-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Robert Kehl
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 9:36 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Frank,
What's a Luddite? : )
BK
Someone who opposes
At 10:32 PM 7/03/01 -0500, you wrote:
Do you guys want to alienate all amateurs on this list? ;)
Of course not.
There *was* a smile there!
My visitor stats say that 80% of my visitors are using less than or equal
to 1024x768.
How do you know that is their display resolution, and not what
Check your local photo shop - they often have them. I believe Kodak makes
them.
Maris
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 11:06 PM
Subject: filmscanners: A Digital Greenhorn's Malady! ;-)
| As the above title hints at,
In a message dated 3/7/2001 7:20:30 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ed Hamrick: is there any way you can reverse the order the frames are
scanned in? This would greatly improve the usability of this scanner.
This is on my list of things to look into. It shouldn't be too hard to
make
- Original Message -
From: "Mark T." [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 11:20 PM
Subject: [OT] javascript/java (was RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about
display resolution)
At 10:32 PM 7/03/01 -0500, you wrote:
My visitor stats say that 80% of my
Sadly to say, it is not supported yet for this scanner. I am still willing
to loan mine, Ed? ;)
Spencer Stone
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rick Berk
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 8:35 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:
I
would have to disagree with this. I own the Kodak, and am very happy with
it. The software works fine for me. I have found it to be a little
buggy at times, but it also has some great features. I am happy with my
purchase. A little experience with what can and cannot be done while
I run 3 PC at home and 3 at work, all using W2k. I will never go back. The
machines are from Pentium 166MMX (overclocked to 200), through Celeron 300
(466) to PIII 800, work various PII and PIII around 400 mark. Memory - the
most important think, get as much as you can squeeze. Mine are at
So what I have read in this thread is, that most of you try to get the
highest possible resolution with a monitor and an acceptable refresh rate
(by the way I think 75 Hz is NOT acceptable, as most screens are optimized
to 85 Hz).
But what do you win out of having a 17' with 1600*1200 or a 21'
"IronWorks" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok - I was confused. I was referring to 100 MHz DIMMs v. 133 MHz DIMMs.
I
take it Win2K works fine with 100 MHz DIMMs?
Win2K doesn't care what the front side (memory) bus speed is. It just runs
faster with a faster bus.
Rob
Jules wrote:
is the prescan in NikonScan just a scan? it's seems awful fast, even
faster
than the fastest vuescan preview.
Scanwit's Mira Photo driver also uses a fast scan (at 300ppi) to show all
the frames in the film-holder. This has the advantage of allerting me to
"problem frames" that
Frank
Keep in mind that a lot of software will not run, or will not run
correctly with Large or Scaled screen fonts. One of the first things
Adobe recommends when you are having stability problems with their
software ( Pagemaker, Photoshop, etc. ) is set the machine for small
fonts. Some of the
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Elmar Pinkhardt
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 2:11 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: AW: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
So what I have read in this thread is, that most of you try
Yes, I forgot to mention that. It was in the back of my mind when I was
writing one of my posts, but it never got out. I actually had to fix a
program one that had this bug. Eventually, however, resolutions will be so
high that we'll all have to set our fonts to 100% and programs that don't
Here's a good write-up about grain aliasing:
http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Grain.htm
_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rob Geraghty
Austin wrote:
The right tools for the job. Having a 'resolution' of at
least 1280x1024 is not untypical for most people who do
image editing. In fact, I'd bet most on this list have
1600 x 1200.
Geeze, Austin. Several people have
Here's my take on the Kodak 3600, which I recently purchased.
All in all, it produces fabulous images, which is the most important issue.
Slides look fantastic, and C41 scans are amazing: enough to make me
reconsider shooting my color in negative instead of slides. B+W results vary
from
I'm reading the review now - it says that different monitor resolutions
cannot be set only in the Windows NT/2000:
"Under Windows NT/2000 you lose some flexibility in that your two displays
cannot have resolutions independent of one another"
Apparently resolution can be independent under
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rob Geraghty
"Quoton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
down any more. However, Photoshop (5.5) is noticeably slower on Win2K than
Win98.
That's highly abnormal and indicative that something is not right with your Win2K
installation. It could be any of a
That kind of makes no sense. It is dependent on what size window one allows
the browser to have. If one runs full screen on an 800x600 monitor, it's
larger than a little window on a 1280x1024 display. How do you tell that?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL
This is only marginally related to scanning, in that it presents another way
of looking at graphics computing power and design, and a fresh look (in this
case, a flashback :-)) is always a good thing to take once in a while, IMHO.
Most people who never used one are confused completely about what
This is only marginally related to scanning, in that it presents another way
of looking at graphics computing power and design, and a fresh look (in this
case, a flashback :-)) is always a good thing to take once in a while, IMHO.
