[filmscanners] Re: Revive this list?!
I, for one, would hate to see this list go by the wayside. It has helped me make choices in a evolution of scanners and, as far as I know, scanners are still improving. Many of the members on this list, and they're too numerous to name, have been of invaluable assistance to me. I agree with Brad in that widening the the topic to be inclusive to digital photography. While I now use a digital camera regularly, I still shoot medium format film and all the image printing and distribution is in digital form. Other lists that are peculiar to a manufacturer are very limited in information and narrow in scope. Filmscanners has been by far the best information source I have found. I even ran across an old Bush & Millimaki customer who also lives in my home town of Huntsville, Alabama. I know that quite literally thousands of individuals have been informed and assisted from this list. I will do all I can to help revive this list, Tony, from my area - just say the word. Please, keep up the good work, Jim Sims Brad Davis wrote: >Tony, > >First, below is a note from Ed Lusby. I don't know what to make of his >difficulties communicating, but I thought sending it along to you might be >useful. > >Below Ed's note is something I wrote to John Mahany after he so kindly sent >me the info re: cleaning an SS4000. I hate to see this list die, it has >been too good to just let it disappear - especially when much of the >expertise that is here (o0r was here) applies all along the process of >digital photography. Other lists that are supposed to deal with various >topics are usually too limited - either to a certain manufacturer, or >software vendor, or the material they deal with lacks the depth that I know >I need. The people here are the only ones I've found that consistently know >the answers, and more. Laurie seems to be a treasure in himself, and there >are several others who are as good and in some cases better. My suggestion >is to widen the topic and then try to revive the list. I would be willing >to help by shilling for the list on other venues. > >Hope we can keep it going. > >Brad > > >Hi Brad, >I haven't been able to post to filmscanners recently because my return >email address was refused. There is nothing wrong with the return address, >so I'm not sure what the problem is. I've also tried to contact Tony Sleep >(the "owner" of filmscanners) but that message is also returned. Would you >please forward this to filmscanners for me? >Thanks. > >I share your concerns about the group, Brad, and I certainly agree that the >expertise here is unparalleled. I have been astounded at the responses from >the experts on the list regarding the amount of time that these people have >taken to help others. I believe that is part of the problem, however. >Sooner or later you just can't keep doing it. >New blood needs to take over, but it takes years to learn what the >professionals on this list know. > >Widening the scope of filmscanners is not a bad idea, but that is up to >Tony Sleep. I really miss the Epson inkjet group and would like that area >added as well. >I'd like to hear from Tony concerning his view of filmscanners and what he >would like to do with it. > >Ed > > > >I wish we could rejuvenate the list, I learned more here as relates to all >aspects of digital imaging including Photoshop processing and printing than >I have found anywhere. The level of intelligence here has been several >orders of magnitude above any other imaging list I¹ve been on. > >Perhaps if the list were generalized to ³digital image creation², letting it >grow to include discussions of various software from Lasersoft and Vuescan >through various programs like PS (I saw a note elsewhere that asserted that >a Lasersoft product is better than PS I think that was what was claimed) >through specific printing programs. > >There is too much knowledge represented by Laurie, Art, David Littleboy and >many others (I even come up with some useful stuff now and then) to just let >it go. I know that other lists exist, but the chaff is often so thick, and >the wheat so sparse that I despair. That wasn¹t true here, even when the >arguments re: dMax and # of bytes were going on. Even discussions of >equipment I will never own (probably), like the Minolta scanners, were >useful. > >Is something like this worth proposing further? Or am I missing something >and it would be best to just let ³Scanners² die? It is my hope that by >talking with a few folks, I might refine my idea and have a better chance of >selling to whoever (I don¹t even know who runs this list I can be >oblivious on occasion). > >Who should this suggestion go to, and how might it be modified to improve >its chances of succeeding, first in being tried, and second in practice? > >If you think this useful to post to the list, please feel free to do so >with any modifications you think are useful. My goal is to find a way to >get this going again, I¹m aware t
[filmscanners] RE: Revive this list?!
