[filmscanners] Re: HP PhotsSmart - questions
Laurie Solomon wrote: > Maybe my math is bad; but if it has a native resolution of 2400 ppi/dpi > scanning 1" film, then my math says it will have a native resolution > scanning a 5 inch subject which is much lower than 300 ppi/dpi > independent of the light path factors(e.g., around 75 ppi/dpi). For the > size print that the original poster mentioned which was smaller ( but I > forget the exact size but I think it may have been either a 3.5 x 5 or a > 4 x 6), the native optical resolution would be in the range of about 150 > ppi/dpi to 300 ppi/dpi. > Your math is bad. Let's assume the CCD line sensor is 1/2" across (this dimension actually isn't relevant for this discussion, but I wanted to give it a size), and it indeed has 2400 usable discrete sensor locations. Through the optical lens (forget about measurable ppi ratings, we are speaking of "native", regardless of what the optics or electronics do to it) an image of a band of the film width is projected onto this CCD sensor. If the film width is exactly 1", then 2400 sampling locations exist, so it records 2400 ppi in a 1" wide swath. Now, imagine through changes of the optical path, the same system, but this time a five inch wide image is also projected on this same 1/2" sensor with 2400 discrete sensor locations. The output is still 2400 pixels, but this time, across 5" rather than 1". So, 2400 pixels wide, divided now by 5 (inches) equals 480 ppi. However, I imagine what happens with this beast is that the image is "condensed" and projected on to less than the full sensor width, and only about 1500 of the 2400 sensors are used, perhaps toward the middle sweet spot of the lens to improve what is probably not a great design to begin with. > But this is based on the assumption that a scanner can have variable > native optical resolutions; however, to the best of my knowledge and > understanding, scanners have a single native optical resolution. The > effective optical resolution is a by-product of the number of inches > that one divides into the native optical resolution. Thus, an > enlargement of the image without any interpolative resampling will > result in a lower effective resolution while the reduction of the image > size without such sampling will result in a higher effective resolution. > > Nevertheless, it is still unclear to me if you are saying that the > native OPTICAL resolution of this scanner is variable or not; and if > not, if the native OPTICAL resolution of this scanner is 2400 ppi/dpi or > something else that would produce an effective native resolution of 2400 > ppi/dpi when scanning a 1 inch horizontal length as opposed to some > other horizontal length. > > I basically agree with your description of optical native resolution. As I believe you are stating, however, it is dependent upon the size of the original. The number of discrete sensor locations within the line sensor are finite and absolute (let's ignore double sampling or ganged CCDs). Assuming they are all used, no more than that number can be resolved. So, a 8" wide flatbed scanner which has a native resolution of 600 dpi, has a line sensor with 600 x 8 discrete sensor locations (per color or line) or 4800 sensors. The same scanner might, with the right optical path, scan a 1" wide 35mm negatives at 4800 dpi, using the same sensor. They often cannot do so, because of the nature of the optical path which doesn't allow for the lens to resolve the outer areas of the lens that well, so a sweet spot is used, only projecting to a portion of the line CCD. Art > > Original Message > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich > Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 4:45 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [filmscanners] Re: HP PhotsSmart - questions > > >>The native optical resolution of this scanner varies >>dependent upon the size of the image being scanned. In the >>case of 35mm film, which is just under 1" wide, the scanner >>sensor/CCD scans at 2400 ppi/dpi. >>However, when switched to reflective mode, the scanner can >>scan up to 5 x 7" prints (I previously incorrectly noted >>4x6"). In this mode the maximum is 300 ppi/dpi (although the >>math implies it could scan up to about 450 ppi/dpi) but who >>knows what kind of optical light path bending they had to do to >>accomplish that. >> >>Art >> >>Laurie Solomon wrote: >> >> >>>I looked at the web site you gave the link for; it was not clear from >>>its contents as to what the unit's native optical resolution is. If >>>the native optical resolution is 150 dpi and the other resolutions >>>are all interpolations, that might acco
[filmscanners] Re: HP PhotsSmart - questions
That's what I thought also... although I'm a bit late on this (again!) Art [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Lens coatings MUST be on the outside surface of the lens or else they > don't work. Pretty much, they would be on every glass-air interface. > > Mr. Bill > > Laurie Solomon wrote: > >>Without trying to question or second guess the Schneider guy, I suspect >>that the reason for the recommendation without reservations was because >>he was referring to Schneider lenses and they unlike some of the cheaper >>prosumer lenses may not put their multicoatings on the outside surface >>of the lens or lens elements where they can get scratched... > > > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: HP PhotsSmart - questions
OK, I give up, I'm beginning to sound like an echo in here... You're just one step (or more) ahead on me each time I post... I best read your replies before answering ;-) Art [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > If the optical resolution is variable and YES there are scanners that > can do it (they have to be able to change the distance between the lens > and CCD (CMOS) to change the resolution, then be able to move the > Lens-CCD assembly into the new focus position. Needless to say, this > generally is in the realm of higher-end scanners. > > If the resolution is variable and the scanner can achieve 2,400ppi over > a 1" wide path, then it will achieve 480ppi over a 5" path (2,400ppi/5in > = 480ppi simple arithmetic). > > You can set up a simple ratio if the original strip is something other > than 1"... > > Original Resolution New Resolution > ___ = ___ > Original Scan Width New Scan Width > > Fill in what you know and solve for what you don't. It works every > time, IF the scanner has variable resolution (many don't). Remember, > you can never exceed the maximum optical resolution of the scanner. > > Mr. Bill > > > Laurie Solomon wrote: > >>Maybe my math is bad; but if it has a native resolution of 2400 ppi/dpi >>scanning 1" film, then my math says it will have a native resolution >>scanning a 5 inch subject which is much lower than 300 ppi/dpi >>independent of the light path factors(e.g., around 75 ppi/dpi). For the >>size print that the original poster mentioned which was smaller ( but I >>forget the exact size but I think it may have been either a 3.5 x 5 or a >>4 x 6), the native optical resolution would be in the range of about 150 >>ppi/dpi to 300 ppi/dpi. >> >>But this is based on the assumption that a scanner can have variable >>native optical resolutions; however, to the best of my knowledge and >>understanding, scanners have a single native optical resolution. The >>effective optical resolution is a by-product of the number of inches >>that one divides into the native optical resolution. Thus, an >>enlargement of the image without any interpolative resampling will >>result in a lower effective resolution while the reduction of the image >>size without such sampling will result in a higher effective resolution. >> >>Nevertheless, it is still unclear to me if you are saying that the >>native OPTICAL resolution of this scanner is variable or not; and if >>not, if the native OPTICAL resolution of this scanner is 2400 ppi/dpi or >>something else that would produce an effective native resolution of 2400 >>ppi/dpi when scanning a 1 inch horizontal length as opposed to some >>other horizontal length. > > > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: HP PhotsSmart - questions
On 8 Aug 2005 at 16:40, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > "Stripes" and "strips" may not be the same. One CCD 'strip' could > capture three scan 'stripes' for each scan line via three different color > filters. Problem is that we don't know today what the HP writer meant by > the term stripes in 1997-98. Having just looked at the CCD sensor yesterday... I did not see three rows, unless they were microscopic. The light path in this unit is complicated, by my eye. There are three small lenses and some "light conductors" made of glass or very clear plastic (rectangular shape). What puzzled me is the very loose design. The optical parts are held by plastic pieces with long slots and held together with large sheet metal screws. Not something you can position accurately. Rich Rich Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: HP PhotsSmart - questions
In '97-'98 they were probably trying to describe a tri-linear array so I'd take that as "stripes," and bet my own money on it. Almost every scanner out at that time used tri-linear arrays. The price-point of the HP would prevent them from profitably installing multiple CCD's and it's not a multi-pass scanner (as the Agfa Horizon was). Mr. Bill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > "Stripes" and "strips" may not be the same. One CCD 'strip' could > capture three scan 'stripes' for each scan line via three different color > filters. Problem is that we don't know today what the HP writer meant by > the term stripes in 1997-98. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: HP PhotsSmart - questions
