At 01:05 PM 6/16/01 +1000, Rob Geraghty
wrote:
>"Enoch's Vision, Inc. (Cary Enoch R...)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> Has anyone had any problems with NikonScan 3.1 in Windows 2000?
>
>Sounds like Nikonscan 3.1 is worse than 3.0 at least on W2K. Does anyone
>know whether 3.1 attempts to fix th
Greetings,
I am having trouble with all versions of Vuescan since V7-0-27
and including V7-1
Opening, or rather, trying to open the program gives a series
of "Illegal Operation" boxes in Vuescan.exe.
Luckily I keep all previous versions so I have V7-0-25 up and
running still.
Deleting t
right click on the image with the little x and select "show picture"
"Lynn Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>PS--anybody with suggestions on how to download the pictures behind those
>red X's, let me know. I have no idea how my Internet Explorer is
>configured--I'm just using what was in the
"rafeb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No problems over here with NikonScan 3.1.
Well, at least it works on the 8000. Has anyone tried it on the LS30 or
LS2000?
Are there jaggies?
Rob
I had lots of trouble with Vuescan yesterday, but attributed it to my
recent hard disk failure then upgrade, change from Win98 to Win98SE, and rebuild
of my software. This is with a Scanwit and 192MB RAM.
I had many crashes, not on opening Vuescan, but during operation. I tried
versions 7
John & Anne Mahany wrote:
> I am having trouble with all versions of Vuescan since
> V7-0-27 and including V7-1 Opening, or rather, trying
> to open the program gives a series of "Illegal Operation"
> boxes in Vuescan.exe.
What scanner and OS are you using?
Rob
no, not really..what they are talking about is that CCD sensors are linear, they
record what little light is in the shadows (which you can manipulate later in
Photoshop) while film requires a minimum amount of light just to start
recording. The response of film to light is not linear.
Just using
I'm using NS 3.1 on a LS-30 under W2K, PIII 600 & 256 ram, and it works very
well both stand alone and importing into Photoshop 6.01.
Scanned about 20 images yesterday, using it stand alone and saving to disk,
and not one crash. No evidence of jaggies so far.
Edwin
- Original Message -
Fro
At 13:05 16-06-01 +1000, Rob Geraghty wrote:
>"Enoch's Vision, Inc. (Cary Enoch R...)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> > Has anyone had any problems with NikonScan 3.1 in Windows 2000?
>
>Sounds like Nikonscan 3.1 is worse than 3.0 at least on W2K. Does anyone
>know whether 3.1 attempts to fix the
Friends,
I have searched the Nikon USA website and cannot find the upgrade from
3.0 to 3.1. Can anyone tell me where to find the upgrade? Thanks.
Ray Amos
http://www.nikon-euro.com/nikoneuro2/download/Download_107d.htm
This is the link I got my download from.
It works beautifully.
Edwin
- Original Message -
From: "Ray Amos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2001 9:51 AM
Subject: filmscanners: NikonScan 3.
When performing a scan on the LS4000 using Nikonscan 3.1, two motor noises
are heard: 1) a deep humming sound, and 2)a "stepping" noise that sounds a
bit like a cheap plastic metronome. This second noise changes cadence
depending upon the resolution chosen - the higher the resolution, the slower
At 06:57 AM 6/16/01, Herm wrote:
>no, not really..what they are talking about is that CCD sensors are
>linear, they
>record what little light is in the shadows (which you can manipulate later in
>Photoshop) while film requires a minimum amount of light just to start
>recording. The response of f
Yes, your log numbers make total sense, as usual. :-)
But, as you imply, the theoretical numbers don't completely correspond to
"Real World" performance. Other factors literally enter into the picture.
Noise, for example, and the light/dark "star" (halo) aberations for another.
I guess my ques
> >The integer ratio values are what your scanner gives you. 14
> bits means you
> >can represent an integer number from 0 to 16,383. This means if your
> >scanner can record integer density ratio values from 1:1 (0) to 16,384:1
> >(16,383). 16,384:1 is a D value of 4.2 (log 16,384 = 4.2).
> Yes, your log numbers make total sense, as usual. :-)
>
> But, as you imply, the theoretical numbers don't completely correspond to
> "Real World" performance. Other factors literally enter into the picture.
> Noise, for example, and the light/dark "star" (halo) aberations
> for another.
>
> I g
> But thank you for the explanation, as I've gleaned enough from it
> to get the
> basic idea (which is all I really need anyway).
You're welcome!
> Austin, have you ever written out _your_ workflow? I'd be very interested
> in reading it, along with what products (hardware, scanner s/w,
> ot
Friends,
I've just upgraded my LS4000 software from NikonScan 3.0 to 3.1. I had
to uninstall 3.0 before I could install 3.1. Then I had to reinstall
the driver. The driver I reinstalled was on the original 3.0 disk.
