Petru writes:
> Clearly, these guys (myself included) must be idiots.
One need not be an idiot to make mistakes.
> And we have been like that for years, it seems.
The problem has existed since time immemorial. Apparently engineers, as a
class, have difficulty in visualizing future evolution; t
Andras writes:
> No. Applications get memory from the operating
> system kernel.
No, they do not. In many systems, applications have free run of an entire
virtual address space, or nearly so, and can waste it to their heart's
content. I've seen mainframe systems crash after a few weeks when
app
Roger writes:
> Enclosed are typical instructions from a digital
> art web site, instructions which are required by
> a number of scientific journals.
Write to them and INSIST that they give you the exact parameters for CMYK
conversions. If they don't know, get the names of their printers or
pre
Austin writes:
> I don't know who wrote what program you believe
> supports your claim ...
Any program that exhausts the direct address space, and unfortunately those
programs become more and more common as an architecture grows older.
> As you aren't a hardware engineer, it makes
> sense that y
Andras writes:
> If, as Anthony said, CMYK is useful for printing
> work, then it only makes sense to use CMYK if you
> do it in the colour space of the printer AND convert
> to RGB using ICC colour profiles for display on
> screen.
If you plan to print the photographs, CMYK is useful. It can ev
Austin writes:
> MOST of what is printed on paper in the world
> DOES pass through a printer driver on a PC or
> a Mac, simply because there are MILLIONS and
> MILLIONS of homeowners and corporate PCs with
> PS on it and an inkjet or laser printer attached.
A single offset web press for a newspap
Andras writes:
> OK, what I actually meant is how many people
> use CMYK colour space when manipulating images
> in PhotoShop or so.
The entire publishing world. It is a key feature of Photoshop, and a
heavily used one, and one of the most important features of Photoshop to
professionals (which
Roger writes:
> If I understood correctly the CMYK issue, it
> has little to do with photographers but is
> crucial on the printer's side.
Yes. CMYK is irrelevant if you never intend to print anything on paper; it
is unavoidable if you want hardcopy.
> There seems to be an agreement on the gamu
Robert writes:
> But these people don't want any color anyway, and
> maybe not even greyscale ...
Look around you, and count the percentage of printed material that contains
nothing other than black and white. Color is being used more than ever
before.
--
Andras writes:
> Yes, but it's only Microsoft whose products
> I'm forced to use almost every day ...
You are actually required to use a lot of products with similar practices
every day, you just aren't aware of it. Have you checked the margins on
Motorola and Intel microprocessors lately? Do y
Laurie writes:
> You may be right that it is a common practice;
> but that does not mean that it cannot come back
> to bite Microsoft.
The likelihood that it will come back to bite Microsoft is no greater than
the likelihood that it will come back to bite any other company that has
been doing it,
Paul writes:
> Really? Have you scanned the same slide in an
> anti-Newton glass mount and in conventional mount
> and compared them?
I've never scanned slides in glass mounts at all. For 35mm, either I scan
them mounted without glass (usually plastic mounts), or I scan them in
strips without g
Laurie writes:
> That may be an option; but I suspect that Anthony
> would have the same objection to a fluid or oil
> as he has to a powder.
Absolutely. I'm paranoid enough about dust getting into the scanner (I'm
not sure if I can clean it myself, as I can with the LS-2000). Fluids and
powde
likely to cause Newton Rings.
If one can figure another way to create a large enough airspace, Newton
Rings can be avoided.
Art
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> I use the glass 120 film holder on my LS-8000ED because I need to be able
to
> hold the film flat, however, I have a lot of trouble wi
Paul writes:
> Even anti-Newton glass degrades the image. It's
> quite obvious with an anti-Newton glass slide mount.
It should not make a difference if it is only on the side of the film
opposite the scan head. If it comes between the film and scan head, that
might be a problem (doesn't seem t
Austin writes:
> But, if you have a, say, 4x6 image at 100 DPI,
> that won't get re-sampled by the browser,
> providing the window is large enough to handle
> 400 x 600 pixels, right???
As far as I know, most browsers never resample an image to accommodate a
window that is too small; they just p
Brian writes:
> ... how much do we have to pay for medium format
> film, processing, and scanning before those
> high-end digital systems become practical?
I'm not sure what you mean by practical. High-end digital is practical
right now, for certain applications. However, I'm addicted to image
Roger writes:
> Ya, I understood later, moreover seeing that
> he was talking about Paris -probably the most
> expensive city in the known universe :-))
Actually, Paris is not that high on the list. Major American cities, Tokyo,
and London (as well as possibly Zurich) are more expensive. This
Roger writes:
> I did not know that, in spite of being an
> european myself...
Many Europeans do not know that they are making far too little money for the
work they do and are paying far too much for goods and services. That in
itself is not surprising. The weird thing is that, of those who _
Brian writes:
> Are the prices you quote the going rates in Paris?
They appear to be. Even an ordinary consumer lab with overnight service
wants $3 for a roll of 135 in C-41.