"Stripes" and "strips" may not be the same. One CCD 'strip' could capture three scan 'stripes' for each scan line via three different color filters. Problem is that we don't know today what the HP writer meant by the term stripes in 1997-98. Bob Shomler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Don't confuse a tri-linear array (R-G-B) with 3 strips. The 3 lines of > the tri-linear CCD all look at the same strip. > > By the way, I misspoke about the Horizon, it had 3 5,000 element CCD's > (not tri-linear, three pass, three strips), the IMagiTex scanners had 5, > 5,000 element CCD's (monochrome, one pass, five strips). > > Mr. bill > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>Laurie Solomon wrote: >> >> >>>Bob, >>> >>>First, thanks for the information; but second, please elaborate. I do not >>>understand what is meant by "There are, in fact, three stripes. Each having >>>greater than 2400 photo sites" in the quote: Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: HP PhotsSmart - questions
Don't confuse a tri-linear array (R-G-B) with 3 strips. The 3 lines of the tri-linear CCD all look at the same strip. By the way, I misspoke about the Horizon, it had 3 5,000 element CCD's (not tri-linear, three pass, three strips), the IMagiTex scanners had 5, 5,000 element CCD's (monochrome, one pass, five strips). Mr. bill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Laurie Solomon wrote: > >> Bob, >> >>First, thanks for the information; but second, please elaborate. I do not >>understand what is meant by "There are, in fact, three stripes. Each having >>greater than 2400 photo sites" in the quote: Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: HP PhotsSmart - questions
You might like to see the two animations that I referenced to see a simplified idea of what's going on in the scanner when you change the width of the scan path and consequently the optical resolution. http://webpages.charter.net/wbgilloolyjr/1.mov http://webpages.charter.net/wbgilloolyjr/2.mov Let me know if the links don't work. The animations are QuickTime movies and should play if you've got QuickTime installed. Mr. Bill Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: HP PhotsSmart - questions
Laurie Solomon wrote: > Bob, > > First, thanks for the information; but second, please elaborate. I do not > understand what is meant by "There are, in fact, three stripes. Each having > greater than 2400 photo sites" in the quote: > > >>I found an old FAQ (January 1999) that quotes HP re resolution: >> >> There are, in fact, three stripes. Each having greater than >> 2400 photo sites. I don't know more. I had one of the beasts, but it's long gone. Could guess one row of CCDs, 2400 wide, with three color filters. As I recall, media moved through the scanner; could be that it stepped each increment for three scan lines. I'll upload this ancient faq (pdf file) to www.shomler.com/hp5100/ on the chance you and others might find it of interest. Original site from where I obtained it is 404. I'll only keep it on my web server for a week, so capture it now if interested. Bob Shomler Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: HP PhotsSmart - questions
His scanner may have 3 CCD's, the old Agfa Horizon had 5. Mr. Bill Laurie Solomon wrote: > Bob, > > First, thanks for the information; but second, please elaborate. I do not > understand what is meant by "There are, in fact, three stripes. Each having > greater than 2400 photo sites" in the quote: Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: HP PhotsSmart - questions
Laurie, You've got things oversimplified here, or maybe disconnected. Yes, stray light inside the scanner (from having artwork not covering the entire flatbed) is an issue and affects (reduces) contrast (but may improve shadow detail), however this is NOT controlled by AR coatings on the lens or flatbed. It should be controlled by masking the sensor (like a lens shade) and shielding lens (really like a lens shade). If your scanner manufacturer did not pay enough attention to this, you can completely avoid the problem by laying a black sheet of paper over any reflective artwork (print) covering the entire flatbed. If you are scanning transmissive artwork you can cut a small hole in the middle of the black sheet and place your slide/transparency under the hole. You can do a test to see whether this is necessary in your particular scanner by scanning something small with and without the black masking material using exactly the same scanner settings. If your dark areas (from positive artwork, not negative) are lighter without the black mask, your scanner does have an issue with light scanner inside. The good news is that even if it does, a piece of construction paper costing a few cents will solve the problem. If you need to scan multiple items you will usually get less light scanner if you stack them parallel to the movement of the scanner (so they get scanned one at a time) than parallel to the lamp (so they get scanned in a batch). Mr. Bill Laurie Solomon wrote: >>Anti-reflection coating on the flatbed of a scanner has >>nothing to do with uncovered parts of the flatbed and >>everything to do with the fact that anytime the image forming >>light hits a glass-air surface there is the potential for a >>reflection (or backscatter) which will reduce the contrast of >>the image (non image-forming light hitting the unexposed >>parts of the CCD/CMOS). > > > I beg your pardon. Are you saying that the light shinning through the > uncovered portions of the glass scanner bed does not tend to bounce off the > flatbed bed cover and scatter so as to create the backscatter you are > speaking of? If it does, which I have always been told was the reason why > one should mask the uncovered portions of the bed, then it does have > something to do with the problem and the reason why an anti reflective > coating might be used in large commercial grade flatbed scanners. I never > said that it was the only reason or factor and agree that there may be many > such factors. But I think that your articulation is a little extreme. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: HP PhotsSmart - questions
You are not wrong, but you have very much oversimplified things. Basically, the optical resolution of a scanner is determined by how many pixels the sensor (CCD,CMOS) captures and how wide a strip the scanner scans. So, a scanner with a 5,000 element (pixel) sensor that covered a strip 1" wide would be a 5,000ppi scanner (5,000pixels/1"=5,000pixels/inch). If the same 5,000 element sensor covered an 8.5" wide (full-bed) strip, you'd have an 588ppi scanner (5,000pixels/8.5"=588.25pixels/inch). There is, of course a lens between the artwork/flatbed and the sensor and the lens-sensor assembly is very much like a camera. Just as you can move closer or farther away from a subject refocusing the lens to make sure everything is sharp a scanner can move the sensor-lens assembly closer (for higher resolution) or farther away (to cover a wider area). It must refocus to achieve maximum sharpness. Not all scanners do this (in fact pretty few), but some can. Any scanner can downsample to achieve lower resolution than optical, thats why optical resolution is so important. Refocusing to capture a wider strip is NOT the same as downsampling. My original description is the most accurate way of describing the focusing procedure for any optical assembly (including your camera). Your lens to film (or CCD/CMOS) distance that you set while "focusing" is actually setting the magnification ratio. Your distance from the subject sets what's in focus. This isn't obvious for large distances (greater than about 2'), you can move your self then "focus" the lens. But anyone that does a lot of macro photography knows that moving the camera-lens assembly forward and back to achieve focusing after setting the lens is much easier and more straightforward. This is why a scanner with variable optical resolution sets the lens to sensor distance first (to achieve magnification ratio/strip width/optical resolution - they can be used interchangeably here) then moves the lens-sensor assembly to achieve focus. Scanners work at macro distances as your reproduction ratio is usually about 1:1. Mr. Bill Laurie Solomon wrote: >>If the optical resolution is variable and YES there are >>scanners that can do it > > > I will take your word for it; but according to my understanding, the optical > resolution has little to do with the distance between the lens and the > sensor and more to do with the size and capacity of the sensor. The > effective resolution may change with the changes in the distances between > the lens and the sensor; but the actual native hardware optical resolution > remains the same. But I could be wrong in my understanding; I am not an > engineer. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: HP PhotsSmart - questions
> Anti-reflection coating on the flatbed of a scanner has > nothing to do with uncovered parts of the flatbed and > everything to do with the fact that anytime the image forming > light hits a glass-air surface there is the potential for a > reflection (or backscatter) which will reduce the contrast of > the image (non image-forming light hitting the unexposed > parts of the CCD/CMOS). I beg your pardon. Are you saying that the light shinning through the uncovered portions of the glass scanner bed does not tend to bounce off the flatbed bed cover and scatter so as to create the backscatter you are speaking of? If it does, which I have always been told was the reason why one should mask the uncovered portions of the bed, then it does have something to do with the problem and the reason why an anti reflective coating might be used in large commercial grade flatbed scanners. I never said that it was the only reason or factor and agree that there may be many such factors. But I think that your articulation is a little extreme. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 2:58 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [filmscanners] Re: HP PhotsSmart - questions > > Anti-reflection coating on the flatbed of a scanner has > nothing to do with uncovered parts of the flatbed and > everything to do with the fact that anytime the image forming > light hits a glass-air surface there is the potential for a > reflection (or backscatter) which will reduce the contrast of > the image (non image-forming light hitting the unexposed > parts of the CCD/CMOS). Any time you have light passing > across a glass-air surface you will improve image quality > (particularly contrast) by AR coating the glass. > > Mr. Bill > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.2/65 - Release Date: 8/7/2005 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: HP PhotsSmart - questions
