John writes:
The REAL point of getting a 24x36 chip is to
make your 35mm lenses be what they're supposed
to be. Not some inbetween angle of view as the
digital cameras of today are.
Yes, and until I see that chip, I don't have much motivation to move to digital.
Not when it makes all my
Order the book at: http://scantips.com it covers everything relating to
scanning.
Thanks, Doug. Will do.
Salutations, David L
David Lewiston [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on Sun, 16 Sep 2001 13:57:58 -1000
Which
brand of compressed air/gas is recommended?
I've recommended this before
Don't use compressed air or gas, get down to your local medical supplies
shop and buy an enema bulb. I've used one for years (only for
David Lewiston [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on Sun, 16 Sep 2001
13:57:58 -1000
...buy an enema bulb. I've used one for years (only for my
negs and
tranies you understand) and don't have a dust problem.
Alan T says
Last time David L suggested this, I tried hard to buy one
from many
Keep in mind that just because a sensor is smaller
than 24x36mm doesn't make your lenses obsolete. It
makes them telephoto, and comparatively high speed at
that. The 200 f2.8 might end up a 300 2.8, which can
costs thousands of dollars. It is all in how one lloks
at it. If I were a sports or
David writes ...
Yes, it's the polonium version I'm interested in.
Search the internet for staticmaster ...
BTW ... good choice for going with Vuescan ... archive the raw scans.
Presumably, you are considering the Photoshop upgrade from LE to full ... I
cannot imagine being without the
Has anyone tried the new air blowers that are in computer stores for
cleaning computers. They consist of a small pump and a fancy spray can. You
pump the cans up when you need more air. Would the air not be dry and might
these spray stuff on negatives and slides or might they be OK?
(3) I use
Which brand of compressed air/gas is recommended?
Try using a hurricane blower, available from photo stores. This is just a
large version of the rubber bulb as used for cleaning optics. Lots of air,
never any worry about permanently marking your film with the liquid
propellant, and it never
Pat writes ...
Keep in mind that just because a sensor is smaller
than 24x36mm doesn't make your lenses obsolete. It
makes them telephoto, ...
I think a better description of how a small CCD uses a 35mm lens, is as
if you used a 'doubler' or 'tripler' with the lens. What you get is the
Pat writes:
Keep in mind that just because a sensor is smaller
than 24x36mm doesn't make your lenses obsolete.
It makes them telephoto ...
Same thing. I don't need a closet full of telephoto lenses.
If I were a sports or nature photographer, I
think I'd be in hog heaven with the
On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 10:21:50 +0100, you wrote:
You might also try looking for an ear syringe-- same general shape,
maybe easier to find.
David Lewiston [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on Sun, 16 Sep 2001
13:57:58 -1000
...buy an enema bulb. I've used one for years (only for my
negs and
tranies
Hi,
I am ready to upgrade my Umax Astra 1220P. What is a good flatbed scanner for under
$200?
All suggestions welcome.
TIA,
Jules
Jules
Gregory writes ...
Has anyone tried the new air blowers ...
They consist of a small pump and a fancy spray can. You
pump the cans up when you need more air.
Would the air not be dry and might these spray stuff
on negatives and slides or might they be OK?
...
The air wouldn't be
As a people and street photographer, I'm somewhat less than enthusiastic. I live in
the 24 to 50mm range. To get the equivalent of my 28/2.0 lens I'd need a 20/2.0 -
anyone know where I can find one? I'll look at digital cameras when they have
full-size sensors, and not a moment before.
I saw them at CompUSA. They are shown on the Web site at:
http://www.compusa.com/products/products.asp?prodzip=mfg_id=89srch_type=mf
g
There is an electric pump and a hand pump, plus you need the can.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
I got a bug report from someone using VueScan 7.1.14
on a Nikon LS-20, and I was wondering if anyone else
using either an LS-20 or LS-1000 has seen this bug.
The problem was that if a section of the image was
cropped on the right side of the preview and then
scanned, a section on the left side
At 03:50 AM 9/16/2001 +0100, you wrote:
I find that if I resist looking at my slides until I have found time to scan
them then there is very little dust on them. Obviously doesn't help with
your current slide collection.
Also keep the scanner covered when not in use and as Roger Miller suggested
--- Pat Perez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Keep in mind that just because a sensor is smaller
than 24x36mm doesn't make your lenses obsolete. It
makes them telephoto, and comparatively high speed at
that. The 200 f2.8 might end up a 300 2.8, which can
costs thousands of dollars. It is all in
Olympus has made a 21/2 since the '80s. Just don't ask me what digital
body will take it.
Agreed on the general problem of digital short lenses. Now where's that
10-20 megapixel 36x24 CCD that has 90+ deg. angle of acceptance, is housed
in a 35mm spool, can be loaded into most-any 35mm
And a fine lens it is, as are my Olympus 16/3.5 and 18/3.5 and the other
couple dozen Zuikos I own
Now if I could just find that digital OM back.
Tom
From: bob geoghegan
Olympus has made a 21/2 since the '80s. Just don't ask me what digital
body will take it.
Agreed on the general
I've heard rumor that these canned air
products might not be good for film, but so far
I've had no visible problem.
As you say, care is necessary to avoid squirting propellant
on the film. Another hazard to avoid is chilling the film
and causing condensation to appear. The spray will be rather
- Original Message -
From: Robert Meier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 5:47 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: NIKON LS 4000 AND D1X
Or another way to look at it is that you just crop the inner part of a
35mm frame. In other words, you are using
In my opinion you better off scanning the film - you will let more detail,
even such as doesn't show up in the prints, and the flatbed will have the
same sharpness-blurring effect as the filmscanner.