To all: I will add my support to revive this list. Unlike many of you, I recently joined in hopes of getting some good ideas to support the purchase of a filmscanner in my business. I have been disappointed in the very few messages that have come across, so much so I haven't even introduced myself. Anyway, I'm kris. nice-to-meetcha! -kris 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?!
Maybe, the name of the group should be changed to Image Capturing and Digitalization Techniques. :-) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I, for one, would hate to see this list go by the wayside. It has > helped me make choices in a evolution of scanners and, as far as I > know, scanners are still improving. Many of the members on this > list, and they're too numerous to name, have been of invaluable > assistance to me. > > I agree with Brad in that widening the the topic to be inclusive to > digital photography. While I now use a digital camera regularly, I > still shoot medium format film and all the image printing and > distribution is in digital form. Other lists that are peculiar to a > manufacturer are very limited in information and narrow in scope. > Filmscanners has been by far the best information source I have found. > I even ran across an old Bush & Millimaki customer who also lives in > my home town of Huntsville, Alabama. > > I know that quite literally thousands of individuals have been > informed and assisted from this list. I will do all I can to help > revive this list, Tony, from my area - just say the word. > > Please, keep up the good work, > > Jim Sims > > Brad Davis wrote: > >> Tony, >> >> First, below is a note from Ed Lusby. I don't know what to make of >> his difficulties communicating, but I thought sending it along to >> you might be useful. >> >> Below Ed's note is something I wrote to John Mahany after he so >> kindly sent me the info re: cleaning an SS4000. I hate to see this >> list die, it has been too good to just let it disappear - especially >> when much of the expertise that is here (o0r was here) applies all >> along the process of digital photography. Other lists that are >> supposed to deal with various topics are usually too limited - >> either to a certain manufacturer, or software vendor, or the >> material they deal with lacks the depth that I know I need. The >> people here are the only ones I've found that consistently know the >> answers, and more. Laurie seems to be a treasure in himself, and >> there are several others who are as good and in some cases better. >> My suggestion is to widen the topic and then try to revive the list. >> I would be willing to help by shilling for the list on other venues. >> >> Hope we can keep it going. >> >> Brad >> >> >> Hi Brad, >> I haven't been able to post to filmscanners recently because my >> return email address was refused. There is nothing wrong with the >> return address, so I'm not sure what the problem is. I've also tried >> to contact Tony Sleep (the "owner" of filmscanners) but that message >> is also returned. Would you please forward this to filmscanners for >> me? Thanks. >> >> I share your concerns about the group, Brad, and I certainly agree >> that the expertise here is unparalleled. I have been astounded at >> the responses from the experts on the list regarding the amount of >> time that these people have taken to help others. I believe that is >> part of the problem, however. Sooner or later you just can't keep >> doing it. New blood needs to take over, but it takes years to learn >> what the professionals on this list know. >> >> Widening the scope of filmscanners is not a bad idea, but that is up >> to Tony Sleep. I really miss the Epson inkjet group and would like >> that area added as well. I'd like to hear from Tony concerning his >> view of filmscanners and what he would like to do with it. >> >> Ed >> >> >> >> I wish we could rejuvenate the list, I learned more here as relates >> to all aspects of digital imaging including Photoshop processing and >> printing than I have found anywhere. The level of intelligence here >> has been several orders of magnitude above any other imaging list >> I¹ve been on. >> >> Perhaps if the list were generalized to ³digital image creation², >> letting it grow to include discussions of various software from >> Lasersoft and Vuescan through various programs like PS (I saw a note >> elsewhere that asserted that a Lasersoft product is better than PS >> I think that was what was claimed) through specific printing >> programs. >> >> There is too much knowledge represented by Laurie, Art, David >> Littleboy and many others (I even come up with some useful stuff now >> and then) to just let it go. I know that other lists exist, but the >> chaff is often so thick, and the wheat so sparse that I despair. >> That wasn¹t true here, even when the arguments re: dMax and # of >> bytes were going on. Even discussions of equipment I will never own >> (probably), like the Minolta scanners, were useful. >> >> Is something like this worth proposing further? Or am I missing >> something and it would be best to just let ³Scanners² die? It is my >> hope that by talking with a few folks, I might refine my idea and >> have a better chance of selling to whoever (I don¹t even know who >> runs this list I can be oblivious on occasion). >> >> Who should this suggestion go to, and ho
[filmscanners] Re: Revive this list?!