> If the optical resolution is variable and YES there are > scanners that can do it I will take your word for it; but according to my understanding, the optical resolution has little to do with the distance between the lens and the sensor and more to do with the size and capacity of the sensor. The effective resolution may change with the changes in the distances between the lens and the sensor; but the actual native hardware optical resolution remains the same. But I could be wrong in my understanding; I am not an engineer. > If the resolution is variable and the scanner can achieve > 2,400ppi over a 1" wide path, then it will achieve 480ppi > over a 5" path (2,400ppi/5in = 480ppi simple arithmetic). > > You can set up a simple ratio if the original strip is > something other than 1"... > > Original Resolution New Resolution > ___ = ___ > Original Scan Width New Scan Width What? I do not come out with that using your formula. Original Resolution of 2400 with an original scan width of 1" versus New Resolution of X with a scan width of 5 inches gives me a New Resolution of 2400 x 5 or 12000 ppi/dpi using your formula. The only way I could get what you got is to divide the Original Resolution by the New Scan Width to get the New Resolution which is not what your equation says. However, if the scanner does have variable native hardware optical resolutions, the 2400 ppi/dpi tells us about the film native optical resolution and not the native optical resolution for reflective print scans (i.e., if it is the same or different). Thus we do not know if the scan width should be applied to the native optical resolution for film scans versus that for prints. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 2:55 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [filmscanners] Re: HP PhotsSmart - questions > > If the optical resolution is variable and YES there are > scanners that can do it (they have to be able to change the > distance between the lens and CCD (CMOS) to change the > resolution, then be able to move the Lens-CCD assembly into > the new focus position. Needless to say, this generally is > in the realm of higher-end scanners. > > If the resolution is variable and the scanner can achieve > 2,400ppi over a 1" wide path, then it will achieve 480ppi > over a 5" path (2,400ppi/5in = 480ppi simple arithmetic). > > You can set up a simple ratio if the original strip is > something other than 1"... > > Original Resolution New Resolution > ___ = ___ > Original Scan Width New Scan Width > > Fill in what you know and solve for what you don't. It works > every time, IF the scanner has variable resolution (many > don't). Remember, you can never exceed the maximum optical > resolution of the scanner. > > Mr. Bill > > > Laurie Solomon wrote: > > Maybe my math is bad; but if it has a native resolution of 2400 > > ppi/dpi scanning 1" film, then my math says it will have a native > > resolution scanning a 5 inch subject which is much lower than 300 > > ppi/dpi independent of the light path factors(e.g., around 75 > > ppi/dpi). For the size print that the original poster > mentioned which > > was smaller ( but I forget the exact size but I think it > may have been > > either a 3.5 x 5 or a > > 4 x 6), the native optical resolution would be in the range > of about > > 150 ppi/dpi to 300 ppi/dpi. > > > > But this is based on the assumption that a scanner can have > variable > > native optical resolutions; however, to the best of my > knowledge and > > understanding, scanners have a single native optical > resolution. The > > effective optical resolution is a by-product of the number > of inches > > that one divides into the native optical resolution. Thus, an > > enlargement of the image without any interpolative resampling will > > result in a lower effective resolution while the reduction of the > > image size without such sampling will result in a higher > effective resolution. > > > > Nevertheless, it is still unclear to me if you are saying that the > > native OPTICAL resolution of this scanner is variable or > not; and if > > not, if the native OPTICAL resolution of this scanner is > 2400 ppi/dpi > > or something else that would produce an effective native > resolution of > > 2400 ppi/dpi when scanning a 1 inch horizontal length as opposed to > > some other horizontal length. > > -
[filmscanners] Re: HP PhotsSmart - questions
Fair enough, I have never purchased a high end professional scanner of the value of a Scitex model. You make a good point. For the average user, I don't think even the better quality desktop scanners use AR glass. It is just too costly. In fact, I don't even think most desktop scanners use optical glass (which is supposed to be flatter and more perfect). I think most reasonable quality window and glaziers glass is so well made it's not necessary. Art [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I can't speak for any desktop scanner, we never discussed AR coating > while I was at Agfa, but every Scitex scanner has an AR coated flatbed. > > Mr. Bill > > > Arthur Entlich wrote: > >>I have yet to see an anti-reflective coating on the glass of a flatbed >>scanner, and I have owned half a dozen different models. I also have >>never seen it used on photocopiers, which use a similar technology, >>these days. >> >>Art > > > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: HP PhotsSmart - questions
Maybe my math is bad; but if it has a native resolution of 2400 ppi/dpi scanning 1" film, then my math says it will have a native resolution scanning a 5 inch subject which is much lower than 300 ppi/dpi independent of the light path factors(e.g., around 75 ppi/dpi). For the size print that the original poster mentioned which was smaller ( but I forget the exact size but I think it may have been either a 3.5 x 5 or a 4 x 6), the native optical resolution would be in the range of about 150 ppi/dpi to 300 ppi/dpi. But this is based on the assumption that a scanner can have variable native optical resolutions; however, to the best of my knowledge and understanding, scanners have a single native optical resolution. The effective optical resolution is a by-product of the number of inches that one divides into the native optical resolution. Thus, an enlargement of the image without any interpolative resampling will result in a lower effective resolution while the reduction of the image size without such sampling will result in a higher effective resolution. Nevertheless, it is still unclear to me if you are saying that the native OPTICAL resolution of this scanner is variable or not; and if not, if the native OPTICAL resolution of this scanner is 2400 ppi/dpi or something else that would produce an effective native resolution of 2400 ppi/dpi when scanning a 1 inch horizontal length as opposed to some other horizontal length. Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 4:45 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: HP PhotsSmart - questions > The native optical resolution of this scanner varies > dependent upon the size of the image being scanned. In the > case of 35mm film, which is just under 1" wide, the scanner > sensor/CCD scans at 2400 ppi/dpi. > However, when switched to reflective mode, the scanner can > scan up to 5 x 7" prints (I previously incorrectly noted > 4x6"). In this mode the maximum is 300 ppi/dpi (although the > math implies it could scan up to about 450 ppi/dpi) but who > knows what kind of optical light path bending they had to do to > accomplish that. > > Art > > Laurie Solomon wrote: > >> I looked at the web site you gave the link for; it was not clear from >> its contents as to what the unit's native optical resolution is. If >> the native optical resolution is 150 dpi and the other resolutions >> are all interpolations, that might account for the reason that the >> 150 is sharper than the 300 dpi. Moreover, the screen resolution >> might also enter into the equation since the screen rendering of the >> image will be such as to make the 300 dpi scan be rendered on the >> monitor at twice the size as the 150 dpi scan which can result it >> some apparent fuzziness with the smaller rendering appearing sharper >> even at lower resolutions. >> >> The standard rule of thumb sage advice is to scan at the scanners >> optical resolution and not at an interpolated resolution to get the >> maximum sharpness and the minimum flaws, artifacts, and noise. >> >> But you have me a little confused. You speak of scanning a 3x5 >> print; but then you say you also had this negative roll scanned at >> Target. Are we talking about positive paper prints or film >> negatives? They are two very different things. >> >> Unless you will be enlarging a hard copy print to a print size larger >> then the original or a portion of a cropped print to the size of the >> entire original print or larger, a 300 dpi is sufficient since hard >> copy prints typically do not yield resolutions greater then 300 dpi >> since the information is not there in the original to support a >> higher resolution with actual original data. To scan 35mm film, one >> will normally scan it at a resolution of around 4000 dpi since the >> frames will typically be enlarged to at least 3.5 X so as to produce >> a 3.5 X 5 image at around 300 dpi. A 1200 dpi scan of a 35mm film >> frame is a relatively low resolution to be scanning 35mm at and >> would require interpolation in the event that one wanted to enlarge >> the image in its entirety or in part. Thus, Target is really not >> doing any better than your machine would do on a 35mm film frame. >> Moreover, we do not know if the 1200 dpi that Target scans at is >> real optical > resolution or interpolated resolution. >> >> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rich Koziol >>> Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 1:01 PM >>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Subject: [filmscanners] Re:
[filmscanners] RE: HP PhotsSmart - questions
Without trying to question or second guess the Schneider guy, I suspect that the reason for the recommendation without reservations was because he was referring to Schneider lenses and they unlike some of the cheaper prosumer lenses may not put their multicoatings on the outside surface of the lens or lens elements where they can get scratched or effected by strong chemical solutions. Some of the coatings may very well be sandwiched between layers of glass in the lens or lens element so as to be protected from direct contact with anything including cleaning solutions. Cheaper lenses and other optics may put the coatings on the front of the optics, the lens or lens element as if the coating was merely painted on, although I suspect that they are actually baked on to the surface in some manner, which may leave then susceptible to damage from liquids and scratching. Since many scanners use internal front surface mirrors, their reflective surfaces are open to easy damage from scratching and chemical solutions as might be the various coated optics that are used to focus the light on the sensor, since typically the assumption is that the optics are internal to the scanner and not user accessible thus in no need of more elaborate treatment as might be the case for camera lenses whose front elements and often rear elements are accessible to users. Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 8:39 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: HP PhotsSmart - questions > I was surprised, but the Schneider guy recommended the dilute > Windex solution without any reservations. > > Mr. Bill > > > > Laurie Solomon wrote: >> I would speculate that the impact that various dilutions of ammonia >> and water or Windex with ammonia might have on optical surfaces... > > -- > -- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe > filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) > in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: HP PhotsSmart - questions
Only the good ones. David J. Littleboy wrote: >From: "James L. Sims" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > >>All of the flatbed scanners that I've seen are just plain GLASS, >> >> > >You've been smoking your scanners, I see... > >David J. Littleboy >Tokyo, Japan > > > > > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: HP PhotsSmart - questions
From: "James L. Sims" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > All of the flatbed scanners that I've seen are just plain grass, You've been smoking your scanners, I see... David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: HP PhotsSmart - questions
I was surprised, but the Schneider guy recommended the dilute Windex solution without any reservations. Mr. Bill Laurie Solomon wrote: > I would speculate that the impact that various dilutions of ammonia and > water or Windex with ammonia might have on optical surfaces... Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: HP PhotsSmart - questions
I can't speak for any desktop scanner, we never discussed AR coating while I was at Agfa, but every Scitex scanner has an AR coated flatbed. Mr. Bill Arthur Entlich wrote: > I have yet to see an anti-reflective coating on the glass of a flatbed > scanner, and I have owned half a dozen different models. I also have > never seen it used on photocopiers, which use a similar technology, > these days. > > Art Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: HP PhotsSmart - questions
The native optical resolution of this scanner varies dependent upon the size of the image being scanned. In the case of 35mm film, which is just under 1" wide, the scanner sensor/CCD scans at 2400 ppi/dpi. However, when switched to reflective mode, the scanner can scan up to 5 x 7" prints (I previously incorrectly noted 4x6"). In this mode the maximum is 300 ppi/dpi (although the math implies it could scan up to about 450 ppi/dpi) but who knows what kind of optical light path bending they had to do to accomplish that. Art Laurie Solomon wrote: > I looked at the web site you gave the link for; it was not clear from its > contents as to what the unit's native optical resolution is. If the native > optical resolution is 150 dpi and the other resolutions are all > interpolations, that might account for the reason that the 150 is sharper > than the 300 dpi. Moreover, the screen resolution might also enter into the > equation since the screen rendering of the image will be such as to make the > 300 dpi scan be rendered on the monitor at twice the size as the 150 dpi > scan which can result it some apparent fuzziness with the smaller rendering > appearing sharper even at lower resolutions. > > The standard rule of thumb sage advice is to scan at the scanners optical > resolution and not at an interpolated resolution to get the maximum > sharpness and the minimum flaws, artifacts, and noise. > > But you have me a little confused. You speak of scanning a 3x5 print; but > then you say you also had this negative roll scanned at Target. Are we > talking about positive paper prints or film negatives? They are two very > different things. > > Unless you will be enlarging a hard copy print to a print size larger then > the original or a portion of a cropped print to the size of the entire > original print or larger, a 300 dpi is sufficient since hard copy prints > typically do not yield resolutions greater then 300 dpi since the > information is not there in the original to support a higher resolution with > actual original data. To scan 35mm film, one will normally scan it at a > resolution of around 4000 dpi since the frames will typically be enlarged to > at least 3.5 X so as to produce a 3.5 X 5 image at around 300 dpi. A 1200 > dpi scan of a 35mm film frame is a relatively low resolution to be scanning > 35mm at and would require interpolation in the event that one wanted to > enlarge the image in its entirety or in part. Thus, Target is really not > doing any better than your machine would do on a 35mm film frame. Moreover, > we do not know if the 1200 dpi that Target scans at is real optical > resolution or interpolated resolution. > > >>-Original Message- >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rich Koziol >>Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 1:01 PM >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Subject: [filmscanners] Re: HP PhotsSmart - questions >> >>On 6 Aug 2005 at 12:06, Laurie Solomon wrote: >> >> >>>As for the question of " why 150 dpi appears sharper than >> >>300 dpi when >> >>>scanning a 3 x 5 color print," you did not tell us if the >> >>result you >> >>>speak of was on the monitor or on a hard copy print >> >>At this point I'm just looking at the results on a 19inch monitor. >>Used the HP software to scan with. >> >>I also had this negative roll scanned at Target, for comparison. >>Target offers 1200dpi scans for about $4/roll. They just >>started this service and are still somewhat sloppy with film handling. >> >>Rich >> >>-- >>-- >>Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with >>'unsubscribe filmscanners' >>or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the >>message title or body >> >>-- >>No virus found in this incoming message. >>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. >>Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.1/64 - Release >>Date: 8/4/2005 >> >> > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.1/64 - Release Date: 8/4/2005 > > > > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: HP PhotsSmart - questions
> I had a problem obtaining isopropyl alcohol about 2 months > ago and the chemists - about half a dozen local ones - all > said it was due to new (?) fire regulations. However, I did > find one in Marlow, Bucks who had a full 500ml bottle and > also a half full one. Unsure where we get our IPA (not India Pale Ale!) from, but we have no problems getting it delivered to Wokingham (Berks). -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: HP PhotsSmart - questions
I would speculate that the impact that various dilutions of ammonia and water or Windex with ammonia might have on optical surfaces, on mirrored surfaces, and on flatbed scanner glass would depend (a) on if the surface is coated or not and (b), if it is coated, on what the coating is that is being used. Many modern lenses tend to be multicoated while older lenses were not, some flatbed scanner glass is coated while many flatbed scanners do not use any sort of coating on the flatbed glass, and some front surface mirrors tend to be more vulnerable than back surfaced mirrors. Moreover certain types of coatings may be more vulnerable to deterioration from ammonia than others. I know that eye glasses with anti-glare coatings on the lenses tend to be negatively effected by ammonia based glass and/or plastic cleaners, which eats away at the coatings; but some anti-UV coatings used on UV protected glass is unharmed by ammonia solutions. Some of the color correction multicoated lenses seem to have coatings on the glass lens elements that are less effected or not effected at all by ammonia solutions, while plastic lens components with the same coatings may be. Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 12:10 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: HP PhotsSmart - questions > This was the head of Schneider Optics USA service. > > Mr. Bill > > P.S. The original question was to confirm a Schneider > recommendation that I had heard of a 50/50 mix of sudsy > ammonia and hydrogen peroxide for cleaning lenses. They told > me that this would be good for cutting fungus or something > very oily, but recommended the 50/50 Windex mix for every day > use. Oddly enough, at Scitex, we recommended avoiding > ammonia based cleaners as we felt they would strip the > anti-reflection coating off the flatbed glass on our scanners. > > > Mike Kersenbrock wrote: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> >>> You are mistaken. I've communicated with the head of service for >>> Schneider Optics and Windex diluted 50:50 with water is the #1 thing >>> he recommends for cleaning lenses. >>> >>> >> Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: HP PhotsSmart - questions