Maris
- Original Message -
From: David Lewiston [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It seems that you must wait to have a 24 x 36 chip in your camera. This is
the latest specs on the new Canon pro digital camera
Mikael Risedal
2001-09-13 In its latest edition, the french photographic magazine
Chasseurd'Images gives first details about Canons long-awaited
D30-successor.
- Original Message -
From: Steve Greenbank [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 6:26 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: NIKON LS 4000 AND D1X
- Original Message -
From: Robert Meier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday,
David Lewiston [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on Sun, 16 Sep 2001
13:57:58 -1000
...buy an enema bulb. I've used one for years (only for my
negs and
tranies you understand) and don't have a dust problem.
Alan T says
Last time David L suggested this, I tried hard to buy one
from many
Steve writes:
But you do have the advantage that the centre is
invariably sharper, often much sharper, than the edge.
If that is such an advantage, why hasn't anyone designed lenses for 24x36 that
cover a much larger area than the film frame? The same logic would apply.
A lens are sharper in the middle, I suggest that you go tohttp://www
Photodo.com
MTF tests of lenses by Lars Kjellberg or read Norman Koren page
http://www.normankoren.com/
Mikael Risedal
From: Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
From: Mikael Risedal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: NIKON LS 4000 AND D1X
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 19:10:55
(Answer 2 same question as before, but the right adress to Photodo.
A lens are sharper in the middle, I suggest that you go
There is one good thing about that tough. The CCD require that the rays
come in at 90 degrees. Especially with a wide angle lens the exposure
rate would depend on the distance from the middle point. I have to
admit that I don't know how bad that effect is, though. Also I believe
that lens
2001-09-16-21:46:59 Bill Fernandez:
(3) I use Falcon brand Dust Off. They're much cheaper at Costco then
office supply warehouses. Be careful not to shake or tip the can
before using it (otherwise you'll end up spraying something whitish
that coats the film).
I've been having good luck
| Perhaps I should rent a really excellent flatbed to scan these
| prints, rather than make do with slide scans which lose the ultrafine
| detail. Do you recall the list's consensus on the best flatbeds? I realise
| that it will take two passes per image with stitching to join them.
Really
Alan Tyson wrote:
David Lewiston [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on Sun, 16 Sep 2001
13:57:58 -1000
...buy an enema bulb. I've used one for years (only for my
negs and
tranies you understand) and don't have a dust problem.
Alan T says
Last time David L suggested this, I tried
Paul writes:
Let me guess. They'd be bigger, heavier and
more expensive?
Good lenses are already bigger, heavier, and more expensive.
Yes, I know. So if it is that important, why aren't 24x36 lenses designed to
cover a much larger area than the film frame? That would ensure that the entire
frame falls in the central portion of the lens field.
- Original Message -
From: Mikael Risedal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL
There is one good thing about that tough. The CCD require that the rays
come in at 90 degrees.
No they don't. Different CCDs and different CCD designs have different
acceptable angles. It is true that with wide angle lenses, you do get
falloff at the edges, and it is probably worse than
Many thanks to all those who've responded to my startup queries.
Fedex delivered the SS4000 this morning. Plan to look for a sewing machine
cover today before taking the scanner out of the plastic.
Tonight, installation, hopefully.
Salutations, David L
On Sun, 16 Sep 2001 00:51:38 +0800 SM ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
1. I notice that profiled images exhibit more noise and uneven
textures when examined closely, especially in darker slides/areas. Is
this expected of Wiziwyg profiles? Is there any way around this?
I doubt this is
On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 06:13:13 +0100 Steve Greenbank
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
One particularly interesting thing about the MacWorld review was that the
Artixscan had most detail but lots of noise and the Polaroid was
relatively
noise free with less detail. As these two machines are
On Sun, 16 Sep 2001 15:31:54 -0400 Hemingway, David J
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I would refer you to
the review by Bruce Fraser in MacWorld of about a year and half ago as
well
as the recent review. Both reviews say the maximum OD from the SS4000
available with a single pass are at
Harvey wrote:
Although I think a direct scan of your original film on a very high end
scanner might give you better
results. There is a difference of opinion, but either a flatbed or drum
scanner can give really good results,
your choice might be dictated by the condition (scratches etc.)
On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 08:46:18 -0400 Gregory Georges
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Has anyone tried the new air blowers that are in computer stores for
cleaning computers. They consist of a small pump and a fancy spray can.
Excellent idea. I'm off to solder a tyre valve into an old Ken-air
--- Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is one good thing about that tough. The CCD require that the
rays
come in at 90 degrees.
No they don't. Different CCDs and different CCD designs have
different
acceptable angles. It is true that with wide angle lenses, you do
get
We have one competent pro lab (both film digital) here on Maui, run by a
chap who was a high-end advertising illustrator on the East Coast for
decades. He says his scanner actually removes scratches and other defects,
and it's capable of doing 16K dpi --
But is that 'optical' resolution or
There is one good thing about that tough. The CCD require that the
rays
come in at 90 degrees.
No they don't. Different CCDs and different CCD designs have
different
acceptable angles. It is true that with wide angle lenses, you do
get
falloff at the edges, and it is
Johnny writes:
you mean like those massive, unwieldy,
boat-anchor-like Leica-M lenses?
They are smaller because they are closer to the film.
46 matches
Mail list logo
