Have you tried using a different Firewire port on the computer and
scanner?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steven N. Norvich) wrote:
> The SS4000 is, as far as I know, ONLY Firewire. The firewire
> controller does
> show up on device manager and is deemed "running normally" and there is
> a 75 gig disk
I apologize for the typographical error and incomplete information. It should
have been the NIKON LS-4000 disappears from WIN2k
Best regards,
Steve
Steve Norvich
Quentin Corners #114
853 N. Quentin Road
Palatine, Illinois 60067-0711
http://www.underwaterphotos.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sorry, it should have be Nikon LS-4000.
At 05:03 PM 7/26/01 -0500, you wrote:
>The SS4000 is, as far as I know, ONLY Firewire. The firewire controller does
>show up on device manager and is deemed "running normally" and there is a
>75 gig disk running off of it that seems
>to run just fine. I
Tony, I have no quarrel with your statements (I almost never do) except with
your two-phased processing approach to restore detail in a specular
highlight. It won't work with a true specular highlight which is what the
original question was about, but only with a diffuse highlight. A specular
Julian wrote:
> I understood and would like someone to confirm that
> the Windows resource meter had nothing to do with
> how much RAM you had, it was only a measure of
> usage of some stack or similar.
You may be thinking of the GDI, USER and SYSTEM resources. I think in Win98
each of these is
> I'd also like to know if it is true as Tony suggests that aver 512MB or
RAM
> is a waste, as I was thinking of getting more RAM on the weekend.
>
I don't know as I only have 512MB but I suspect this is 99% true. That is
99% of users will see no difference because most normal applications just
d
One last advice: if you
have a chance to, try a scan of your favorite film (APX25, I gather) before
buying. Having mostly T-MAX and Delta in my closet, I had a nasty surprise
the day I tried a roll of Ilford PAN-F: contact prints from the lab were
great, but my LS-30 had a terrible time with
I was trying to find the best software for Epson 1240U photo to make skans
with it. So I was making test with SilverFastSE, Vuescan and Epson Twain 5.
Last of this programs is the simplest and sometimes don't work as I want.
I was trying to compare the quality of scannes of this programs. I want
Alessandro Pardi wrote:
> but my LS-30 had a terrible time with this film (probably a D-MAX problem:
highlights
> were simply unreachable). Any other experience with this film out there?
I haven't, but I wanted to ask if you tried vuescan with it? I haven't got
useful images
from silver based fi
Someone please remind me of the archive address. I've just re-subscribed,
need to catch up..
Thanks
--
David Gordon
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I did. I experimented with various settings (long exposure pass, exposure,
gamma etc.) but it seems that the most dense parts of PAN-F are beyond reach
for this scanner (even increasing exposure so that the scan was way too dark
didn't improve highlights detail that much). I've never seen this hap
On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 03:26:05 EDT ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Tony, I have no quarrel with your statements (I almost never do) except
> with=
> =20
> your two-phased processing approach to restore detail in a specular=20
> highlight. It won't work with a true specular highlight which is what
I had 512 MB RAM and upgraded to 1GB with Win Me and it didn't work well. It
recognized the 1GB, but I got a lot of crashes.
After I switched to Win 2K, all is well and the 1 GB memory is definitely
helpful in Photoshop even with the 100MB images from 35mm scans. Less
switching to the scratch dis
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 13:03:17 -0500 Laurie Solomon ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> I noticed in both systems that since
> the addition of the RAM the Windows resources meter shows proportionately
> less system resources being used than previously (ie., more system's
> resources available), which i
> > I'd also like to know if it is true as Tony suggests that aver
512MB or
> RAM
> > is a waste, as I was thinking of getting more RAM on the weekend.
> >
>
> I don't know as I only have 512MB but I suspect this is 99% true.
That is
> 99% of users will see no difference because most normal applic
http://phi.res.cse.dmu.ac.uk/Filmscan/
-Original Message-
From: David Gordon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 9:46 AM
To: Filmscanners
Subject:filmscanners: Archive address please!
Someone please remind me of the archive address. I've just re-subsc
Fine; but what do you suggest as a way to determine if and how the
additional RAM is being taken into account and used?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tony Sleep
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 5:34 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: films
A 25% faster drive won't necessarily get you 25% faster load/store
times. PhotoShop seems to be inordinately slow in dealing with
compressed TIFFs -- I got curious so I set up a cache large enough to
hold the whole file (53MB). The first time I loaded it into PhotoShop
it took 61 seconds (reading
Computers4Sure lists the SS4000 for $879.99.
Ron
"Alessandro Pardi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I did. I experimented with various settings (long exposure pass, exposure,
> gamma etc.) but it seems that the most dense parts of PAN-F are beyond
reach
> for this scanner
I wonder if anyone has tried PAN-F with a SS4000 or other Polaroid scanner?
"Tony Sleep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 13:03:17 -0500 Laurie Solomon ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> wrote:
> > I noticed in both systems that since
> > the addition of the RAM the Windows resources meter shows
proportionately
> > less system resources being used than previously (ie
"Dana Trout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A 25% faster drive won't necessarily get you 25% faster load/store
> times. PhotoShop seems to be inordinately slow in dealing with
> compressed TIFFs
Paintshop Pro is the same. Opening a film scan in PSP takes *far* longer
than in Irfanview.
> BTW, Ed'
Hello filmscanning experts!
I rented an LS4000 today and I'm trying to use the SF-200 Slide
Autofeeder with VueScan. I do not remember seeing any information about
this feeder being supported or unsupported. In any case, I can't make
it work!
It seems as though it should work. The feeder is a
Slightly off topic here, sorry about that. Recently installed a Matrox G450 on my W98
(not SE) machine, and now I can't wake the computer/monitor up after the monitor only
has gone into Standby after x minutes of idleness. It hangs, and has to be re-booted.
Not the end of the world, but a nuisa
Strictly speaking, what Win 3.x through Me consider 'system resources' are a
fixed amount of memory regardless of how much system memory you have. I seem
to recall that in 3.x it was two 64K heaps and increased in 95, where it has
stayed the same until Me. These heaps control how many environment
I am using the LS2000 with the film strip adapter to scan some Kodak
5035 negatives. It is not advancing the frame correctly to the next
one. It seems to always be off by 5-10 mm.
I have never had this type of problem with any other films.
This film seems to have more edge to edge curl than no
Try the following settings in the from your Control Panel:
Display - Screen Saver - Settings (at the bottom re Energy saving
features) - Power schemes "Always On"
System standby "Never"
Turn off monitor: After [your choice - any time you want for your workflow]
I don't recall where I read it
27 matches
Mail list logo