Everything seems to work OK but I wonder if I should be using the old
driver o
At 07:23 16-06-01 -0700, you wrote:
>When performing a scan on the LS4000 using Nikonscan 3.1, two motor noises
>are heard: 1) a deep humming sound, and 2)a "stepping" noise that sounds a
>bit like a cheap plastic metronome. This second noise changes cadence
>depending upon the resolution chosen
Hello list, I want to thank everybody who tried to help
me with the problem on my LS-30 not showing
index-pics. Luckyly I could get it all fixed today. My
software somehow screwed up and reinstalling it did
not help. After removing Nikon-Scan I copied the
Utilities-file from the CD-ROM onto
On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 11:56:26 -0500 Marvin Demuth ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> Question: Does the same principle of "opening up the shadow details"
> work with scanned negatives?
Yes, with the right scanner and technique. It is possible to retain shadow
detail which would take implausibly gy
On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 12:27:35 -0400 Austin Franklin
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> If you are going to be making B&W scans from a tri-color CCD scanner,
> don't
> let the scanner do the B&W unless it does not use the red channel.
...unless you want to mitigate the effect of grain aliasing. Scann
On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 14:09:48 -0400 Larry Berman ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> I then rescanned the two images using the multi pass mode with
> VueScan to get the best results. But even that didn't have the shadow
> detail that was evident on viewing his slides on a light box.
The SS4000 tend
On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 15:52:51 -0400 rafeb ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> This is odd. If it were me, I'd toss the blue channel,
> which is more often than not the one with the most noise
> and the least usable information.
>
> The red channel, OTOH, is the one with the best contrast,
> almost
On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 09:51:54 +1000 =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rob=20Geraghty?=
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I'll definitely have to scan one of the frames
> of Fuji 800 taken in full daylight
...
>Clearly they are underexposed compared to
> photos exposed in normal daylight.
Best to rate at 640 IME, it
On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 09:19:54 -0500 Nicholas Hartmann
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> As a sop to my sanity, I plan to stick with
> Epson's own papers and the much-deprecated easy way out of printing B&W
> using color inks, just until I get some early idea of what the medium
> can
> do. This is su
On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 20:59:15 -0700 Sam A. McCandless ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> That worries me
> because I think I remember reading somewhere that it's important that
> a scanner sit perfectly flat.
I don't think filmscanners care, and can't see why they would.
Regards
Tony Sleep
htt
On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 12:54:57 -0700 Paul Chefurka
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> So the question is: what factors would conspire to lower the
> resolution fractionally like that? The suspects I come up with are:
>
> - CCD bloom
inescapable, though the technology attempts to minimise it
> - An
On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 12:31:15 -0400 John Bradbury ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> I also find that the "flatness" you describe is very difficult to
> correct
In 16 bits, set levels and increase saturation. In 8 bits, you'll probably
create contouring.
Regards
Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co
On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 13:27:40 EDT ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Whatever the theoretical merits of McNamara's observations, it appears
> to me that they clearly are in agreement with the conclusions by Paul
> and Raphael. BTW, the 2900 ppi Nikon CoolscanIV resolved 53.3 lp/mm
> vs 60 lp/mm f
On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 13:50:34 -0500 Lucans, Gunars ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> I recently acquired my first digital camera and have also noticed with
> that
> some low-light exposures were done at 1/15 and came out surprisingly
> well.
> Does anyone know more about this?
2 aspects...
First
<>
Hello Rob,
Win 98SE and SS4k. However, I don't think the scanner is relevant because
the "Illegal operations" box comes up instantly I click on "open".
Strangely, V7-0-25 works perfectly .. .. ..
John
"Tony Sleep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > of Fuji 800 taken in full daylight
> Best to rate at 640 IME, it helps keep grain under control, and cleans up
> the shadows appreciably.
I'll bear that in mind if I shoot a roll in the SLR. Unfortunately with
disposible
cameras I have no control over
Indeed, most Nikon filmscanners can be used on their side or upright...
Tim A
> > If you are going to be making B&W scans from a tri-color CCD scanner,
> > don't
> > let the scanner do the B&W unless it does not use the red channel.
>
> ...unless you want to mitigate the effect of grain aliasing. Scanning
> to RGB and then reducing to greyscale usually gives less appar
> I'm impressed by this too ('magazine prints sense about scanner shock'),
> and empirically I'd agree that as far as detail is concerned, ~4,000 is
> certainly a point of diminishing returns.
4000 certainly isn't bad, but I scan at 5080, and find that most films
160ASA and under don't resolve
Tony Sleep wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 20:59:15 -0700 Sam A. McCandless ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> wrote:
>
> > That worries me
> > because I think I remember reading somewhere that it's important that
> > a scanner sit perfectly flat.
>
> I don't think filmscanners care, and can't see why they w
37 matches
Mail list logo