Laurie, Were it up to me, and it isn't, so this is just a preference, I would have it cover digital photography from acquisition to printing. We don't have to duplicate Phil Askey, but I would love to know what actual experience is with different digital cameras - is the canon Mark II really that good, on one hand. At the other end, is there a realistic alternative to Epson 2200 or 4000? What if one is willing to give up a little, then is there something (I doubt it, but...). I read statements that there are software packages that are superior - especially faster - than Photoshop, really? How about just "Digital Imaging"? Or "Digital Imaging Techniques"? Perhaps to broad, but many of the discussions here were that broad just 6 months ago. But I want to remember that this list belongs to Tony, and he has done a superior job of maintaining it. He has to be willing to have this change take place. If it is done well, it is conceivable that the list will mushroom and while I am willing to help in any way, I am in California... People who handle lists, like this one, well, are not common. I've been on and left other lists, they become time consuming without informing. The only other one I've stayed with is the Yahoo Yamaha FJ list. It too is well maintained and has drawn some real gurus - that is what makes it work. Laurie, you are one of the gurus here, and I hope that the rest of them - there must be nearly a dozen real experts in various areas, including actual practice - are still around. What do you think? Can it be done and be useful? I think so, but ultimately, I am not the one doing it. -- Brad > "Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving > safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in > broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly > proclaiming ... wow, what a ride!" F.French On 8/9/04 15:28, "Laurie Solomon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Maybe, the name of the group should be changed to Image Capturing and > Digitalization Techniques. :-) > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> I, for one, would hate to see this list go by the wayside. It has >> helped me make choices in a evolution of scanners and, as far as I >> know, scanners are still improving. Many of the members on this >> list, and they're too numerous to name, have been of invaluable >> assistance to me. >> >> I agree with Brad in that widening the the topic to be inclusive to >> digital photography. While I now use a digital camera regularly, I >> still shoot medium format film and all the image printing and >> distribution is in digital form. Other lists that are peculiar to a >> manufacturer are very limited in information and narrow in scope. >> Filmscanners has been by far the best information source I have found. >> I even ran across an old Bush & Millimaki customer who also lives in >> my home town of Huntsville, Alabama. >> >> I know that quite literally thousands of individuals have been >> informed and assisted from this list. I will do all I can to help >> revive this list, Tony, from my area - just say the word. >> >> Please, keep up the good work, >> >> Jim Sims >> >> Brad Davis wrote: >> >>> Tony, >>> >>> First, below is a note from Ed Lusby. I don't know what to make of >>> his difficulties communicating, but I thought sending it along to >>> you might be useful. >>> >>> Below Ed's note is something I wrote to John Mahany after he so >>> kindly sent me the info re: cleaning an SS4000. I hate to see this >>> list die, it has been too good to just let it disappear - especially >>> when much of the expertise that is here (o0r was here) applies all >>> along the process of digital photography. Other lists that are >>> supposed to deal with various topics are usually too limited - >>> either to a certain manufacturer, or software vendor, or the >>> material they deal with lacks the depth that I know I need. The >>> people here are the only ones I've found that consistently know the >>> answers, and more. Laurie seems to be a treasure in himself, and >>> there are several others who are as good and in some cases better. >>> My suggestion is to widen the topic and then try to revive the list. >>> I would be willing to help by shilling for the list on other venues. >>> >>> Hope we can keep it going. >>> >>> Brad >>> >>> >>> Hi Brad, >>> I haven't been able to post to filmscanners recently because my >>> return email address was refused. There is nothing wrong with the >>> return address, so I'm not sure what the problem is. I've also tried >>> to contact Tony Sleep (the "owner" of filmscanners) but that message >>> is also returned. Would you please forward this to filmscanners for >>> me? Thanks. >>> >>> I share your concerns about the group, Brad, and I certainly agree >>> that the expertise here is unparalleled. I have been astounded at >>> the responses from the experts on the list regarding the amount of >>> time that these people ha
[filmscanners] Re: Revive this list?!