> Even the most expensive labs in NYC will develop
> and contact a 120 C41 roll for far less.
There is less competitio
How old is the scanner? Dust in scanners will create this effect. I went
through a hundred relatively bad scans until I realized that what seemed
like slow deterioration in the scan was actually accumulating dust. It can
happen so slowly that you don't realize it's getting worse, because you
fo
Julian writes:
> Maybe nothing.
>
> At the risk of belaboring the obvious, there
> are many "pro labs" whose work is mediocre or worse.
> And some one-hour "mini labs" can turn out very
> good prints.
Well, the one-hour print actually seems to have more "pop" than the pro-lab
print, but it final
Laurie writes:
> Pro labs (and particularly custom pro labs) are
> capable of working with more than just 35mm film
> formats, which most amateur one-hour mini labs
> cannot or do not accept and often are incapable
> of dealing with.
Yes. This pro lab will develop 120-size film for $9 in two ho
Austin writes:
> I know you say you leave them at the scanned
> resolutions, but doesn't that put you at the
> mercy of what ever the browser does, and may
> degrade your image?
I suppose so, but I'm pretty much at the mercy of the browser and the
visitor's computer, anyway. I gave up trying to
Shunith writes:
> Mm well it does have it's advantages
Certainly if an upgrade provides something you need or want, no reason not
to buy it. But remember that software companies produce upgrades because
their business model requires you to buy their products over and over again
in o
with a Nikon LS-8000ED.
- Original Message -
From: "Anthony Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 12:13
Subject: [filmscanners] Prints from scans ... are there really differences
Shunith writes:
> Saved by Save for Web option the file is
> now a 100 x 100 pixel @ 72dpi/ppi for a
> print size of 3.53 x 3.53cm. How d'you
> retain your high resolutions?
By not using Save for Web or PS 7. I still use PS 5; I've never seen any
reason to upgrade beyond that. An ordinary Sav
Austin writes:
> Where do you set the DPI of the scan?
The DPI of the scan in the image file is set by the scanning software that
creates it. The Nikon scanners I use routinely set the DPI to the actual
DPI used to create the scan (usually 2700 or 4000, the two resolutions I
most often use).
I
Nick writes:
> One of the reasons for the confusion is that
> Photoshop (stupidly, in my opinion) insists
> on changing the pixel dimensions when you change
> the dpi. That, of course, will change your image.
Photoshop is designed to prepare images for print use as well as online use.
When you a
Paul writes:
> Just changing the dpi number doesn't change
> the size of the file; it changes the size
> (in inches) of the image.
Sort of. An image file doesn't actually have a size in inches. However, if
you record a DPI setting in the file, and if a program reading the file
chooses to calcu
Ed writes:
> By leaving the dpi at 2700 or 4000, is the
> file size larger than it would be at
> 72dpi?
No. DPI is just a number recorded in the file; it has no influence at all
on the file size.
> Also, by leaving the dpi at 2700 or 4000
> are you creating a higher quality graphic
> file?
No
Alex writes:
> what would be preferred policy of image
> offering for the public ? I mean small GIFs
> as thumbnails linked to JPEGs of certain
> resolution of JPEG only approach ?
It depends on your intended audience and the type of connections and
machines you anticipate that they will have.
Stan writes:
> What if the image is being prepared for a
> website?
The procedure is the same, but the final size for the image is of course
quite small compared to the original scan.
I do set the JPEG compression a lot higher for Web use than for print use,
as download time is important for We
> I find that the first sharpening, that applied
> to the image from the scanner, needs much larger
> strength and radius values than the second and
> later sharpenings. Do you turn on sharpening in
> the scanner?
No, I don't. You never know when you'll need an image _without_ sharpening
(rememb
Al writes:
> Maybe I have missed it in an earlier post but, if
> you are using your normal technique of halving the
> image size, what are the unsharp mask settings you
> use as a default?
Strength of 98, radius of 0.7, threshold of 2. Of course, this is a highly
subjective setting. I do note
Maris writes:
> Brian said the file size was reduced, so there
> was apparently resampliing (downsampling).
Or the amount of information in the file did not increase.
In any case, if one proceeds as he describes (changing the dimension of the
image to 11 inches in Photoshop), the results are as
David writes:
> Just to clarify here: the sharpening with
> radius of 4.9 pixels or so is applied _before_
> downsampling by 500%, obviously. Right?
Yes, it would have to be, otherwise the information it needs would be gone.
However, I haven't actually done this, so I'm not sure of the details.
Robert writes:
> Excuse my ignorance but what is the logic doing
> it this way instead of resample it directly to
> the resolution you want?
It seems to give a better final result, as opposed to one single large
downsampling step, although I have not been able to rigorously verify this.
If you d
TH writes:
> What is firmware?
Software that rarely changes. Usually it is recorded in non-volatile but
erasable memory within a device at the factory, and since it is relatively
fixed, it usually appears as "hardware" to the user (that is, the influence
of the firmware is seen as hardware beha
Brian writes:
> If I scan a 35 mm slide or negative at 4000
> dpi in a Nikon Coolscan 4000 and I want to make
> a print in Photoshop, I alter the long dimension
> to 11 inches (the short dimension ends up at
> whatever to retain the proper dimensions).
