scanners and/or cameras. The processes used by scanners and cameras are very similar with digital cameras being more like digital scanners that any other hardware in the imaging workflow. Thus, there is probably some commonality in issues and questions that come up with respect to the two. I agree there is. Familiarity with scanning (and film photography) is a big help with digicam workflow. But I dunno how you limit (self-limit) discussion to capture and workflow, without digressing into specifics that are already well handled elsewhere (dpreview, robgalbraith etc). If someone can come up with a formula for a wider-ranging list than filmscanners that somehow uniquely addresses crossover topics that are likely to be of interest to the same community, I'll gladly provide one and simply autojoin everyone. It won't fly though, unless there is a USP that grabs enough people. If that USP is 'talk digicam with the same group of people', or 'anything vaguely photographic with the same group of people' fine, or even 'anything including Art's Toyota with the same group of people' ;-) we can try it, see if it flies, and anyone who can't stand it can run away. But I don't want to take the muddling step of widening filmscanners itself, it's too widely known (and entirely the wrong title:). I'm wary of jumping in with a reinvention of epson_inkjet because that list required industrial scale servers and bandwidth to sustain its traffic levels. Besides there already is an Epson Printers list on Yahoo Groups which has a subscriber list larger than the old Leben Epson Inkjet list as well as several specialty lists dedicated to black and white inkjet printing anD Epson Wide Format Inkjets. Quite, though I'm not in them because I have inkjet sorted to my satisfaction, for now. I'm in lists that deal with specific areas that are live areas of interest for me for now, and dip into some web forums from time to time, pick-and-mix, ad hoc. With such tremendous volumes of information whizzing around the net, and far too few hours in the day, the problem has shifted from 'nowhere to talk' to 'far too many places to keep up with'. Really, if there's going to be yet another one, it has to spot a niche nobody else has else it'll just turn yellow and the leaves will drop off. Regards Tony Sleep - http://www.halftone.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: List future
Brad Davis wrote: As to what kind of list I would like in addition - I feel that I am most behind the curve on various programs for image processing. I use Photoshop CS, and while I find it very useful, I keep coming across comments that this or that software does some things (even many things) better or easier or...? As Laurie said, Yahoogroups (spit!) are the place to go. I think I'd possibly nominate something as numinous as 'workflow', since it's an enormously under-debated area. We all seem to evolve our own by trial and error, at least I have. I have been through many different iterations of just how to arrange directories on HD and name and archive files, and each time I've changed it has involved tons of work. Then there's the cataloguing software, total nightmare if you get it wrong - I've tried maybe 20 different progs, before arriving at iMatch which for me is streets ahead of anything else and presents no significant limitations (except the learning curve:). But perhaps requirements are so disparate and individual that there's little possibility of productive discussion, everybody just has to figure out their own tailor-made best method. Regards Tony Sleep - http://www.halftone.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Revive this list?!
James L. Sims wrote: WELCOME BACK, ART!!! I thought you'd died! At my age it's getting to be a real worry. He has. I have. You have. Didn't you see the pearly gates on the way in? Regards Tony Sleep - http://www.halftone.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Revive this list?!
