RE: filmscanners: Silverfast vs Nikon Software?
> >placing their DLLs in the System folder. However, a work around to this > >problem is to put the DLL in question (the one that the newly installed > >application wants to place in the System folder, overwriting the current > >DLL in that folder) in the application's own folder. Then create a zero > >byte file that is named the same as the application, plus an extension of > >.local. For instance, if the application was called crankyapp.exe, you > A similar trick works on the Mac when different programs insist on their own version of a dynamically linked library. Put the new (or most commonly used) version of the DLL in the system extension folder and place the other DLL in the same folder as the application that requires the incompatible DLL. On the Mac there is no need for the *.local file.
Re: filmscanners: Silverfast vs Nikon Software?
At 13:17 14-08-01 +, you wrote: >Cary wrote: >>This technique can help many balky applications to run correctly on Win2K. > >This (below) sounds like a good answer to a bad problem. Before I try it >on my next install, though, has anyone here tried this type of "custom >installation" on Win98? The technique probably won't work on Windows 98 or NT either because it takes advantage of a feature of Windows 2000's System File Protection. It may work on X-pee and possibly on Windows Me but I haven't seen any documentation to that effect. http://windows2000.about.com/compute/windows2000/library/tips/bltip228.htm >>This technique can help many balky applications to run correctly on Win2K. Cary Enoch Reinstein aka Enoch's Vision, Inc., Peach County, Georgia http://www.enochsvision.com/, http://www.bahaivision.com/ -- "Behind all these manifestations is the one radiance, which shines through all things. The function of art is to reveal this radiance through the created object." ~Joseph Campbell
Re: filmscanners: Silverfast vs Nikon Software?
Cary wrote: >This technique can help many balky applications to run correctly on Win2K. This (below) sounds like a good answer to a bad problem. Before I try it on my next install, though, has anyone here tried this type of "custom installation" on Win98? Best regardds--LRA Original Message-- >From: "Enoch's Vision, Inc. (Cary Enoch R...)" ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: filmscanners: Silverfast vs Nikon Software? >Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 08:32:06 -0400 > >At 07:10 13-08-01 +, you wrote: >>Cary wrote (re: Silverfast demo): >> >>>Been there. Did that. On my Win2K system the SIlverfast demo made >>>NikonScan >>>inoperative. I had to uninstall Silverfast and reinstall NikonScan before >>>it would work again. >> >>I don't have SF or NS (or even a Nikon), but I've experienced that >>phenomenon *more* than enough with other software that "shares" files. I >>don't know if it's sloppy programming or just downright meanness, but I >>*do* wish that code-writers would get their collective acts together. It >>makes me really hate to add anything new. > > >Win2K has an undocumented or at least well hidden workaround that can often >solve the shared files problem. It didn't do so in the case of Silverfast >but I'll post it for general reference because it's good to know: > >"In the previous tip, we mentioned how to disable the Windows File >Protection feature of Win2000, using the registry. However, this can be >dangerous, as it leaves your system exposed to the possibility that an >application could overwrite system files (DLLs) when installed >(particularly older applications). Some older applications simply insist on >placing their DLLs in the System folder. However, a work around to this >problem is to put the DLL in question (the one that the newly installed >application wants to place in the System folder, overwriting the current >DLL in that folder) in the application's own folder. Then create a zero >byte file that is named the same as the application, plus an extension of >.local. For instance, if the application was called crankyapp.exe, you >would create a file called crankyapp.exe.local in the same file as >crankyapp.exe and crankyapp.dll. Windows 2000 will then automatically load >that applications DLL for use only with that application." >http://windows2000.about.com/compute/windows2000/library/tips/bltip228.htm > >This technique can help many balky applications to run correctly on Win2K. > >Cary Enoch Reinstein aka Enoch's Vision, Inc., Peach County, Georgia >http://www.enochsvision.com/, http://www.bahaivision.com/ -- "Behind all >these manifestations is the one radiance, which shines through all things. >The function of art is to reveal this radiance through the created object." >~Joseph Campbell > _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Re: filmscanners: Silverfast vs Nikon Software?
