Dear Rob,
I find extensis porfolio 5.0 does exactly what you need.
Elroy Eckhardt
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Geraghty" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 12:12 AM
Subject: filmscanners: Image databases?
I know this subject has come up
At 20:22 15/11/2000 +, you wrote:
Hi Chris.
At risk of starting World War 3, what is the resolution of Chemical
Film?
it depends, how do you measure it, or how do you express it?
Was this an idle enquiry, or is it meant to imply some comparison with
pixels and digital
images?
Roman Kielich® wrote:
At 20:22 15/11/2000 +, you wrote:
[SNIP}
if it is not visible, then it is not light. We call it radiation -
infrared, ultraviolet, gamma, etc. Only light is visible, by definition.
Absolute rubbish, I suggest that you get a textbook out on the subject.
near
Rob.
I recommend, since I use it, ImageAXS Pro. Here's an article that I just
found doing a search that someone did about the program so you can get an
idea about it. I believe the price is about the same as Extensis Portfolio,
though not sure how they compare directly these days. When I got
I had one. I sent it back for the SS4000. I may have had a bad unit, but
it crashed my Mac G3 every third time I tried to acquire the scanner's
software from within Photoshop. It seems to be memory hungry. My unit
sounded like a jack hammer when it scanned. It could have had an
internal problem.
Bob,
the way I found to handle 37 or more
frames is to do the first 36 frames and
then do the others, it is not really a
problem. The RFS 3600 leaves the
filmstrip on the last frame scanned so
you can just restart from there. I
mentioned scanning more than 36 frames
to Kodak and I was told that
Roman Kielich® wrote:
At 09:40 16/11/2000 +, you wrote:
Roman Kielich® wrote:
At 20:22 15/11/2000 +, you wrote:
[SNIP}
if it is not visible, then it is not light. We call it radiation -
infrared, ultraviolet, gamma, etc. Only light is visible, by definition.
-Original Message-
From: Laurie Solomon [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 6:19 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Profiling, Ilford XP2 and Vuescan.
Thanks for the clarification.
I am trying to say, because colour neg films
--- Bob Shomler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They have a quick start guide, but no manual. It
is a
.pdf. I LIKE paper in this respect.
Is it too large to print?
If you have any specific questions, feel free to
e-mail me.
I read an inquiry some time back asking if it could
accept an
I spoke to the ACDSee (http://www.acdsystems.com/index.htm) people at
Comdex yesterday. They are coming out with a completely searchable database
version before the end of the year. It seems that they see the need to be
able to archive images off the computer and be able to find them.
They
Rob writes ...
... are there any decent and reasonably cheap image
databases out there?
...
I use ThumbsPlus v.4. Its database will suit your needs, allow
keywords, and keep track and cache the thumbnail images of files which
exist on CDs on your shelf. It isn't expensive and its
What scanners news group? Would you please provide info on how to
access it?
--Dana
--
From: Dynax N [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Kodak RFS 3600 (was: filmscanners: Side Step, Have a
question)
Date: Thursday, November 16, 2000 7:31 AM
--- Bob Shomler [EMAIL
I bought a ScanDual II two months ago and it had the same grainy problem.
Not only grainy on underexposed negatives, but also on dark sections of
normal exposed negatives (Kodak G400). I spent 3 weeks tweaking, but could
never get accurate color from negatives. Finally, I returned it and bought a
The articles were on the "usenet" alt.comp.periphs.scanner
You can access the Usenet through your browser news function. I you have not
done so already you will need to get the name of your ISP's news server. It
is usually news.ispname.com but sometimes can be different. Your ISP should
have a
I would also like to hear about this. Especially, the cross referencing aspect of
it.
Gordon
Rob Geraghty wrote:
I know this subject has come up before but I'll ask again anyway - are there
any decent and reasonably cheap image databases out there? I already have
hundreds (thousands?) of
Printer inks, film dyes, source light, and CCD spectrum
sensitivity all have a direct bearing on color content. I would
think inks and dyes would have a very limited color spectrum.
Artificial source light can also be limited in color content.
Tungsten, for example, favors red typically
I will not attempt to explain what the anti-aliasing layer is or does since
I doubt if I caould do so with adequate clarity. There may be others on the
list who can speack to that subject. As for the rest of what you have said,
you are right, it would take on a cast of the opposite color if
Roman Kielich® [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if it is not visible, then it is not light. We call it radiation -
infrared, ultraviolet, gamma, etc. Only light is visible, by definition.
Not to be too picky here, but infra-red and ultraviolet radiation are often
called "light". :)
Rob
Roman Kielich® wrote:
if it is not visible, then it is not light. We call it radiation -
infrared, ultraviolet, gamma, etc. Only light is visible, by definition.
Thanks for pointing out my redundant use of the word visible, Roman.
Perhaps you ought to try to correct the thousands of others,
Please let me know what you think about
the noise generated by the SS4000. I'm
curious because I returned a SS4000
because I felt it was noisy and did not
sound good mechanically. I'm happier
with the RFS 3600
Dan Kimble
Trozzo wrote:
I had one. I sent it back for the SS4000. I may have
u wouldn't be referring to the "anti-halation" layer, would you ?
Yes, that is exactly what I was referring to. I somehow got my words
twisted; truly sorry about that and any confusion it may have caused.
Thanks for the correction.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jonathan Buzzard wrote:
Roman Kielich® wrote:
At 20:22 15/11/2000 +, you wrote:
[SNIP}
if it is not visible, then it is not light. We call it radiation -
infrared, ultraviolet, gamma, etc. Only light is visible, by definition.
Absolute rubbish, I suggest that you get a
I've been using JASC Media Center plus for several
months and found it quite useful. They have a free
demo versions. See www.jasc.com
--- Red Dwarf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have one that I've been working on for a while
now, its still not
snip
- Original Message -
From: "Rob
I'm using Canto Cumulus that was attached to Corel photo-paint 9.0 digital edition
at about $50 US. It seems to do all you ask plus has provisions for attaching
keywords to each image that can also be searched. I have a couple of hundred
images on one disk indexed so far. I haven't yet gone
Sorry, the scans will have to come later (begin of next week), something
came in between...
-Original Message-
From: Oostrom, Jerry [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 8:19 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Profiling, Ilford XP2 and
Thanks!
Ed Hamrick
At 23:03 16/11/2000 +1000, you wrote:
Roman Kielich® [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if it is not visible, then it is not light. We call it radiation -
infrared, ultraviolet, gamma, etc. Only light is visible, by definition.
Not to be too picky here, but infra-red and ultraviolet radiation are
Wasn't Alan Turing, the mathematician and 'father' of computer science, a
scientist?
No, he was a mathematician. Early computers did not use 8 bit words.
This is like Philips' argument of limiting the sampling rate of CD audio
to 44.1 KHz.
Theoretically it's all you need, but to many
28 matches
Mail list logo