Carlisle Landel wrote: This is an *incredibly* good list, because the junk to content ratio is vanishingly close to zero. So what if there are long periods of silence? As far as I've been able to see, if somebody has a question, it is answered quickly *and* authoritatively. If somebody has something useful to say, then they say it. Perfect! I must say that's my view too. I have very little to say about scanners these days, having moved on to shooting digital exclusively, and at the same time losing touch with current models. I'm still scanning historic stuff, 20+yr old negs needing rescue, a ghastly business. I rather think most users are in much the same position, with by now adequate knowledge and filmscanners they're happy with. There aren't many new adopters of this now mature technology, which is past its peak, just like film itself. Regards Tony Sleep - http://www.halftone.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] List future
OK, here's how I see it. 1. This list, like all lists, has a natural lifespan. A bit like a sun past-its-best-by-date, it's now becoming a red dwarf. It'll probably be a black hole in 10 years. 2. It's still useful to have a dedicated reference forum in one place, for as long as there are filmscanners around. Even if traffic is negligible, it may be tomorrow that any of us needs the conduit to the expertise of others. 3. It suits me fine that it's quiet, less admin, no bandwidth problems, little cost:) 4. Lists tend to be most useful when precisely focussed and not polluted with OT wibble and squabbles about OT wibble. Widening the scope of this list would only dilute that utility and risk driving away those who don't share precisely the same interests, thereby diluting the usefulness of this list for its primary purpose. If lists aren't useful, people leave. 5. Yes, it's absolutely true that dig.imaging is like the Chinese proverb: you lift one blade of grass and up comes the whole field. And it's huge. So it's a struggle to keep any list within sensible bounds, as what starts out as a question about funny colour can instantaneously explode in 15 different directions, ranging from film technology to lab standards, to scanners, software, technique, monitors and calibration, colour management, and print technologies, inksets, profiling yada yada Any one of those single topics is a PhD level career for someone, and a busy list. 6. Given that I don't want to dilute this list, I am prepared to start one or more others as well, so the community can potentially remain intact. BUT: (a)not everybody who's in filmscanners will want to join a new list (b)there is no point - and mutually destructive - to set up a new list that replicates the interest area of another list that already exists. It's far more useful to have know-how concentrated in one place. 7. So what areas are candidates for a new list(s)? I'm wary of jumping in with a reinvention of epson_inkjet because that list required industrial scale servers and bandwidth to sustain its traffic levels. It's not surprising it died, the economics are ruinous. Regards Tony Sleep - http://www.halftone.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Lines in scans
Thomas Maugham wrote: Using a Polaroid SS4000 on a PC with Win 2000 Pro, Polacolor 5.0, and Silverfast Ai 5.0, I am getting horizontal lines appearing on my scans. There are about 12 lines evenly spaced. Interestingly, when I use VueScan the scans are fine. Can anyone PLEASE shed some light on this? Could be some other process stealing CPU cycles. It's ages since I've used Polacolor (VS works better for me), but did have the problem at one time though I can't now remember what the culprit was. Regards Tony Sleep - http://www.halftone.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Pacific Image PowerSlide 3600, 3600dpi, Automated, 35mm, Slide
Clive Moss wrote: Does anyone have any experience with the Pacific Image PowerSlide 3600 Slide Scanner? I found a couple of non committal mentions in Google Groups, and a couple of negative reports elsewhere. It is attractive because it provides reasonably priced batch scanning of slides - but only if it works! AIUI this is a close relative of the same model Kodak sold for a while as the RFS3600, without any great success. Manf. for them by Pacific Image, as a development of the not-very-nice Primefilm 1800i. Not bad exactly, but mediocre optics, a tendency to banding, cheap build quality plus poor software meant few people bought it despite the low price. Unusually capable of scanning an entire uncut roll of 35mm, but no take-up spool so it just got dumped on the floor. Regards Tony Sleep - http://www.halftone.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] ADMIN: Mail-archive.com test
The Archive at www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] has not been working properly lately, with this list. This is a test of a fix by the owners. Regards Tony Sleep - http://www.halftone.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Nikon Color Management
Ed Lusby wrote: Whatever I do has to be as automatic as possible. Vuescan is working extremely well. In case you didn't know... You can speed up VS appreciably by avoiding the need for the scanner to make a second pass after the preview scan. Set preview to the target resolution (eg 4000ppi), then set 'scan from preview'. When you hit 'scan', VS then processes from memory rather than scanning the image a second time. Regards Tony Sleep - http://www.halftone.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] ADMIN: Virus WARNING 'Site changes' mail