Most people who never used one are confused completely about what
Yes it can. I have two dual monitor systems. One has two separate ATI
cards and the other has a single dual head Matrox 400 Millennium card. Both
allow under Win 98 for the monitors to be independent of each other and to
be set at different resolutions.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL
And the write-up leads to another article on dealing with grain using
various Photoshop (and other) filters:
http://www.idahoairships.com/photoshop.htm#Film%20Grain,%20Pixellation,%20an
d%20Scanning%20Noise
Maris
- Original Message -
From: "Henry Richardson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
Elmar Pinkhardt
Auf-dem-Kreuz 24
89073 Ulm
Germany
Tel: (0731)21905
0170 474 3369
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Ursprungliche Nachricht-
Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Im Auftrag von Frank Paris
Gesendet:
Hi Eli,
We have been dual booting utilising separate hard drives between NT4 and
Win 2k.
Its not caused any problems to date and enables us ,as you rightly
mention,to run "Old" peripherals successfully.
With Ram prices so low I can not understand why everyone does not have
at least half a gig !
I just called Matrox about the W2K not supporting dual independent
displays. They just released the latest drivers YESTERDAY which solves that
problem. It now appears that you will be able to have independent
resolution settings on dual monitors with both the G400 and the G450 cards.
So far
Most people who never used one are confused completely about what
Amiga was.
No, it wasn't a grown-up Atari,
Hardware/architecture wise it sure was. The Atari was the first such
machine to have custom processors (four) designed specifically to handle
video and audio processing, as well as
It appears that by yesterday, they really mean Feb 26th. The driver number
is 5.51.005 for W2K that fixes the problem.
Larry
I just called Matrox about the W2K not supporting dual independent
displays. They just released the latest drivers YESTERDAY which solves
that problem. It now appears
Maris wrote:
I'm reading the review now - it says that different monitor resolutions
cannot be set only in the Windows NT/2000:
"Under Windows NT/2000 you lose some flexibility in that your
two displays
cannot have resolutions independent of one another"
"Uncle Bill" strikes again! ;-)
Maris wrote:
I'm reading the review now - it says that different monitor resolutions
cannot be set only in the Windows NT/2000:
"Under Windows NT/2000 you lose some flexibility in that your
two displays
cannot have resolutions independent of one another"
"Uncle Bill" strikes again! ;-)
I know every List Member's mailbox is overflowing (mine is), so I apologize
for 3 posts of the same msg. My ISP/mailbox- service had a brief nervous
breakdown.
Best regards--LRA
---
FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com
Reserve your name
On Sat, 3 Mar 2001 12:26:34 +1000 Rob Geraghty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I seem to
recall Tony saying it was also difficult to procure the Q60 in the UK,
It's available (in theory) from any Kodak Professional or Digital Imaging
dealer. However most will just look blank when presented with
My understanding is that Win2K is a replacement upgrade for Win NT. It
would be most useful to those who utilize large networks. It supposedly is
more stable than Win 98, 98SE, and ME; but it does not cupport the range of
drivers that are supported under the other versions - at least not yet.
Mike Kersenbrock wrote:
Jim Snyder wrote:
But, a properly designed program usually uses speed keys for the buttons
anyway, and location is not a concern. I have yet to meet many users that
don't recohgnize the efficiencies picked up by shortcuts, aliases, and speed
keys. Even the
From: Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 18:15:54 +
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Kodak RFS 3600
I would be glad to send some samples to you directly, but off list.
Feel free to drop me a note.
Dave
EXCELLENT ARTICLE, Pete!
And a "must read" for Scanwitters and others. This answers *some* of my
questions about "noise and how to correct it," with about 40 more to go. :-)
Best regards, and thanks--LRA
From: "Henry Richardson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: filmscanners: Grain aliasing webpage
Lynn Allen wrote:
I know every List Member's mailbox is overflowing (mine is), so I apologize
for 3 posts of the same msg. My ISP/mailbox- service had a brief nervous
breakdown.
I wondered about that. Usually I only see doubled messages when something goes
haywire. Three was unusual.
Jim
On Thursday, March 08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 3/7/2001 7:20:30 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ed Hamrick: is there any way you can reverse the order the frames are
scanned in? This would greatly improve the usability of this scanner.
This is on my list of things to
Which would be a reason for dual-boot systems, of course.
Maris
- Original Message -
From: "Laurie Solomon" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 2:18 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Anyone using Win2K? Does is manage color like
W98SE?
| My understanding
Thanks for the review.
Have you (or anyone else) batch scanned anything yet? I'm wondering how
long it takes to chew through a roll, whether the 37th frame will make
it choke, and how much babysitting you need to do.
Thanks.
tv
(Hi Jules.)
David Sirola wrote:
Here's my take on the Kodak
"Top 10 Reasons to Move to Windows 2000 Professional":
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/professional/solutions/toptenupgr
ade.asp
-Original Message-
From: IronWorks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 1:29 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re:
--Original Message--
From: "Austin Franklin" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yeah, and the Atari did the same thing...before the Amiga!
..
Two things: 1) I've said before, I'm not a "hardware head" nor an engineer
("but I play one on television"
Jim Snyder wrote:
That broad base of users with less than stellar skills will use the tabs
and buttons regardless of where they are on the screen.
