Larry said:
> Maxtor just came out with a 1,000 gig hard drive. That should cover it.
Ah. That explains the new ATA/IDE extension I've read about, which will
cover drives up to 144PB (that's petabytes). At 1,000 GB you would
definitely need a new BIOS. (And yes, I know Larry meant 100 GB not 1000
Interesting, but couldn't *also* help but notice the page on the Minolta
Dimage 7 digital camera.
5.2 Mp, lens equivalent to a 28-200, and US$1499.
Those specs & numbers are beginning to sound almost interesting, even to a
skinflint like me...
MarkT
>From: Shough, Dean
>Sent: Wednesday, June
On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, Moreno Polloni wrote:
> > Maxtor just came out with a 1,000 gig hard drive. That should cover it.
_> That is terrabull. ;^)
> You must have meant 100gb.
>
> Today is truly a bad day for extra zeros.
>
>
Before
anyone goes off the deep end on this, it should be remembered that this does not
necessarily hold true for contemporary films but only for films from around the
1960s and 70s or before for the most part. Thus, for images on that film
stock, scanning them to CD may be a good idea; but
Checked it out and found it to be most interesting. But the lingering
question remains why has Minolta put out any press releases or web site
notices as to release dates and potential prices.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Shough, Dean
S
Tony wrote:
>ISO320 will generally improve most ISO400 materials, without causing
>problems.
I presume you're talking C41 films here, Tony? I also presume you're saying
that exposing a C41 400ASA film at EI320 "improves" the results but doesn't
require any special treatment at the lab?
Just ch
Lynn wrote:
> Rob's right, of course; since IR won't pass through silver
> halides, it won't have much reference for repairing a BW neg.
Well, let's be more specific about this - scanning a B&W neg
in RGB looks the same as scanning it in IR. It's *not* simply
black in IR. I haven't looked at th
On Wed, 27 Jun 2001 12:52:11 +0200 Oostrom, Jerry
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> The scan that I made is indeed OFF the planet, even on my screen, but
> it has
> been done with the regular settings in which I scan normally exposed
> negatives (gamma 2.22). I overexposed the whole roll from ISO 4
If the camera is good enough for the application, then they not only get
the pictures much more quickly, but they save a lot on film and
processing.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lynn Allen) wrote:
> OK, but the important question is "What is a D1x?" How expensive,
> compared to a good SLR?
>
> Film is
Yeah Tony,
that was news to me, too.
I was under the misassumption that film was the best
archival medium around. Perhaps CD's or other backed up digital
storage is best, if for no other reason than you can copy it forward without any
loss before your digital media's (CD, tape, etc) a
Thanks very much, Tony. That was quite an education. I guess
that has to be factored into the discussions of the merits of CD-R
archives vs relying on the permanence of the original negatives and
slides.
Hersch
At 11:47 PM 06/26/2001, you wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 13:10:33
-0400 Isaac Crawford
Me too I struggled a lot with calibrating my Viewsonic PF815 22' monitor.
I used Adobe Gamma on the Gamma-space 2.2 monitor calibration chart made by
Timo Autiokari on www.aim-dtp.net. and
http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/evaluation/gamma_space/index.htm. He made also
many other gamma charts. I downloa
> Maxtor just came out with a 1,000 gig hard drive. That should cover it.
You must have meant 100gb.
Today is truly a bad day for extra zeros.
If they do their support like some other software companies,
they have at least two levels of Techies. One level is the 'free support'
people, who have been trained in the mysteries of
accessing
the program knowledge base. Anything not indexed with the words used by
the caller can not 'normally' b
Lynn,
Last first, I have read everything on the Photoscientia site twice and
expect I will again. I first got interested in scanning/digital photo
editing when I bought an HP 5370 flatbed (1200dpi) and tried to scan some
negatives. There is NO comparison between that and the Scanwit. However, I
h
I thought it was add a zero day..
Larry
>--- Larry Berman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Maxtor just came out with a 1,000 gig hard drive.
> > That should cover it.
>
>You mean 100GB, do you? That would be enough for only
>5 scans.
***
Larry Berman
http://
--- Larry Berman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maxtor just came out with a 1,000 gig hard drive.
> That should cover it.
You mean 100GB, do you? That would be enough for only
5 scans.
Robert
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from
> > Medium format, 48000 dpi, 16 bit A/D, ICE^3, SCSI and FireWire.
>
> Let's see, at 48,000 dpi, my 120 scans would be about 20gb. Damm! I need
> more ram and a bigger drive.