Last night at 04.00+5.00 GMT a mail was distributed as a filmscanners_digest list mail. The mail contained W32Beagle/Bagle variant virus. The message title was 'Site changes'. I received a copy myself. DO NOT OPEN THIS MAIL, DELETE IT IMMEDIATELY. I have had a couple of mails from concerned list members. Plus of course a hundred or so returned rejected mails from automated AV responders. I believe what was distributed was non-infectious and non-harmful, since NAV is in use on the list server with 22/03/04 defs. The message should have been cleaned before distribution by the listserver. However I can't be absolutely sure what got distributed as the copy I received had already been interdicted by NAV as incoming mail. Details and removal tools are at http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/[EMAIL PROTECTED] I have run a full AV scan and GFI mail security scan on the server, both come up clean. The mail will have originally come from a digest member who has somehow acquired W32Bagle :( Probably someone on the E.Coast of the USA, if the timezone can be believed, PLEASE ensure you are running effective antivirus progs with up-to-date AV defs. and never open attachments unless you are sure they are safe. NO EMAILS FROM THE FILMSCANNERS LIST SERVER WILL EVER CONTAIN ATTACHMENTS, so if you get such a mail, delete it unread. Regards Tony Sleep www.halftone.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] ADMIN: server upgrade completed Saturday
...and I bet you didn't even notice:) New mobo/faster cpu/more RAM/new OS (XPPro). And thankfully it has stopped falling over then refusing to reboot Regards Tony Sleep - http://www.halftone.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: SS4000 again
Bob Frost wrote: Surely the whole purpose of collimated light sources is to achieve maximum resolution (I seem to remember this from my light microscopy days many years ago). Actually, not really. You achieve higher contrast and higher apparent sharpness at boundaries with collimated light, but if you equalise contrast by other means, sharpness is pretty much identical. I say 'pretty much' because there are some small-order interactions between film grain edges and collimated light, which leads to enhanced adjacency effects (an optical version of a sharpening filter). Diffuse light bounces around more within the emulsion and tends to creep round grain edges. However the optical ability of the lens system is unaffected and a touch of USM should restore comparability. What's more of a problem is the existence of higher amplitude HF with collimated light excites more grain aliasing through interaction with the sensor Nyquist limit. Regards Tony Sleep - http://www.halftone.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: SS4000 again
Bob Frost wrote: Thanks for bringing me up-to-date - I did say my 'knowledge' was of light microscopy many years ago. ;) Mine's mostly from enlargers, many years ago:) All I can say is that I bought a condenser head for a Durst which already had a diffuser head, because I wanted sharper, contrastier, as alleged. And I was miffed to find that, apart from being almost exactly one paper grade contrastier I could see no difference. If I used a harder grade with the diffuser head, I could see no benefit at all from the condenser head even using a magnifier. All I could see was marginally more blown extreme highlights, already a problem with the (then new) straightline films like TMax, more scratches and marks. The condenser head went back in its box and stayed there. Regards Tony Sleep - http://www.halftone.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] ADMIN: List temporary suspension for maintenance
Please note that at some time in the next few days, the listserver will be taken offline and be upgraded with new mobo/CPU and OS/software rebuild. It has become very temperamental and unstable lately and is driving me crazy. Because I have to fit doing this around work etc, and upgrading another PC at the same time (the donor for parts), I can't be sure exactly when this will happen or how long it will be offline. It could be 2-3 days. If you send mail to the list whilst the server is unavailable, don't worry, it will be spooled upstream and distributed or actioned as soon as the server is back online. Please do NOT resend mail. My personal email is handled by the same machine, so there's no point mailing me either:) Regards Tony Sleep - http://www.halftone.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: slightly OT: contact sheets with A3 flatbed
DRP wrote: I'll get an Epson 1640XL A3 flatbed soon (with transparency back), and try to make an old dream become true: one pass scanning of 6x6 24x36 negs, to make a digital contact sheet. I'm a Vuescan user. I guess I'll meet two pbs: - finding a good carrier for the negs (right from the wet darkroom?) -focusing on these negs I use an elderly Powerlook2 off eBay for 75GBP. It works very well for producing contact sheets electronically with Vuescan, much better than lab-made wet contacts. The reason I chose this scanner was so I could use the glass neg-holder top sheet cannibalised from my old Paterson darkroom contact frames. These allow 6off 6-frame strips from 35mm, or 4off 3-frame 6x6 on a sheet of 10x8. Thickness of the glass may be an issue on other scanners, but it was easy to modify the Powerlook hinge using some PC motherboard stand-offs to raise the hinge 5mm Regards Tony Sleep - http://www.halftone.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] ADMIN - TEST - PLEASE IGNORE
Regards Tony Sleep - http://www.halftone.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] ADMIN: test - please ignore
PLEASE IGNORE! Test of mail distribution with to: field modified to show list name instead of individual recipient name. Regards Tony Sleep - http://www.halftone.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