On 9/8/04 4:32 PM, "Brad Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Were it up to me, and it isn't, so this is just a preference, I would have > it cover digital photography from acquisition to printing. I have not been a conspicuous presence on this list, mostly lurking for a couple of years. I have learned a lot from the good people here, and perhaps contributed a few meager tidbits of info from my own experience. I hope the list does not die. But I want to voice a cautionary reaction to Brad's suggestion. For me, the best mailing lists are those that address a narrow topic, and stay focused on that topic. This means that I don't have to wade through a lot of articles to find the few that I want to read. Digital photography is a rather broad field, and could encompass scanning, digicams, photoediting, color management, printing, imaging for the web, business and employment issues, etc. Some of those subfields interest me, some do not. I would hate to see this group evolve into a high volume list covering a diffuse range of topics. I would rather subscribe to a small set of focused lists that cover the subfields I follow. That's what I am doing now. -- Julian Vrieslander <[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: Revive this list?!
> Laurie, you are one of the gurus here, and I hope that the rest of > them - there must be nearly a dozen real experts in various areas, > including actual practice - are still around. Flattery will get you everywhere you smooth talker you; but on these sorts of lists flattery will only get you in trouble. :-) First, I make no claims to being a guru of any sort. I have just been around for a while and been on many lists; thus, I am at best a compendium of the things that I picked up for being on all these lists for a while from others wiht not training, technical knowledge, and expertise than I. > But I want to remember that this list belongs to Tony, and he has > done a superior job of maintaining it. Second you are right it is Tony's list; and he is the one who has to decide if he wants to continue it, if he wants to expand its focus and how? > What do you think? Can it be done and be useful? I think so, but > ultimately, I am not the one doing it. I think that the traffic on the list has dwindled for a number of reasons. (1). Tony has given other interests and concerns of his priority over the list, which he has every right to do but which may have resulted in some neglect of list housekeeping operations. (2). Tony has had problems with servers and ISPs during the course of the list's history, which has resulted in the list being down or having problems on ocassion withthe consequence that subscribers may have thought that the list had gone defunct. (3). The amount of film scanning has decreased as more and more photographers have turned to digital cameras which has resulted in fewer persons being attracted to a group dedicated to the topic of film scanning alone. (4). Finally, many of the older subscribers to the list may have burned out or gotten tied of answering the same old qustions over and over, responding to the same old requests for information or problems over and over, or engaging in intermurial food fights which other list members (usually newcomers to the list) who regard the list not as an online community but as a technical assistance businesslike forum where everything needs to be on topic and fit their conception of what they thought the group was or should provide them. Keeping this in mind, I think that the group might survive if it expands it focus to include capturing images using both scanners and digital cameras; but expanding it to other areas of imaging that take place later in the wrokflow might make for to broad and unfocused a group, which would result in too diverse a subscriber base leading to much complaining and dissatisfaction. There are plenty of generic and specialty lists on the internet that cover those aspects of imaging and little need for another. However, if one were to expand the subject matter covered by the list to include capturing and digitalizing images with film scanners and digital camera, I would think that one would want to change the name to reflect the new scope of the list. I have no favorites when it comes to names for the newly expanded list. But wahtever scope and name is selected by Tony, the list will have to be promoted by Tony and subscribers alike on other related and tangential lists so that others will know about the change in the list's name and scope as well as about the existence of the list if one expects to generate new subscribers and expand the subscriber base. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Laurie, > > Were it up to me, and it isn't, so this is just a preference, I would > have it cover digital photography from acquisition to printing. > We don't have to duplicate Phil Askey, but I would love to know what > actual experience is with different digital cameras - is the canon > Mark II really that good, on one hand. At the other end, is there a > realistic alternative to Epson 2200 or 4000? What if one is willing > to give up a little, then is there something (I doubt it, but...). > > I read statements that there are software packages that are superior > - especially faster - than Photoshop, really? > > How about just "Digital Imaging"? Or "Digital Imaging Techniques"? > Perhaps to broad, but many of the discussions here were that broad > just 6 months ago. > > But I want to remember that this list belongs to Tony, and he has > done a superior job of maintaining it. He has to be willing to have > this change take place. If it is done well, it is conceivable that > the list will mushroom and while I am willing to help in any way, I > am in California... > > People who handle lists, like this one, well, are not common. I've > been on and left other lists, they become time consuming without > informing. The only other one I've stayed with is the Yahoo Yamaha > FJ list. It too is well maintained and has drawn some real gurus - > that is what makes it work. > > Laurie, you are one of the gurus here, and I hope that the rest of > them - there must be nearly a dozen real experts in various areas, > including actual prac
[filmscanners] Re: Revive this list?!