At 07:10 13-08-01 +, you wrote: >Cary wrote (re: Silverfast demo): > >>Been there. Did that. On my Win2K system the SIlverfast demo made NikonScan >>inoperative. I had to uninstall Silverfast and reinstall NikonScan before >>it would work again. > >I don't have SF or NS (or even a Nikon), but I've experienced that >phenomenon *more* than enough with other software that "shares" files. I >don't know if it's sloppy programming or just downright meanness, but I >*do* wish that code-writers would get their collective acts together. It >makes me really hate to add anything new. Win2K has an undocumented or at least well hidden workaround that can often solve the shared files problem. It didn't do so in the case of Silverfast but I'll post it for general reference because it's good to know: "In the previous tip, we mentioned how to disable the Windows File Protection feature of Win2000, using the registry. However, this can be dangerous, as it leaves your system exposed to the possibility that an application could overwrite system files (DLLs) when installed (particularly older applications). Some older applications simply insist on placing their DLLs in the System folder. However, a work around to this problem is to put the DLL in question (the one that the newly installed application wants to place in the System folder, overwriting the current DLL in that folder) in the application's own folder. Then create a zero byte file that is named the same as the application, plus an extension of .local. For instance, if the application was called crankyapp.exe, you would create a file called crankyapp.exe.local in the same file as crankyapp.exe and crankyapp.dll. Windows 2000 will then automatically load that applications DLL for use only with that application." http://windows2000.about.com/compute/windows2000/library/tips/bltip228.htm This technique can help many balky applications to run correctly on Win2K. Cary Enoch Reinstein aka Enoch's Vision, Inc., Peach County, Georgia http://www.enochsvision.com/, http://www.bahaivision.com/ -- "Behind all these manifestations is the one radiance, which shines through all things. The function of art is to reveal this radiance through the created object." ~Joseph Campbell
Re: filmscanners: Silverfast vs Nikon Software?
Cary wrote (re: Silverfast demo): >Been there. Did that. On my Win2K system the SIlverfast demo made NikonScan >inoperative. I had to uninstall Silverfast and reinstall NikonScan before >it would work again. I don't have SF or NS (or even a Nikon), but I've experienced that phenomenon *more* than enough with other software that "shares" files. I don't know if it's sloppy programming or just downright meanness, but I *do* wish that code-writers would get their collective acts together. It makes me really hate to add anything new. Best regards--LRA _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Re: filmscanners: Silverfast vs Nikon Software?
You've forgotten the dodgy help files that do little more than explain the bare minimum and invariably miss the one vital thing you have to do to get it to work. There is no doubt that the possible image manipulations are very powerful and learning how the Silverfast curves worked actually taught me a lot about curves in PS. The colour balancing options are even more vast but I try not to mess too much here as I can get in a right mess due to my vision problems. Ultimately the learning curve is enormous and whilst I think I have a reasonable understanding of Silverfast I still invariably find I get results I prefer from the much cheaper (and IME friendlier) Vuescan. Maybe I'm just incompetent with Silverfast but I have tried real hard - perhaps there's one more thing I'm supposed to do that they don't tell you. But I have largely given up using it at all. I am told that 5.5 may be much better than 5.2. I don't think I will get my wallet out. For the record Vuescan software support is also quite possibly the best of all (except when Ed is on holiday). It's certainly worth trying before you spend what I expect will be $400+. Steve - Original Message - From: "Enoch's Vision, Inc. (Cary Enoch R...)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2001 9:20 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Silverfast vs Nikon Software? > At 19:11 12-08-01 +0100, David Gordon wrote: > >rlb [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on Sun, 12 Aug 2001 07:31:43 -0400 > > > > >I would appreciate some thoughts from those that use Silverfast. > > > >It has a very steep learning curve. It is hard to use. It is unintuitive. > >It has a very poor user interface. > > > >It make fantastic scans in two minutes. > > > >Get the IT-8 calibration, try the demo first! > > > Been there. Did that. On my Win2K system the SIlverfast demo made NikonScan > inoperative. I had to uninstall Silverfast and reinstall NikonScan before > it would work again. Not sure about the fantastic scans part but you nailed > it in other areas. > > > Cary Enoch Reinstein aka Enoch's Vision, Inc., Peach County, Georgia > http://www.enochsvision.com/, http://www.bahaivision.com/ -- "Behind all > these manifestations is the one radiance, which shines through all things. > The function of art is to reveal this radiance through the created object." > ~Joseph Campbell > >
Re: filmscanners: Silverfast vs Nikon Software?