This was the head of Schneider Optics USA service. Mr. Bill P.S. The original question was to confirm a Schneider recommendation that I had heard of a 50/50 mix of sudsy ammonia and hydrogen peroxide for cleaning lenses. They told me that this would be good for cutting fungus or something very oily, but recommended the 50/50 Windex mix for every day use. Oddly enough, at Scitex, we recommended avoiding ammonia based cleaners as we felt they would strip the anti-reflection coating off the flatbed glass on our scanners. Mike Kersenbrock wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >>You are mistaken. I've communicated with the head of service for >>Schneider Optics and Windex diluted 50:50 with water is the #1 thing he >>recommends for cleaning lenses. >> >> > > One thing to think about is that it's possible that Windex has a > different formulation > depending upon the country it's sold in. > > Just a thought... Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: HP PhotsSmart - questions
The best commercial lens cleaner I found was distributed by Angeneux's US motion picture lens division. Bern Levy gave kits out to customers that included the cleaning solution and a "book" of very good cleaning tissue. I purchased these kits until they were no longer available. Jim Stephen Levit wrote: >Has anyone ever used a product called "ROR'. At one time this was >considered an excellent optics cleaner. > > >On Aug 6, 2005, at 6:15 PM, James L. Sims wrote: > > > >>The denatured alcohol I use is an industrial grade that does not have >>the additives found in rubbing alcohol. besides staying away from >>substances that will damage coatings (and magnesium fluoride is >>slightly >>water soluble) the cleaner must not leave residue and should evaporate >>quickly. >> >>Jim. >> >>lists wrote: >> >> >> >>>Denatured alcohol often has gunk in it to prevent your skin from >>>drying. >>>Wintergreen oil is common. They also denature it with wood alcohol, >>>which I don't think is a problem for glass (though quite toxic for >>>humans). >>> >>>The electronics grade alcohol I use is PureTronics Techincal Grade >>>isopropyl. The claim is it is 99.9 percent pure. $7 for 32 oz. >>>http://www.puretronics.com >>>It's not on their website. Stock number 3125. >>> >>>I sppose if you have access to it, "reagent grade" isopropal would be >>>the best. What you want to avoid is the 70% pure junk. >>> >>>For the car windows, I use the cheaper stuff. You should be able to >>>find >>>99% pure alcohol [anhydrous] About $1 for 16oz. Brite-Life is a common >>>brand. >>> >>>The use of cotton balls is mostly from the cleaning instructions of >>>filters. I'm not sure why they prefer cotton balls to lens cleaning >>>tissue. However, when on the road, you can get cotton balls and the >>>nearly pure 99% alcohol at any drug store, rather than having to track >>>down a photo store. >>>http://www.lumicon.com/faq-c.htm >>>I find the cushioning of cotton balls tends to be gentler on the >>>glass. >>> >>>While we are at it, some say canned air can damage glass. I do know >>>that >>>if you don't hold the can perfectly level, refrigerant comes out. >>>There >>>is also talk of thermal shock. I use a scuba tank for my canned air, >>>so >>>I don't know if current genneration canned air products have this >>>problem. I have a Leland CO2 duster as well, but don't use it much as >>>it >>>surely puts out cold air. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>Laurie Solomon wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>Windex contains ammonia which can etch coatings. Never use it >>>>>on optics. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>I assumed as much but was not sure, which is why I made a point of >>>>articulating my suggestions the way I did and restricting my >>>>suggestion of >>>>Windex's to the plate glass bed of the scanner if it were a flatbed >>>>scanner, >>>>saying to be careful not to let any of it run off the glass into the >>>>innards >>>>of the scanner, and following it with the statement: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>As for the other parts, you need to be careful not to scratch or >>>>>>leave >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>lint on the >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>surfaces of the optics and mirror. I suspect that one would also >>>>>>need to >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>be careful >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>about what solutions one uses to make sure that they do not leave >>>>>>their >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>&
[filmscanners] Re: HP PhotsSmart - questions
I had a problem obtaining isopropyl alcohol about 2 months ago and the chemists - about half a dozen local ones - all said it was due to new (?) fire regulations. However, I did find one in Marlow, Bucks who had a full 500ml bottle and also a half full one. I now own what is left of the full one and, for fire hazard reasons, it is buried in the garden with 2 cats and a gerbil (all deceased). This was an independent chemist and, if the fire issue is right, others may be willing to order for collection on delivery. HTH Regards Bob C Stirling wrote: >Here in the UK at least a long time ago I found no one would sell isopropyl >alcohol >probably due to government restrictions. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: HP PhotsSmart - questions
On 8/7/05, C Stirling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, and it seems impossible to find what the denaturing chemical is (about 30 > different ones can be used), again government restrictions. Pure ethanol is > only sold > under licence. Makes trying to find good pure chemicals very difficult. The > denatured > has a colorant as well as the denaturing chemical. The industrial methylated > spirits is > supposidly the best of poor choices in the UK. Polish pure spirit at 80% is probably the easiest to get without a licence. though I'd probably use something sold as a lens cleaner, Calotherm do a coated lens cleaner , Calocoat in an atomiser and bulk bottles, smells like it's 2-Propanol (ispropyl alcohol) based, probably with some additives like EDTA. btw: the service guys used to clean our Olympus microscopes with liberal amounts of Mr Sheen. probably not the optics though. -- Paul Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] ¬¬ Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: HP PhotsSmart - questions
>electronics grade alcohol may possibly be isopropyl alcohol Here in the UK at least a long time ago I found no one would sell isopropyl alcohol probably due to government restrictions. >denatured >alcohol is methylated spirits here in the UK. Yes, and it seems impossible to find what the denaturing chemical is (about 30 different ones can be used), again government restrictions. Pure ethanol is only sold under licence. Makes trying to find good pure chemicals very difficult. The denatured has a colorant as well as the denaturing chemical. The industrial methylated spirits is supposidly the best of poor choices in the UK. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: HP PhotsSmart - questions
The denatured alcohol I use is an industrial grade that does not have the additives found in rubbing alcohol. besides staying away from substances that will damage coatings (and magnesium fluoride is slightly water soluble) the cleaner must not leave residue and should evaporate quickly. Jim. lists wrote: >Denatured alcohol often has gunk in it to prevent your skin from drying. >Wintergreen oil is common. They also denature it with wood alcohol, >which I don't think is a problem for glass (though quite toxic for humans). > >The electronics grade alcohol I use is PureTronics Techincal Grade >isopropyl. The claim is it is 99.9 percent pure. $7 for 32 oz. >http://www.puretronics.com >It's not on their website. Stock number 3125. > >I sppose if you have access to it, "reagent grade" isopropal would be >the best. What you want to avoid is the 70% pure junk. > >For the car windows, I use the cheaper stuff. You should be able to find >99% pure alcohol [anhydrous] About $1 for 16oz. Brite-Life is a common >brand. > >The use of cotton balls is mostly from the cleaning instructions of >filters. I'm not sure why they prefer cotton balls to lens cleaning >tissue. However, when on the road, you can get cotton balls and the >nearly pure 99% alcohol at any drug store, rather than having to track >down a photo store. >http://www.lumicon.com/faq-c.htm >I find the cushioning of cotton balls tends to be gentler on the glass. > >While we are at it, some say canned air can damage glass. I do know that >if you don't hold the can perfectly level, refrigerant comes out. There >is also talk of thermal shock. I use a scuba tank for my canned air, so >I don't know if current genneration canned air products have this >problem. I have a Leland CO2 duster as well, but don't use it much as it >surely puts out cold air. > > > > > >Laurie Solomon wrote: > > > >>>Windex contains ammonia which can etch coatings. Never use it >>>on optics. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>I assumed as much but was not sure, which is why I made a point of >>articulating my suggestions the way I did and restricting my suggestion of >>Windex's to the plate glass bed of the scanner if it were a flatbed scanner, >>saying to be careful not to let any of it run off the glass into the innards >>of the scanner, and following it with the statement: >> >> >> >> >>>>As for the other parts, you need to be careful not to scratch or leave >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>lint on the >> >> >> >> >>>>surfaces of the optics and mirror. I suspect that one would also need to >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>be careful >> >> >> >> >>>>about what solutions one uses to make sure that they do not leave their >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>own film residue >> >> >> >> >>>>over the optics and mirror, don't contain anything that will deteriorate >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>the internal >> >> >> >> >>>>parts, and do not damage the electronic components and elements. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> >> >>>Electronics grade alcohol is generally accepted as best for >>>optics. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>I am unfamiliar with electronics grade alcohol; how does it differ from >>denatured alcohol? I understand why one might not want to use rubbing >>alcohol' but is denatured alcohol the same as electronic grade? >> >> >> >> >> >>>I use cottonballs rather than cloth. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>I suppose they could work just as well as long as they do not leave behind >>any form of lint or cotton strings or dust. >> >> >> >> >> >>>-Original Message- >>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of lists >>>Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 12:43 PM >>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>Subject: [filmscanners] Re: HP PhotsSmart - questions >>> >>>Windex contains amonia which can etch coatings. Never use it >>>on optics. >>>Electronics grade alcohol is generally accepted as best for >>>optics. I use cottonballs rather than cloth. >>> >>> >>>Laurie Solomon wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >&
[filmscanners] Re: HP PhotsSmart - questions
The water would have to be purified as well, else you would get mineral deposits. Mike Kersenbrock wrote: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > >>You are mistaken. I've communicated with the head of service for >>Schneider Optics and Windex diluted 50:50 with water is the #1 thing he >>recommends for cleaning lenses. >> >> >> >> >One thing to think about is that it's possible that Windex has a >different formulation >depending upon the country it's sold in. > >Just a thought... > >Mike K. > > > > > > > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: HP PhotsSmart - questions
Denatured alcohol often has gunk in it to prevent your skin from drying. Wintergreen oil is common. They also denature it with wood alcohol, which I don't think is a problem for glass (though quite toxic for humans). The electronics grade alcohol I use is PureTronics Techincal Grade isopropyl. The claim is it is 99.9 percent pure. $7 for 32 oz. http://www.puretronics.com It's not on their website. Stock number 3125. I sppose if you have access to it, "reagent grade" isopropal would be the best. What you want to avoid is the 70% pure junk. For the car windows, I use the cheaper stuff. You should be able to find 99% pure alcohol [anhydrous] About $1 for 16oz. Brite-Life is a common brand. The use of cotton balls is mostly from the cleaning instructions of filters. I'm not sure why they prefer cotton balls to lens cleaning tissue. However, when on the road, you can get cotton balls and the nearly pure 99% alcohol at any drug store, rather than having to track down a photo store. http://www.lumicon.com/faq-c.htm I find the cushioning of cotton balls tends to be gentler on the glass. While we are at it, some say canned air can damage glass. I do know that if you don't hold the can perfectly level, refrigerant comes out. There is also talk of thermal shock. I use a scuba tank for my canned air, so I don't know if current genneration canned air products have this problem. I have a Leland CO2 duster as well, but don't use it much as it surely puts out cold air. Laurie Solomon wrote: >>Windex contains ammonia which can etch coatings. Never use it >>on optics. >> >> > >I assumed as much but was not sure, which is why I made a point of >articulating my suggestions the way I did and restricting my suggestion of >Windex's to the plate glass bed of the scanner if it were a flatbed scanner, >saying to be careful not to let any of it run off the glass into the innards >of the scanner, and following it with the statement: > > >>>As for the other parts, you need to be careful not to scratch or leave >>> >>> >lint on the > > >>>surfaces of the optics and mirror. I suspect that one would also need to >>> >>> >be careful > > >>>about what solutions one uses to make sure that they do not leave their >>> >>> >own film residue > > >>>over the optics and mirror, don't contain anything that will deteriorate >>> >>> >the internal > > >>>parts, and do not damage the electronic components and elements. >>> >>> > > > >>Electronics grade alcohol is generally accepted as best for >>optics. >> >> > >I am unfamiliar with electronics grade alcohol; how does it differ from >denatured alcohol? I understand why one might not want to use rubbing >alcohol' but is denatured alcohol the same as electronic grade? > > > >>I use cottonballs rather than cloth. >> >> > >I suppose they could work just as well as long as they do not leave behind >any form of lint or cotton strings or dust. > > > >>-Original Message- >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of lists >>Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 12:43 PM >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Subject: [filmscanners] Re: HP PhotsSmart - questions >> >>Windex contains amonia which can etch coatings. Never use it >>on optics. >>Electronics grade alcohol is generally accepted as best for >>optics. I use cottonballs rather than cloth. >> >> >>Laurie Solomon wrote: >> >> >> >>>I do not have answers to the question of cleaning the >>> >>> >>internal optics, >> >> >>>mirror, or sensors; nor do I have an answer to why 150 dpi appears >>>sharper than 300 dpi when scanning a 3 x 5 color print. I >>> >>> >>take it that >> >> >>>this is a flatbed scanner. >>> >>>I would suggest the obvious with respect to cleaning. You >>> >>> >>should start >> >> >>>by cleaning the glass bed with a soft lintless cloth and a little >>>Windex, being careful not to let any of the liquid run off the glass >>>and into the internal areas of the scanner. As for the other parts, >>>you need to be careful not to scratch or leave lint on the >>> >>> >>surfaces of >> >> >>>the optics and mirror. I suspect that one would also need to be >>>careful about what solutions one uses to make sure that they do not >>>leave their own film residue over the optics and mirror, >>> >>>
[filmscanners] Re: HP PhotsSmart - questions
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >You are mistaken. I've communicated with the head of service for >Schneider Optics and Windex diluted 50:50 with water is the #1 thing he >recommends for cleaning lenses. > > One thing to think about is that it's possible that Windex has a different formulation depending upon the country it's sold in. Just a thought... Mike K. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: HP PhotsSmart - questions
I looked at the web site you gave the link for; it was not clear from its contents as to what the unit's native optical resolution is. If the native optical resolution is 150 dpi and the other resolutions are all interpolations, that might account for the reason that the 150 is sharper than the 300 dpi. Moreover, the screen resolution might also enter into the equation since the screen rendering of the image will be such as to make the 300 dpi scan be rendered on the monitor at twice the size as the 150 dpi scan which can result it some apparent fuzziness with the smaller rendering appearing sharper even at lower resolutions. The standard rule of thumb sage advice is to scan at the scanners optical resolution and not at an interpolated resolution to get the maximum sharpness and the minimum flaws, artifacts, and noise. But you have me a little confused. You speak of scanning a 3x5 print; but then you say you also had this negative roll scanned at Target. Are we talking about positive paper prints or film negatives? They are two very different things. Unless you will be enlarging a hard copy print to a print size larger then the original or a portion of a cropped print to the size of the entire original print or larger, a 300 dpi is sufficient since hard copy prints typically do not yield resolutions greater then 300 dpi since the information is not there in the original to support a higher resolution with actual original data. To scan 35mm film, one will normally scan it at a resolution of around 4000 dpi since the frames will typically be enlarged to at least 3.5 X so as to produce a 3.5 X 5 image at around 300 dpi. A 1200 dpi scan of a 35mm film frame is a relatively low resolution to be scanning 35mm at and would require interpolation in the event that one wanted to enlarge the image in its entirety or in part. Thus, Target is really not doing any better than your machine would do on a 35mm film frame. Moreover, we do not know if the 1200 dpi that Target scans at is real optical resolution or interpolated resolution. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rich Koziol > Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 1:01 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [filmscanners] Re: HP PhotsSmart - questions > > On 6 Aug 2005 at 12:06, Laurie Solomon wrote: > > > As for the question of " why 150 dpi appears sharper than > 300 dpi when > > scanning a 3 x 5 color print," you did not tell us if the > result you > > speak of was on the monitor or on a hard copy print > > At this point I'm just looking at the results on a 19inch monitor. > Used the HP software to scan with. > > I also had this negative roll scanned at Target, for comparison. > Target offers 1200dpi scans for about $4/roll. They just > started this service and are still somewhat sloppy with film handling. > > Rich > > -- > -- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with > 'unsubscribe filmscanners' > or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the > message title or body > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.1/64 - Release > Date: 8/4/2005 > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.1/64 - Release Date: 8/4/2005 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: HP PhotsSmart - questions