Jules, Actually, that makes sense to me too - would you suggest what we might address best here? Scanners seem about done as a topic - they'll be around for a while, but they are more like appliances than specialized equipment and a lot of the issues have been addressed. I would like to keep this group going as the expertise here seems to be better than most lists I am aware of. Perhaps some others have suggestions also. Brad On 8/9/04 19:53, "Julian Vrieslander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/8/04 4:32 PM, "Brad Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Were it up to me, and it isn't, so this is just a preference, I would have >> it cover digital photography from acquisition to printing. > > I have not been a conspicuous presence on this list, mostly lurking for a > couple of years. I have learned a lot from the good people here, and > perhaps contributed a few meager tidbits of info from my own experience. I > hope the list does not die. > > But I want to voice a cautionary reaction to Brad's suggestion. For me, the > best mailing lists are those that address a narrow topic, and stay focused > on that topic. This means that I don't have to wade through a lot of > articles to find the few that I want to read. Digital photography is a > rather broad field, and could encompass scanning, digicams, photoediting, > color management, printing, imaging for the web, business and employment > issues, etc. Some of those subfields interest me, some do not. I would > hate to see this group evolve into a high volume list covering a diffuse > range of topics. I would rather subscribe to a small set of focused lists > that cover the subfields I follow. That's what I am doing now. > > -- > Julian Vrieslander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > -- > -- > 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: Revive this list?!
On 9/8/04 10:30 PM, "Brad Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Actually, that makes sense to me too - would you suggest what we might > address best here? Scanners seem about done as a topic - they'll be around > for a while, but they are more like appliances than specialized equipment > and a lot of the issues have been addressed. I would like to keep this > group going as the expertise here seems to be better than most lists I am > aware of. I am not sure that I would feel comfortable suggesting a new focus for this list. It's Tony's baby, after all, so perhaps he should take the lead in deciding if a change is needed, or if the list is worth maintaining at all. As for me, scanners have not quite reached the "appliance" level of comfort. I have a day job (which is not photography), so I only get to do scanning when I have spare time. There is still a lot that I don't understand about this stuff, and that's why I peek over the shoulders of the experts here. I'm still trying to understand the consequences of all the 3.82e76 permutations of options in VueScan... Sometime in the next year, I hope to acquire a decent DSLR. Perhaps the ideal list focus for me would be "crusty old film photographers who want to learn how to shoot digital, but still have a big backlog of slides to scan." -- Julian Vrieslander <[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: Revive this list?!
With a slide copier on the front of your digital camera, who needs a scanner? Bob Frost. - Original Message - From: "Julian Vrieslander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sometime in the next year, I hope to acquire a decent DSLR. Perhaps the ideal list focus for me would be "crusty old film photographers who want to learn how to shoot digital, but still have a big backlog of slides to scan." 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?!