>
I seemed to have slipped in an extra zero. Make that 4,800 dpi.
Sam,
Rather get involved with the "specmanship" issues. I suggest you try each.
Polaroid offers a 30 day "good as gold" guarantee so if your are
dissatisfied for ANY reason you can return it to your dealer for a full
refund, excluding any shipping costs.
David
-Original Message-
From:
Maxtor just came out with a 1,000 gig hard drive. That should cover it.
Larry
> > Medium format, 48000 dpi, 16 bit A/D, ICE^3, SCSI and FireWire.
>
>Let's see, at 48,000 dpi, my 120 scans would be about 20gb. Damm! I need
>more ram and a bigger drive.
***
Larry
> Medium format, 48000 dpi, 16 bit A/D, ICE^3, SCSI and FireWire.
Let's see, at 48,000 dpi, my 120 scans would be about 20gb. Damm! I need
more ram and a bigger drive.
B&H has the SS120 , don't know about the 8000ED.
-Original Message-
From: Raphael Bustin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 8:28 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject:RE: filmscanners: Price War -- Nikon 8000 & Polaroid 120
On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Hemin
Assuming that the carrier was properly loaded (and I'm sure you did it a few
times to make certain), the advance mechanism probably slipped a cam, or
whatever those things do. Returning it was the right choice.
Best regards--LRA
>From: "Mark Fairbairn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PR
Well I'll be damned. ;-) I guess I should have remembered you were a
"Newbie," but anytime I've ever done that (not secured the center section,
that is), the mechanism would start to load and then sit there and "grunt."
OK, I've learned that not all Scanwits are equal (as I had suspected). :-)
I did nto read the post thoroughly; but I would suggest that some of the
difference may very well be that your monitor is set at a different color
tempurature than those that you looked at which would effect the rendering
of the gamma setting. Moreover, you may not have hour monitor's brightness
Todd, I took the liberty of forwarding your msg to Honda Lo in Taiwan, and
I'm CC'ing this one.
IMHO, the Scanwit is an excellent value, compared to how bad the "cheap"
filmscanners are, and how costly the "good" ones are. I've had similar
problems with their Customer Service--as, I think, man
It is - your screen is made up of phosphors and your printed images of ink.
Their colors are different, so you need to translate. Bruce Fraser just
posted a very good article consisting of an overview at
http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/13605.html
>From his article:
The Problem
Computer
See http://www.steves-digicams.com/diginews.html
Medium format, 48000 dpi, 16 bit A/D, ICE^3, SCSI and FireWire.
Qualification first - I don't know for a fact that only colors strictly
within the sRGB gamut can be displayed, but that is generally the case.
Answer to the question - Photoshop cannot display those colours. A monitor
cannot display colours that it cannot display. What Photoshop and similar
pr
Ramesh, here's a cautionary side-note: when I tried to use Adobe RGB on my
system, PS reset the color parameters *globally* beyond what my Dell
Trinatron monitor could compensate for--so all my scans "looked" much darker
than they really were and reacted badly (read "incredible noise") to any
Thanx, Larry. For a few happy hours there, I thought I might get one--the
web site was pretty impressive. Meanwhile, back at "Reality Central," it
seems that I'd have to get *really lucky* with a lottery pick or a daily
double to afford that beauty *plus* lenses to make it work--and then hiring
>I'm trying to decide between these two scanners. They both claim 16-bit
>output, however the Polaroid scans in 12 bit and outputs in 16; and the
>Nikon scans in 14 bit (I think) and outputs in 16. Are both of these
>options as good as true 16 bit scanning?
>
>Any input would be so appreciated, si
> >Silver based black and white film won't pass IR, so there's no way to use
>
> >IR dust removal with it.
>
>
> Granted that it's not going to be effective for *dust removal*, wouldn't
> IR
> still be extremely usefull for a badly-scratched silver-halide neg?
>
ICE depends on differences bet
Rob's right, of course; since IR won't pass through silver halides, it won't
have much reference for repairing a BW neg. OTOH, it seems like it would
create a perfect "mask" if the neg were scratched, because the IR *would*
pass through the scratches. It could then be offset slightly to pick up
Frank Nichols wrote:
>I called [Acer] tech support yesterday and was on hold for over an hour
>before I gave up.)