I resemble that remark, Jim. ]:(
I'd like to point out that it *is* a "broad base of users" (and no playing
around with the words, Art), and since
OK, now I've gone all the way to 1600x1200, but I find my
Photoshop palettes, and the font used in them, have gotten
rather tiny. I don't see an obvious way to fix this.
Can you help?
Thanks,
Alan
I don't know whether this is helpful for UK people looking for the Kodak Q-60
targets, but the targets can be ordered from Kodak at 1-800-234-0426. The
35mm Ektachrome target Q-60E3A, cat# 875 is available at $29 plus $10
shipping. The Kodak Kodachrome target, Q-60K1, cat# 1575141 costs
Thankyou for the mail Roger so if you don't recommend the kodak rfs3600 or
the Polaroid (which is all there is in that specification/price bracket) do i
go for one of the ~2600dpi scanners and wait to see what comes out next
year???
I mainly want it for making submissions to online photo
I looked at the page on Grain alaising. I decided to do a patent search at
http://www.delphion.com/advquery using "Applied Science Fiction" as the
Assignee. This found 7 patents, but none related to grain or noise. After
looking at a couple of the patents, I decided to search on the common
Autin writes ...
Amiga had the patents on the
co-processors,
I find no patents given to Amiga for any co-processors. ...
The patents were probably awarded to the small group from Los Gatos
who invented the Amiga ... Commodore simply took over later and
proceeded to provide no
Hello Alan,
the size of the PS palettes and fonts can't be changed.
I am afraid we have to live with it as it is.
Elmar Pinkhardt
Auf-dem-Kreuz 24
89073 Ulm
Germany
Tel: (0731)21905
0170 474 3369
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have put roughly 500 negs through mine, most in rolls of 36. It will not
choke on the 37th, you just have to start over: pre-scan the frame (if you
want), and then scan away. At full resolution, it takes about 75 minutes to
do a roll on a home built AMD K6II 450 Mhz with 384 megs. I use the
Besides you can get a free trial period from Ed and see it first hand.
Gordon
but I went to the website and was hoping to see some screen shots or
something... any chance you could add some?
you don't need screenshots,
It's way more than an upgrade to NT.
Frank Paris
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Laurie Solomon
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 12:19 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
They don't increase in size when you set the font larger? Normal dialogs do.
These are tool dialogs and if they don't resize with the font increase, I'd
complain to Bill Gates.
Frank Paris
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684
-Original Message-
From:
Perfect! I should do that. I even have a 17" Hitachi monitor that is going
to waste in the garage. Too lazy to clean off the desk and make room for it!
Actually, I'd probably have to buy another house to find the room to put the
stuff on my desk to make room for the second monitor!
Frank Paris
Funny guy...
Frank Paris
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Austin Franklin
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 4:04 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: filmscanners:
Embedding profiles in your images is a topic in and of itself - I would you
suggest you first read Dan Margulis's Professional Photoshop book first (I
don't know if the book is out for 6 yet or not).
As for the difference in images between the two monitors, the first thing to
do is to calibrate
Ed wrote:
I was just getting ready to run out and spend $350 (?) on Win2K when I
already have WinMe. What are the advantages to the 2K "pro" version
besides the letters on the box? And who is it useful to?
o Better memory management
o less likely to crash (NT/Win2K has a much more stable
My apologies to everyone for not including the text of the message that I'm
replying to, but I can't seem get AOL to include it when I send a reply. As
a summary, Tony asked for comments on the Kodak RFS 3600 and I told him that
Shutterbug magazine said the scanner was good but the software
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Elmar Pinkhardt
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 6:26 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: AW: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
If you have a monitor with a maximum dot pitch of 0.24mm and
Yes, there may be many good reasons for jumping to Win2K, but if you have
any unsupported software or 'legacy' hardware, it may not be the best
decision at all.. I would much rather read a list of reasons NOT to
upgrade, from an unbiased source, before leaping!
If I want to know the good
WinMe is just Win98SE with more bells and whistles and a MS's limited
version of a GoBack program. It's a fancier park, whereas Win2K is a
rehabbed/rebuilt park.
Maris
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Geraghty" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 8:50
"Check Hardware and Software Compatibility"
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/upgrade/compat/default.asp
Maris
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Thomas" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 9:57 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Anyone using Win2K?
As for the difference in images between the two monitors, the first thing
to
do is to calibrate both monitors.
I agree 100%
If I am not mistaken, Adobe has within it a calibration mechanism from
there on.
Here I have to disagree at least in so far as Win 98 is concerned. On
systems using Win
on 3/8/01 8:17 PM, Frank Paris at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Elmar Pinkhardt
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 6:26 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: AW: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
"Enoch's Vision, Inc. (Cary Enoch R...)" wrote:
"Quoton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
down any more. However, Photoshop (5.5) is noticeably slower on Win2K than
Win98.
That's highly abnormal and indicative that something is not right with your Win2K
installation. It could be any of a
This month's Shutterbug has a review of the 3600. Reviewer's main complaint
is with the software, including very small preview screens.
Keith
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Berry Ives
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 9:41 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
I also read about the triadic structure of each screen pixel, so
68 matches
Mail list logo