From: "Bob Frost" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asks: > With a slide copier on the front of your digital camera, > who needs a scanner? Medium and large format users. David J. Littleboy [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: Revive this list?!
Hi Bob, > With a slide copier on the front of your digital camera, who needs a > scanner? Er, people who want high(er) quality scans? Regards, Austin mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . 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?!
A lurker adds his $0.02: I've not been a member for long, having joined within the last year in preparation for purchasing a scanner to archive an extensive slide collection. Personally, I hadn't realized that the list even *needed* a "revival". 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! Of course, I'm not a long-time member, so maybe there used to be lots of list traffic back in the "good old days". Kudos to Tony and the list community for making this a great resource. Returning back to the sidelines now Carlisle 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?!
My two cents is that the value of this list is its expertise in film scanners. It's a film scanner group, not a group that happens to talk about film scanners. If one just wanted the group to be more talkative for the group's sake, we could just start talking about politics or religion and have perhaps tremendous volume, but what's the point? If the subject is changed, the people in the group will likely change, and the great film scanner group resource will be gone. I also will say that it's my observation that the group gets talkative in spurts. Sometimes excessive spurts. :-) I for one, hope a Minolta 5400 thread will go on at some point (I may start it, perhaps later) because I'm considering getting a high quality film scanner for my birthday in November, but don't think I can justify over the 700 or so that the Minolta goes for. Where else could I get the expertise? So, I'd rather not have people with expertise leave the list because of the list's topic changing for the sake of more email volume. 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: Revive this list?!
Hi, All! Do we really need reviving? (this thread seems to have triggered quite a few responses already!). The (northern hemisphere) summer has been traditionally a slow time for these fora, since we're all outside doing our things (like taking pictures, for later scanning) We'll be back inside, shivvering in front of our computers soon enough! ;-) My personal preference is to keep this primarily a filmscanning list, allowing for the >occasional< slip into flatbed territory, or digicam territory, or image processing or printers for that matter. It seems to me that there are plenty of other fora for these other topics (I personally belong to several other specialized groups), and see no compelling reason to duplicate them here. That's my opinion, and I'm stickin' to it! ;-) Guy -Original Message- From: Brad Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 12:31 AM To: Clark Guy Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Revive this list?! Jules, Actually, that makes sense to me too - would you suggest what we might address best here? Scanners seem about done as a topic - they'll be around for a while, but they are more like appliances than specialized equipment and a lot of the issues have been addressed. I would like to keep this group going as the expertise here seems to be better than most lists I am aware of. Perhaps some others have suggestions also. Brad 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?!
Anyone want to debate the pros/cons of digital vs analog? that always brings out alot of posts on the various audio lists to which I subscribe! We're currently in the throes of one of those on the open reel tape recording yahoo group! On further reflection, let's not!!! Guy -Original Message- From: Arthur Entlich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 4:16 AM To: Clark Guy Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Revive this list?! Since everyone knows that what really keeps a list active is a good bit of controversy, I will take responsibility for the list having fallen to its depths by not posting for a long while ;-) However, fear not, I have seen the error of my ways, and I'm back to stir up a new ill wind ;-) >snip< 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?!
Tony Sleep wrote: > He has. I have. You have. Didn't you see the pearly gates on the way in? Geesh! And I thought I was dreamin' Jim 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?!
>With a slide copier on the front of your digital camera, who needs a >scanner? hm. me, and quite a few others. :) In short digital cameras don't provide anywhere near the depth and detail that a film scanner can with slides. Not even a medium format scanning back IMHO can come close to what a purpose-made film scanner can do. Then there's the medium and large format film formats too. My scanner has a lot of life left in it so far as I can tellonly thing I can think of that would be a suitable topic for a digi-SLR camera are the pics I take that I know I would never have any intention of enlarging past an 8x10. But I shoot hoping I can enlarge better than that, so I shoot film. :) Dieder 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] 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. Gee Jim, Thanks... I think ;-) I'm sure some people may well wish I had... but the rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated (like dust and grain on Nikon scanners?). Just to be clear, my intention is to irritate everyone else into an early grave, not to put myself there! ;-) I'm hurt that no one wrote me a eulogy... About 20 years ago, I walked into a local camera shop and two people behind the counter greeted me, ashen faced. I said hello and asked them why they looked like they had seen a ghost, at which point they looked at each other, and finally one decided to answer... "We heard you had died..." one of them said. I replied, "I guess everyone forgot to tell me." Ultimately, after talking more about it, they realized they had confused me with another client who had come to an untimely end (someone I did not know personally). So, this isn't the first time I've become a legend in my own time. ;-) Art James L. Sims wrote: > WELCOME BACK, ART!!! I thought you'd died! At my age it's getting to > be a real worry. > > Jim Sims > 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?!
