age-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Sleep
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 8:40 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: was: RE: SS4000 & ...now: mean people suck
>
> Personally I read George's complaint as being
onal Edition in the 64
bit version. :-) Vista also has a Professional Edition in both the 32 bit
and 64 bit versions.
> -Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of gary
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 3:02 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTE
with XP where it
almost comprised a total revision of the program from start to finish;
instead, they would only issue service packs that fix bugs or security
problems, leaving the addition or alteration of features to the next OS.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailt
inal Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Sleep
> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 9:49 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: SCSI support on a Mac Pro
>
> On 11/02/2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Evidently, this a
; From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2008 2:47 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [filmscanners] SCSI support on a Mac Pro
>
> I currently am using my Polaroid SprintScan 4000 on a Windows computer
>
art
and science."
-Albert Einstein
___
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscann
? I can see
>that you don't need high spatial frequency, scintillation pretty much
>wipes out resolution at that distance. Great job though! I am
>surprised and impressed at the detail you captured at that distance.
>
>Jim
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
>>I have
tage. Also, I've been told that even if noise was not an issue, you
>>can't simply keep reducing the pixel pitch due to difficulties in lens
>>design. If anything, a 10um pitch would be optimal.
>>
>>http://www.lazygranch.com/groom_lake_birds.htm
>>
how flat they may be they certainly will be effected to one degree or
another by the optics of the lens in the digital camera or scanner in the
case of CDD scanners.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of gary
> Sent: Thursday, J
Rob,
> Actually, the Olympus stuff does know what lens is on the camera and
> can be set to compensate.
Is that only for Olympus brand lenses or does it apply to third party lenses
like Sigmas and the like?
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAI
concerning grain and grain
structure in an image.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David J.
> Littleboy
> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 12:22 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film an
major disagreement.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R. Jackson
> Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 9:10 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
>
>
>
age-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of gary
> Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 7:32 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
>
> I don't have a DSLR, but wouldn't a raw camera image need
-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich
> Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 6:49 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
>
>
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >
processes
that one is manually dealing with when processing a Camera RAW file in a
Camera RAW application.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R. Jackson
> Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 7:11 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subjec
; From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael
> Kersenbrock
> Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 5:22 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Secondly, some a
age-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R. Jackson
> Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 3:57 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
>
>
> On Jul 4, 2007, at 11:35 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTE
for starters, and the scanning of the
film will comprise the equivalent of a second generation capture with the
possible introduction of noise, artifacts, and other degrading components
during the scan.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] O
and science."
-Albert Einstein
___
----
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David
> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 9:59 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Nikon LS30 & Vista
>
> You're right Charles my Adaptec card hasn't
e is
the mysterious. It is the source of all true art
and science."
-Albert Einstein
___
----
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsu
.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 10:14 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Nikon LS30 & Vista
>
> I use a Minolta Dimage 5400 II runnin
have a few years
>worth of slides to scan, so I'll have to keep XP until I've finished.
>
>David.
>
>
>----- Original Message -
>From: "Arthur Entlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 10:49 AM
&g
-Included Message--
>Date: 9-Jun-2007 01:06:25 -0400
>From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To:
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
>
(I think the
>objective consensus would settle on a 10mp e
cience."
-Albert Einstein
___
----
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
t new
film body. I still like to do some telephotography with my F3 due to the
ability to put a magnifier on the screen. I'm trying to convert my EOS
film body to that task, but the removable prism is such an advantage.
[I'm really getting tired of fixing the old F3, and I think now Nikon
won't re
cience."
-Albert Einstein
___
----
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
art
and science."
-Albert Einstein
___
----
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
, Ohio 43403
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is
the mysterious. It is the source of all true art
and science."
-Albert Einstein
_______
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
rce of all true art
and science."
-Albert Einstein
___
--------
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
here we need an expert to come in :-).
----
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
ing it?
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
is this less efficient filling system that keeps dust from being a problem?
Charles
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_dige
s.
Charles
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
Polaroid SS4000.
They both yield good scans. Nevertheless, I continue to wait for the
"perfect scanner") ;-)
Joyfully, -david soderman- <><
----
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
rs altogether. My humble opinion to you is to wait
for the next "new wave" of them. Hopefully many lessons were learned by the
engineers. I would keep my eyes peeled for the next MF Nikon scanner.
Joyfully, -david soderman- <><
---
We will be unable to answer email until late Sunday.
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in
Didn't use the Canon. Used the Kodak. Stay away from it
The scanner is not good. First of all, there is no way to get 10 bits per
second as the scanner claims it it. It always comes out 8bits/channel. That
is not good. Also, the histogram looks terrible after you get the image.
There are pres
I am thinking about upgrading from the default silverfast version that came
with my SS 4000. I scan mostly negatives. Do you think the upgrade is worth
the $45?
Also, I heard there was a free upgrade for SS4000 customers. Is this true?
thanks!
-e
I shot some pictures this weekend using t400CN color b&w film and it was
very overcast (I live in Portland, OR)!
I am trying to scan them with my Polaroid SS 4000, using Vuescan,
Silverfast, and Insight.
a) Because it was a overcast days, the light was great for details, but it
was also flat, whi
The coupon at Ecost.com and pcmall seems like it is generic. Can I buy it
from, say Cameraworld.com and use the same coupon? No other place has the
rebate coupon.
evrim
Is there a way to get 12 bits out of this scanner? The histogram looks not
very smooth. Also did anybody else had problem with the ofocusing of this
scanner? My negatives stored in sleeves is pretty flat, but still i get
softscans. What is your methodology for getting sharp scans with this scanner
0/2001 11:52:18 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>> Yesterday I was experimenting with fill flash (still haven't gotten it
>> completely down yet) and decided to go w/neg film for it's
>extra latitude.
>> Kodak Royal Gold 100, to be exact. A bit contrasty, bu
John,
I have no experience with the SilverFast software but absolutely LOVE
Vuescan for trannies, at least. I'm an experienced scanner but new to the
SS4000 myself.
I've spent $40 on far less useful things. :) Hamrick software has a full
featured demo you can d/l from www.hamrick.com that you
he results were as good
as ever. This eliminated the hardware issue...
Is this a common problem? I can scan negs on the Scan Dual II and the
dreaded ES-10S and have decent output, but the SS (which is the best scanner
I've used to date) seems to almost ignore the neg masking.
Any ideas or comments?
TIA!
Dave
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Frank, the biggest single improvement in my photo
> "technique" these last couple of years was giving
> up on generic ISO 200 negative films.
I took a different approach...I use MF. I can shoot Tri-X till the cows come home,
developed D-76 1:1, and they look very good IMO. I know that's B
> > > > What does the phrase "Plus X does not reveal grain" mean?
> > >
> > > Not alegbra;) Plus-X is a Kodak ISO125 B&W film.
> >
> > And...exposed, and developed correctly, scanning it at 5080 or less
> > will not
> > show grain...
> >
> > I prefer D-76 1:1.
> But you want the grain!
>
> Ot
on 2/6/01 11:13 AM, Austin Franklin at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> What do you shoot it at, and what do you develop it at? I routinely make
>> 13x19 prints from scanned Plus-X (35mm that is, much less 120), and unless
>> you take a 6x loupe to the print, you wouldn't se
> > How are you going to see ANYTHING on a crappy web image
> > at 72DPI? I do not believe that would be useful at all.
> The JPEG may load with a res setting = 72ppi, but
> the bitmap of pixels will be the same as if the res had
> be defined at 300ppi. Julie only needs to "re-define"
49 matches
Mail list logo