They advertise Windex with "Ammonia D". Of course it has ammonia. You can find any number of references that state ammonia destroys coatings: http://www.opticallabproducts.com/07/young.php I don't even clean my car windows with windex. I use the same electronics grade alcohol, especially if I'm going to apply Rainx. Typical telescope cleaning instructions suggest alcohol then follow up with acetone, but I never liked the ideaof using acetone. http://www.astro-physics.com/index.htm?tech_support/refractors/care_refractor Oh yeah, windex will make your CRT nice and shiny as it removes the antireflective coating. If you got the bucks, you can use grain alcohol, but that's such a waste. Fry's carries the electronics grade alcohol. Nowintergreen oil or other gunk. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >You are mistaken. I've communicated with the head of service for >Schneider Optics and Windex diluted 50:50 with water is the #1 thing he >recommends for cleaning lenses. > >Most lens cleaners are water bases, not alcohol based. > >Mr. Bill > > >lists wrote: > > >>Windex contains amonia which can etch coatings. Never use it on optics. >>Electronics grade alcohol is generally accepted as best for optics. I >>use cottonballs rather than cloth. >> >> > > > > > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: HP PhotsSmart - questions
I am unfamiliar with the scanner. I assumed that since you said it scanned prints it was a flatbed type of scanner. I do understand your concerns and reservations. You might be able to get a repair diagram or other schema of the unit from HP that will tell you how to take the unit apart and where the parts are and go. > I do not want to waste much > time doing test scans, if the optics are fuzzy from several > years of oil film. Of course, you will not know if the optics are dirty or not unless you take the unit apart and take a look. I am going to assume that the optics are not coated with any sort of film or oil so as to diffuse the scan or the results would be noticeable at all resolutions; I also assume that there is not dust on the mirror or optics or that would be obvious on all scans at all resolutions. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rich Koziol > Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 12:56 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [filmscanners] Re: HP PhotsSmart - questions > > Hi Laurie, > > On 6 Aug 2005 at 12:06, Laurie Solomon wrote: > > > I do not have answers to the question of cleaning the > internal optics, > > mirror, or sensors; nor do I have an answer to why 150 dpi appears > > sharper than 300 dpi when scanning a 3 x 5 color print. I take it > > that this is a flatbed scanner. > > This is small boxy print/slide/negative scanner. > http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/s20.html > > Except mine is an earlier version, but looks exactly the same. > > > I would suggest the obvious with respect to cleaning. > > None of the obvious cleaning surfaces are accessible without > taking the thing apart. Just wondered if anyone has done it > on this unit and if there's spring waiting to go "boing", > when you remove the cover :-) > > I asked about cleaning, because I do not want to waste much > time doing test scans, if the optics are fuzzy from several > years of oil film. > > Regards, > > Rich Koziol > > -- > -- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with > 'unsubscribe filmscanners' > or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the > message title or body > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.1/64 - Release > Date: 8/4/2005 > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.1/64 - Release Date: 8/4/2005 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: HP PhotsSmart - questions
> Windex contains ammonia which can etch coatings. Never use it > on optics. I assumed as much but was not sure, which is why I made a point of articulating my suggestions the way I did and restricting my suggestion of Windex's to the plate glass bed of the scanner if it were a flatbed scanner, saying to be careful not to let any of it run off the glass into the innards of the scanner, and following it with the statement: > >As for the other parts, you need to be careful not to scratch or leave lint on the > >surfaces of the optics and mirror. I suspect that one would also need to be careful > >about what solutions one uses to make sure that they do not leave their own film residue > >over the optics and mirror, don't contain anything that will deteriorate the internal > >parts, and do not damage the electronic components and elements. > Electronics grade alcohol is generally accepted as best for > optics. I am unfamiliar with electronics grade alcohol; how does it differ from denatured alcohol? I understand why one might not want to use rubbing alcohol' but is denatured alcohol the same as electronic grade? >I use cottonballs rather than cloth. I suppose they could work just as well as long as they do not leave behind any form of lint or cotton strings or dust. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of lists > Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 12:43 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [filmscanners] Re: HP PhotsSmart - questions > > Windex contains amonia which can etch coatings. Never use it > on optics. > Electronics grade alcohol is generally accepted as best for > optics. I use cottonballs rather than cloth. > > > Laurie Solomon wrote: > > >I do not have answers to the question of cleaning the > internal optics, > >mirror, or sensors; nor do I have an answer to why 150 dpi appears > >sharper than 300 dpi when scanning a 3 x 5 color print. I > take it that > >this is a flatbed scanner. > > > >I would suggest the obvious with respect to cleaning. You > should start > >by cleaning the glass bed with a soft lintless cloth and a little > >Windex, being careful not to let any of the liquid run off the glass > >and into the internal areas of the scanner. As for the other parts, > >you need to be careful not to scratch or leave lint on the > surfaces of > >the optics and mirror. I suspect that one would also need to be > >careful about what solutions one uses to make sure that they do not > >leave their own film residue over the optics and mirror, > don't contain > >anything that will deteriorate the internal parts, and do not damage > >the electronic components and elements. > > > >As for the question of " why 150 dpi appears sharper than > 300 dpi when > >scanning a 3 x 5 color print," you did not tell us if the result you > >speak of was on the monitor or on a hard copy print ( and if the > >latter, what type of print laser, inkjet, etc.) The answer to this > >could furnish some indications of the reasons for this. > > > >Original Message > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 8:37 AM > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: [filmscanners] HP PhotsSmart - questions > > > > > > > >>Hi, > >> > >>Been reading the posts here for quite some time. Just got into > >>scanning. In fact the recent thread on Cheap Film Scanners > woke me up > >>:-) I have one that's at the bottom of that heap. It's HP > PhotoSmart > >>vintage 1997. SCSI interface, which makes it S10 I guess. > >> > >>I'm using the current version of HP software from their > Support site. > >>Did a calibrate with a white piece of paper (the card is gone). The > >>scanner was donated by a friend. > >> > >>Now the question. I started with a simple color print > (3x5) scan and > >>noticed that setting it to 150dpi gives a "sharper" > >>result than 300dpi. > >> > >>Can that be explained in any way? Saved as bmp and jpg, > same results. > >> > >>Secondly, should I take the scanner apart and attempt to clean any > >>optical components? I'm quite handy with small tools :-) After > >>sitting for so many years and some usage by the previous owner, it > >>must have some film whatever the optical pickup is. > >> > >>Regards, > >> > >>Rich Koziol > >> > >>--
[filmscanners] Re: HP PhotsSmart - questions
You are mistaken. I've communicated with the head of service for Schneider Optics and Windex diluted 50:50 with water is the #1 thing he recommends for cleaning lenses. Most lens cleaners are water bases, not alcohol based. Mr. Bill lists wrote: > Windex contains amonia which can etch coatings. Never use it on optics. > Electronics grade alcohol is generally accepted as best for optics. I > use cottonballs rather than cloth. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: HP PhotsSmart - questions
