filmscanners: Canon: Adaptec scsi adapter
Sorry for sending something that could be considered OT. Adaptec SCSI adapter supplied with Canon2710 does not have connector to attach internal scsi devices. Meanwhile I use Symbolic Logic adaper, with which Canon's native s/w fails to operate (VueScan works though). Sometimes I want to try this CanoCraft to compare against VueScan. So, does anyone have had any problems with Canon and SCSI adapters other than the bundled one, if yes how did you solve them? I have also an idea to attach missing connector to Adaptec card - seems the card was originally designed to have one, there is a place for it. Did anyone tried doing that? Thanks, Slava = --- NOTE: EMAIL HAS CHANGED !!! - Slava Zilberfayn| Home +1(416)7838430 | Work +1(416)5931122x2486 EMAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED]OR [EMAIL PROTECTED] ADDRESS: appt 1219, 377 Ridelle ave, M6B1K2, Toronto, ON, CANADA ___ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.ca address at http://mail.yahoo.ca
Re: filmscanners: Re: Scanning problems(photoshop compression)
Yes, I noticed same thing with photoshop 5.0. Though I don't remember whether it was 24 or 48 bit file. Regards. --- "Brian D. Buck" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On the topic of file compressionHas anyone else noticed that Photoshop 5.5's compression of 48-bit LZW TIFFs actually makes the file bigger than the uncompressed version? Not to mention it is achingly slow to open them up! On my machine it takes about a minute to open a 100MB LZW TIFF vs. about 10 seconds for an uncompressed TIFF. As such, I pretty much stopped using LZW compression. One interesting thing to note is that Vuescan's 48-bit LZW TIFFs are smaller than the uncompressed version, so this isn't something inherent to 48-bit files, just Adobe's way of saving them. Question: does anyone know if PS 6.0 does a better job with 48-bit LZW TIFFs? Does the new JPEG compression option for TIFFs work with 48-bit files? That would be nice. Brian. = --- NOTE: EMAIL HAS CHANGED !!! - Slava Zilberfayn| Home +1(416)7838430 | Work +1(416)5931122x2486 EMAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED]OR [EMAIL PROTECTED] ADDRESS: appt 1219, 377 Ridelle ave, M6B1K2, Toronto, ON, CANADA ___ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.ca address at http://mail.yahoo.ca
filmscanners: VueScan 6.6.1 problems - long pass
I sent it yesterday, but it did not get to the list, so send it again, and attachments in separate mail. --- Hi, I just tried VueScan (with new Canoscan 2710), and I'm having some problems. 1. Take a look at attached images, both saved at highest possible quality in photoshop. Portion of a full frame, at 100%. Original is Sensia 400, pushed to 800. "Media Type" set to "Image" - I understood that's what recommended? First one scanned with most of "auto" settings disabled (only auto exp. was on), one normal pass, one long. Second image is provided for reference only, scanned with one normal pass only, and "clean" is enabled. There are several problems here, easy noticable, I highlighted them. Hardly these could be attributed to lack of my experience with VueScan, which I admit. I also do not send portion of image containing bright lamp against night sky, which leaves fairly large (about 4x as big as a lamp itself) trail as result of ccd blooming. That is certainly not good situation for "long pass exposure", so I probably should not have tried scan this slide with the option at all, but portion of image that I attached should be fine, shouldn't it? 2. Sometimes VueScan get into some strange state, when changing settings does not seem to affect "Scan". Specifically, I was playing with "image brightness" and "manual exposure". I got some very much overexposed images and decided to reset these settings back. So I set "brightness" to 1, and "Auto Exposure" on. Now I started to get normally exposed "preview"s but SAME overexposed "scan from device"s. UNTIL I've done "File-Save settings" and then "File-Load settings" from the same file. Is there something that I'm missing here? As for autofocus: I expected to be able to set a point in a preview window, indicating place I'm most interested be in focus. Is this beyond scanners capabilities? Thanks in advance, if anyone would be able to help. SLava = --- NOTE: EMAIL HAS CHANGED !!! - Slava Zilberfayn| Home +1(416)7838430 | Work +1(416)5931122x2486 EMAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED]OR [EMAIL PROTECTED] ADDRESS: appt 1219, 377 Ridelle ave, M6B1K2, Toronto, ON, CANADA ___ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.ca address at http://mail.yahoo.ca 1pass-long.jpg
filmscanners: VueScan 6.6.1 problems - long pass
Here is the second image. Slava = --- NOTE: EMAIL HAS CHANGED !!! - Slava Zilberfayn| Home +1(416)7838430 | Work +1(416)5931122x2486 EMAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED]OR [EMAIL PROTECTED] ADDRESS: appt 1219, 377 Ridelle ave, M6B1K2, Toronto, ON, CANADA ___ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.ca address at http://mail.yahoo.ca 1pass-no-long.jpg
filmscanners: Minolta Scan Dual II
Is there anyone using Minolta Scan Dual II? I would appreciate if you share your experience - sharpness, noise, convinience etc. Thanks in advance. Slava = --- NOTE: EMAIL HAS CHANGED !!! - Slava Zilberfayn| Home +1(416)7838430 | Work +1(416)5931122x2486 EMAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED]OR [EMAIL PROTECTED] ADDRESS: appt 1219, 377 Ridelle ave, M6B1K2, Toronto, ON, CANADA ___ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.ca address at http://mail.yahoo.ca
RE: filmscanners: Re: So it's the bits?
Paragraph is clear enough for me to understand. And is perfectly correct to my judgement. Slava --- Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: for a given sensitivity from the analog circuitry, changing the A/D won't make any difference to the density ranges that the analog circuitry resolves. It only increases the accuracy with which we read the range of analog values that the CCD *does* resolve. May be I'm slow today...but that paragraph is really unclear to me, and I know this stuff quite well. What exactly do you mean by 'for a given sensitivity from the analog circuitry'? Sensitivity can describe one of many characteristics, so this seems ambiguous. Also, what do you mean by 'to the density ranges that the analog circuitry resolves'. The above paragraph seems to intermix (confuse) different concepts/terms, and really comes across, at least to me, as not very comprehdable. I don't think 'resolves' is the right word there. Also, 'analog values that the CCD *does* resolve'? Again, resolve doesn't really sound right here... The only thing in the described system that is 'resolved' is the A/D. = --- NOTE: EMAIL HAS CHANGED !!! - Slava Zilberfayn| Home +1(416)7838430 | Work +1(416)5931122x2486 EMAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED]OR [EMAIL PROTECTED] ADDRESS: appt 1219, 377 Ridelle ave, M6B1K2, Toronto, ON, CANADA ___ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.ca address at http://mail.yahoo.ca