Hi Frank, There are a couple of questions to ask in terms of these specifications. A/D bit conversion is correlated to dynamic range. In theory, a higher bit depth in the conversion, should result in a better (higher) dynamic range. But the truth is, it isn't that simple, and the quoted results may be based upon the mathematical theory, rather than empirical measured results. In the case you mention, that is exactly what happened. In a perfect (and unachievable) world, a 14 bit A/D converter would result in 16,384 values which in log form is 4.2, likewise, 16 bit A/D could convert to 65,536 levels or log 4.8. Can either exist in the real world of scanners? No. All sorts of problems enter into the equation, such as the amount of noise a CCD sensor will generate in darkest areas, which determines where the noise floor may overcome the ability to record accurate image data); at what point the whites may blow out and cannot recover information, how accurate or linear the values are, etc. A very good quality CCD sensor used in conjunction with a 14 bit A/D converter may supply a superior result to a poorer CCD with a 16 A/D converter. The same exact CCD sensor in both circumstances may show minimal improvement with a 16 bit A/D converter if it is not able to provide low noise scans in the darker areas. If you will be scanning slides, which tend to be quite dense, and which are not inverted for luminosity as negs do, having a low noise CCD and higher bit depth can be very valuable to "claim" all the shadow detail. If you are mainly using negs, which tend to have less density overall, and which get their luminosity inverted, a scanner with less dynamic range may be just fine. However, since the numbers being quoted are not actual reading of real world conditions of either scanner, it is not possible to determine if the extra money is providing you with significant improvement. You may wish to try to get results from both scanners and see if you can verify the difference is great enough to justify the price difference. For more information on Dynamic Range you might want to go to the following URL. http://www.scantips.com/basics14.html Art Frank & Lila Mullins wrote: > I am in the process of purchasing my first film scanner. Although, I will, > at times, use the scanner to make 8 x 10 or larger prints, my primary goal > is to convert my 35mm slide collection to digital. At present, am tending > toward the Nikon Coolscan V. However, at a local photographic supply store, > the salesperson basically told me I was wasting my money and should buy the > Super Coolscan 5000 (at a cost of about $500 more!!). > > As best I can determine, there are two MAJOR differences between the two > scanners: > The Coolscan V has a dynamic range of 4.2 while the Super Coolscan > 5000 has a dynamic range of 4.8. > The Coolscan V has a 14-bit A/D converter > while the Super Coolscan 5000 has a16-bit A/D converter. > > My questions is this: Do these two differences justify the added expense of > $500 or will the less expensive scanner meet my needs? > > Thanks for your input. > > Frank > > 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?!
Oh, is that what those overly ornate doors were all about... no wonder everyone thinks I died, I've been missing all the "signs"... I guess that's what happens when you don't leave your computer often enough. Art Tony Sleep wrote: > 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?!
Dear folks, I've been a member of this mailing list for years and it's been an indispensable resource. I still have many thousands of slide and negatives to be scanned and I'm in the market for a new scanner. Film scanning is not a dead letter, nor is it even moribund. There are oceans and continents of our photographic heritage on film begging with their tongues hanging out (forgive the mashed metaphor) to be digitized. My Sprintscan 4000 needs cleaning, so I too would like to know how to do it. Kindest regards, Patrick Cullinan, Jr. Brooklyn, NY Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