I had (still have one in a box somewhere upstairs) and the calibration card was not a sheet of paper but looked like a 5x7 glossy paper that one half white and half black. You insert the white part first and then the calibration occurs as it scans the black part. As to cleaning the sensor, IIRC, there is a mirror prism that gets dust on it. The original Photosmart came with one of those air bulbs that you squeeze and you just have to blow the dust off. I wouldn't try more agressive methods until I tried this first. As to why the 150 dpi is sharper, don't know but I suspect it might be due to improper calibration. Warren --- Rich Koziol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 6 Aug 2005 at 12:06, Laurie Solomon wrote: > > > As for the question of " why 150 dpi appears > sharper than 300 dpi when > > scanning a 3 x 5 color print," you did not tell us > if the result you > > speak of was on the monitor or on a hard copy > print > > At this point I'm just looking at the results on a > 19inch monitor. > Used the HP software to scan with. > > I also had this negative roll scanned at Target, for > comparison. > Target offers 1200dpi scans for about $4/roll. They > just started > this service and are still somewhat sloppy with film > handling. > > Rich > > > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], > with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' > or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as > appropriate) in the message title or body > Warren Xato For where to go when you know when [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: HP PhotsSmart - questions
When I was in the camera repair business I used denatured alcohol cut 5-% with ether. The ether dispersed water droplets and promoted faster drying. Other recommendations from "factory repair" houses included MEK and distilled water with a drop or so of mild dish washing detergent. Jim lists wrote: >Windex contains amonia which can etch coatings. Never use it on optics. >Electronics grade alcohol is generally accepted as best for optics. I >use cottonballs rather than cloth. > > >Laurie Solomon wrote: > > > >>I do not have answers to the question of cleaning the internal optics, >>mirror, or sensors; nor do I have an answer to why 150 dpi appears >>sharper than 300 dpi when scanning a 3 x 5 color print. I take it that >>this is a flatbed scanner. >> >>I would suggest the obvious with respect to cleaning. You should start >>by cleaning the glass bed with a soft lintless cloth and a little >>Windex, being careful not to let any of the liquid run off the glass and >>into the internal areas of the scanner. As for the other parts, you >>need to be careful not to scratch or leave lint on the surfaces of the >>optics and mirror. I suspect that one would also need to be careful >>about what solutions one uses to make sure that they do not leave their >>own film residue over the optics and mirror, don't contain anything that >>will deteriorate the internal parts, and do not damage the electronic >>components and elements. >> >>As for the question of " why 150 dpi appears sharper than 300 dpi when >>scanning a 3 x 5 color print," you did not tell us if the result you >>speak of was on the monitor or on a hard copy print ( and if the latter, >>what type of print laser, inkjet, etc.) The answer to this could >>furnish some indications of the reasons for this. >> >>Original Message >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 8:37 AM >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Subject: [filmscanners] HP PhotsSmart - questions >> >> >> >> >> >>>Hi, >>> >>>Been reading the posts here for quite some time. Just got >>>into scanning. In fact the recent thread on Cheap Film >>>Scanners woke me up :-) I have one that's at the bottom of >>>that heap. It's HP PhotoSmart vintage 1997. SCSI interface, >>>which makes it S10 I guess. >>> >>>I'm using the current version of HP software from their Support site. >>>Did a calibrate with a white piece of paper (the card is >>>gone). The scanner was donated by a friend. >>> >>>Now the question. I started with a simple color print (3x5) >>>scan and noticed that setting it to 150dpi gives a "sharper" >>>result than 300dpi. >>> >>>Can that be explained in any way? Saved as bmp and jpg, same results. >>> >>>Secondly, should I take the scanner apart and attempt to >>>clean any optical components? I'm quite handy with small >>>tools :-) After sitting for so many years and some usage by >>>the previous owner, it must have some film whatever the >>>optical pickup is. >>> >>>Regards, >>> >>>Rich Koziol >>> >>>-- >>>-- >>>Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe >>>filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) >>>in the >>>message title or body >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: HP PhotsSmart - questions
On 6 Aug 2005 at 12:06, Laurie Solomon wrote: > As for the question of " why 150 dpi appears sharper than 300 dpi when > scanning a 3 x 5 color print," you did not tell us if the result you > speak of was on the monitor or on a hard copy print At this point I'm just looking at the results on a 19inch monitor. Used the HP software to scan with. I also had this negative roll scanned at Target, for comparison. Target offers 1200dpi scans for about $4/roll. They just started this service and are still somewhat sloppy with film handling. Rich Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: HP PhotsSmart - questions
Windex contains amonia which can etch coatings. Never use it on optics. Electronics grade alcohol is generally accepted as best for optics. I use cottonballs rather than cloth. Laurie Solomon wrote: >I do not have answers to the question of cleaning the internal optics, >mirror, or sensors; nor do I have an answer to why 150 dpi appears >sharper than 300 dpi when scanning a 3 x 5 color print. I take it that >this is a flatbed scanner. > >I would suggest the obvious with respect to cleaning. You should start >by cleaning the glass bed with a soft lintless cloth and a little >Windex, being careful not to let any of the liquid run off the glass and >into the internal areas of the scanner. As for the other parts, you >need to be careful not to scratch or leave lint on the surfaces of the >optics and mirror. I suspect that one would also need to be careful >about what solutions one uses to make sure that they do not leave their >own film residue over the optics and mirror, don't contain anything that >will deteriorate the internal parts, and do not damage the electronic >components and elements. > >As for the question of " why 150 dpi appears sharper than 300 dpi when >scanning a 3 x 5 color print," you did not tell us if the result you >speak of was on the monitor or on a hard copy print ( and if the latter, >what type of print laser, inkjet, etc.) The answer to this could >furnish some indications of the reasons for this. > >Original Message >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 8:37 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: [filmscanners] HP PhotsSmart - questions > > > >>Hi, >> >>Been reading the posts here for quite some time. Just got >>into scanning. In fact the recent thread on Cheap Film >>Scanners woke me up :-) I have one that's at the bottom of >>that heap. It's HP PhotoSmart vintage 1997. SCSI interface, >>which makes it S10 I guess. >> >>I'm using the current version of HP software from their Support site. >>Did a calibrate with a white piece of paper (the card is >>gone). The scanner was donated by a friend. >> >>Now the question. I started with a simple color print (3x5) >>scan and noticed that setting it to 150dpi gives a "sharper" >>result than 300dpi. >> >>Can that be explained in any way? Saved as bmp and jpg, same results. >> >>Secondly, should I take the scanner apart and attempt to >>clean any optical components? I'm quite handy with small >>tools :-) After sitting for so many years and some usage by >>the previous owner, it must have some film whatever the >>optical pickup is. >> >>Regards, >> >>Rich Koziol >> >>-- >>-- >>Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe >>filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) >>in the >>message title or body >> >> > > > > > > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: HP PhotsSmart - questions
I do not have answers to the question of cleaning the internal optics, mirror, or sensors; nor do I have an answer to why 150 dpi appears sharper than 300 dpi when scanning a 3 x 5 color print. I take it that this is a flatbed scanner. I would suggest the obvious with respect to cleaning. You should start by cleaning the glass bed with a soft lintless cloth and a little Windex, being careful not to let any of the liquid run off the glass and into the internal areas of the scanner. As for the other parts, you need to be careful not to scratch or leave lint on the surfaces of the optics and mirror. I suspect that one would also need to be careful about what solutions one uses to make sure that they do not leave their own film residue over the optics and mirror, don't contain anything that will deteriorate the internal parts, and do not damage the electronic components and elements. As for the question of " why 150 dpi appears sharper than 300 dpi when scanning a 3 x 5 color print," you did not tell us if the result you speak of was on the monitor or on a hard copy print ( and if the latter, what type of print laser, inkjet, etc.) The answer to this could furnish some indications of the reasons for this. Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 8:37 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] HP PhotsSmart - questions > Hi, > > Been reading the posts here for quite some time. Just got > into scanning. In fact the recent thread on Cheap Film > Scanners woke me up :-) I have one that's at the bottom of > that heap. It's HP PhotoSmart vintage 1997. SCSI interface, > which makes it S10 I guess. > > I'm using the current version of HP software from their Support site. > Did a calibrate with a white piece of paper (the card is > gone). The scanner was donated by a friend. > > Now the question. I started with a simple color print (3x5) > scan and noticed that setting it to 150dpi gives a "sharper" > result than 300dpi. > > Can that be explained in any way? Saved as bmp and jpg, same results. > > Secondly, should I take the scanner apart and attempt to > clean any optical components? I'm quite handy with small > tools :-) After sitting for so many years and some usage by > the previous owner, it must have some film whatever the > optical pickup is. > > Regards, > > Rich Koziol > > -- > -- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe > filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) > in the > message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