Since you're asking about SilverFast, I assume you've already made up your mind that you want it and are looking for validation that you've made the right decision. OK, "Buy it, you'll love it!" I think you'll enjoy its features and its flexibility, such as letting you do a raw scan with Ai and come back later to process the image with HDR. Keep in mind though that, not only is it much more expensive than something like Vuescan, but you'll be paying for upgrades forever. Vuescan gives you free upgrades for life and for any scanner you happen to own now or later. SilverFast charges for upgrades for each scanner. They also charge a separate upgrade price for HDR and Ai, even though the programming code is virtually identical between the two. SilverFast is probably the most powerful piece of scanner software available and it's nearly as hard to learn to use as it is to learn Photoshop. Their documentation absolutely sucks, but that's the norm for all scanner software documentation. Things should be much better now that SilverFast has started a forum where you should be able to get answers to your questions from other users who have figured out how to use the feature you are asking about. Make sure you get the 5.5 upgrade version, especially if you be working with negatives. The NegaFix addition has film profiles that's supposed to make things easier for you. I haven't tried it yet (see my last paragraph for why). SilverFast is having a lot of trouble right now with the launch of the 5.5 upgrade. Bad serial numbers were issued, and that sort of thing. They aren't answering their e-mail very quickly at this time, but I was able to get "service with a smile" when I called their (toll) phone number. I expect they'll have those problems taken care of very soon. A good reason for using SilverFast, and the reason I use it, is because it offers IT8 calibration (normally and extra cost option, of course). I, and at least one other person, have had serious trouble getting the IT8 calibration software to work. It told us that we hadn't properly framed the IT8 target slide in the preview screen, even though we had. For me, the problem resolved itself when I upgraded to 5.5. My problem right now is that using SilverFast to scan a slide from a medium format scanner gives a Photoshop error. The SilverFast people says its a memory problem and I have to reinstall Photoshop. That also means I have to reinstall all of SilverFast, reinstall 5 other Photoshop plug-ins, do an IT8 calibration on three scanners, etc. Don't know if this is actually related to SilverFast in any way, but I sure have the urge to blame someone. (It's probably Bill Gates' fault.) Anyway, you should hope for a smooth SilverFast installation, but be prepared for some bumps along the way. In a message dated 8/12/2001 4:36:03 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have been communicating with the makers of Silverfast software regarding their issue for the Nikon 8000 scanner. They project it to be ready soon. I have never used Silverfast but friends that do highly recommend it. I would appreciate some thoughts from those that use Silverfast. Thanks, Bob Bedwell
Re: filmscanners: Silverfast vs Nikon Software?
At 19:11 12-08-01 +0100, David Gordon wrote: >rlb [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on Sun, 12 Aug 2001 07:31:43 -0400 > > >I would appreciate some thoughts from those that use Silverfast. > >It has a very steep learning curve. It is hard to use. It is unintuitive. >It has a very poor user interface. > >It make fantastic scans in two minutes. > >Get the IT-8 calibration, try the demo first! Been there. Did that. On my Win2K system the SIlverfast demo made NikonScan inoperative. I had to uninstall Silverfast and reinstall NikonScan before it would work again. Not sure about the fantastic scans part but you nailed it in other areas. Cary Enoch Reinstein aka Enoch's Vision, Inc., Peach County, Georgia http://www.enochsvision.com/, http://www.bahaivision.com/ -- "Behind all these manifestations is the one radiance, which shines through all things. The function of art is to reveal this radiance through the created object." ~Joseph Campbell