In the US, Acer Support is 24/7 (24 hours a day, 7days a week). Acer UK may
not be, however. Try calling them at some totally ungodly hour. ;-)
It sounds like a firmware problem,
I know this topic is revisited ad nauseum, but I have just discovered that
what I thought was the Right Thing To Do does not appear to be right at
all. On my system, Adobe Gamma setup seems to be worse than no setup at
all. I have cross posted this to Epson7x7, filmscanners, scan and digita
Art wrote:
>
>Sorry Lynn, you are several months (which in this biz is centuries) out of
>date.
>
>Epson (the printer people) with Cambridge Institute (I believe this is in
>Boston) have developed a method for using inkjet technology to spray some
>type of transistors onto substrates, to make a
Mikael,
even if I 'rely' on your writing, it still wasn't that obvious what the real
issue was before your last mail. Your behaviour in it is 'uncontrolled' as
if you lost your self-control. As a result it contains personal accusations
and assumptions of which I cannot believe you have any good p
Tony wrote:
> It will give anyone who has been taking photos over the past 30yrs the
> heebie-jeebies...
Ah. And I was blaming the non-archival neg sheets on the deterioration
of the films. Sounds like I should send all my films down south to my
parents' place where it's cold and dry!
Rob
I'll try your solution with the blank frame.
I once tried to insert a piece of blank frame into the calibration hole and
it made the whole scan stripy!
Thanks,
Jerry.
BTW. I Bcc'd Mr. Honda Lo, so that's why I included all of your mail.
> -Original Message-
> From: Mark T. [SMTP:[EMA
Who ever said that spell check is smart? And I thought it was smarter than
I am. Well maybe it is.
Anyway, it's a picture of the ... and I should learn how to proff read
better. Funny thing is that I missed it after it came in also and that's
where I pick up most of my missteaks.
Larr
The scan that I made is indeed OFF the planet, even on my screen, but it has
been done with the regular settings in which I scan normally exposed
negatives (gamma 2.22). I overexposed the whole roll from ISO 400 to ISO
320, should not be too much I think, but this frame came out more
overexposed t
Raphael Bustin wrote:
>
> Jeez, I haven't checked the warranty -- just
> blithely assumed it was 1 year.
>
> I avoid "extended warranties" as a matter of
> principle, be it washing machines or audio
> gear.
>
> I find that repair costs for any given item
> are often scaled to the origi
This is sounding a lot like Epson's micro printing mode to eliminate
banding during printing. It seems it might be using the middle CCD row,
which is probably most stable of the three. As you said, it would slow
things down quick a bit.
The dense scan banding brings back memories of my HP Ph
Larry Berman wrote:
> There is a double page picture,
> shot with it from a helicopter, in the latest Sports Illustrated. I
> purchased the magazine today and it really looks suburb.
^^
>
> Larry
>
OH, I see, its one of those cameras t
That's what I suspect, or that it uses some type of averaging process of
several rows overlapped in the single row mode.
Further, I suspect the middle CCD strip is the most insulated from
anomalies (electronic, and spill over).
Art
Rob Geraghty wrote:
> Rafe wrote:
>
>> Not entirely sure wh
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 13:10:33 -0400 Isaac Crawford ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> . B&W
> film has far better archival qualities than the color stuff.
Oh, you might think so ;) - but see below
Nishimura is based at the Rochester Inst. of Technology Image Permananence
Institute, so appears to kno
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 17:05:10 -0700 Arthur Entlich ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> other than Afga slides which used some
> weird process (CF??) which has failed completely on me
Coo. I have a very few slides I shot on Agfa CT18 when I was a kid,
c.1964. Despite negligent storage, the colours ar
Frank,
I've often failed to snap 'the center "snaps"' correctly on
my Scanwit 2720S, but scanning the wrong frame wasn't the
result - I got fatal failure to focus in Miraphoto, and
'hangs' in Vuescan.
So I hope clicking the carrier properly fixes your problem,
but I don't think I've had the 'wro
Barbara white wrote:
>Any input would be so appreciated, since I'm really a newbie on this
>subject, but I do want to scan in 16 bit.
There's no such thing as "true" 16bit "consumer" film scanning as I'm sure
others on the list will explain. :) Even the least significant bits of
14 bit interface
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 10:11:11 -0400 (EDT) Walter Bushell ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> > Heraclites already proved you cannot photograph the same river
> twice.
Well, this AP guy was definitely having problems with football games :)
Regards
Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfo
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 15:45:48 +0200 Oostrom, Jerry
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I recently received my scanner back from Acer, but it still showed the
> same
> problems. Here I have an example of an overexposed negative, which gave
> a
> perfect fine grained print, but scanning with the Scanwi
52 matches
Mail list logo