> Since this usually ends up in a file size
Sharpening will not recover lost detail. It only creates an illusion of
sharpness, and it is very easy to overdo, so beware.
- Original Message -
From: "Alex Zabrovsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 23:53
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: PS sharpe
David writes:
> I don't know where y'all come from...but I'm
> in a post-industrial community that would
> "cheerfully" settle for 2nd best...when
> push-comes-to-shove. The ramifications of
> this are endless. They would be *thrilled*
> to settle for whatever they can print off the web.
Then
Arthur writes:
> The ONLY absolutes I see here are that an
> artist's work is his own to do as he pleases,
> and that there is no moral authority to take
> or copy other people's creations even if it
> is easy to do so, unless the artist has
> agreed to it.
Quite true, but the practical reality
Arthur writes:
> Perhaps eventually a standard will be made
> and one will buy rights to use a seal or
> logo that is registered and authorized for
> people using materials tested to meet that
> standard.
I can't go along with that. I've never seen a case of restricting trade in
this way that w
Gregg writes:
> I have many images and I can't decide which
> ones are worthy to be shown to the public. Could
> you please take a look at them and with all
> your wisdom let me know which ones are good
> enough to be stolen.
I'm no more qualified to determine that than anyone else. Besides, fr
David writes:
> Please allow me to describe a certain rascal
> that I've stumbled onto. He seems to have an
> exaggerated opinion of his *own* opinion.
Things are not always what they seem. Does this rascal have elaborate
protection mechanisms on his site to protect the inestimable value of hi
David writes:
> You've never ceased to amaze and dazzle me
> with your limitless wisdom and knowledge of
> this planet - and humanity in general.
Thanks.
> I presume that you must be at least an
> octogenarian to have amassed such a bottomless
> pool of enigmatic-yet-pragmatic information/advic
Julie writes:
> Is it egotistical to try to prevent someone
> stealing images that a photographer has spent
> time and money creating?
Not at all, but it is often egotistical to actually believe that anyone
wants to steal them. I've seen photos on many photo sites that the
photographer couldn't
Preben writes:
> I would be interested in knowing which photos
> ARE worth protecting.?
The ones that are worth money.
> As far as I know, in the finest museums of the
> world (for what it is worth), you may stumble across
> (quote) sunsets, breaking waves, distant mountains,
> nudes (unquote)
David writes:
> But it's not quite that easy nor as cut-and=
> dried as the above.
There aren't any other options. Anything you put on the site is likely to
be stolen. Anything you do not want stolen should not be put on the site.
> For example, you've just thumbed-your-nose at
> the state-of
Shunith writes:
> Disabling right click will not stop any of
> the ones you mention from using your pix
> if they so choose.
I know. I don't disable anything.
Furthermore, it seems a bit egotistical to me when photographers go to
extreme lengths (downloadable ActiveX controls and plug-ins, etc
Paul writes:
> But look at most professional web sites. They're
> full of nested tables, not to mention frames, plus
> little fragments of javascript for special
> effects, hit counters, etc.
No, they are not. Professional sites contain only the HTML required to do
the job; amateur sites and wa
SD writes:
> ... notepad is the best... but is it worth
> th hassle and the learning curve? Doubt it ...
There is no hassle. It takes a few hours to get used to writing HTML. You
can learn it in an afternoon.
Learning Dreamweaver might take days or weeks. And the cost of a full copy
of Drea
Paul writes:
> As long as it produces the correct results in
> a web browser, who cares?
True, but it won't. The junk generated by web-design software contains
mountains of code, often lots of scripting as well, and if you don't change
it carefully, it will break; the results will _not_ display
Use the supplied film strip adapter instead of the automatic strip loader.
- Original Message -
From: "Francoise Frigola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2002 20:43
Subject: [filmscanners] LS-2000 and HC film
I am attempting to scan film strips on High
least you could do is
cause Thomas to think by giving him the paradoxical response of "No." :-)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski
Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2002 2:35 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners
Yes.
- Original Message -
From: "Thomas B. Maugham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2002 02:27
Subject: [filmscanners] Is anybody there
Is anybody there?
Uns
I have not had any focus issues with any Nikon scanner (I have three).
- Original Message -
From: "Bruce M. Burnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2002 05:18
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Black and white scans onLS4000EDandotherissues
Austin,
You assum
So did you actually buy the printer?
- Original Message -
From: "Arthur Entlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 04:27
Subject: [filmscanners] OT: WARNING: Epson 7600/9600 ink use
I just posted this to comp.periphs.printers, and I know it is off
David writes:
> All very true, but NT/2k/XP give the user
> a single, flat 2GB address space, which is
> getting a bit cramped in this day and age
> of 4000dpi MF scanners.
The 32-bit hardware severely limits addressing beyond a 4 GB boundary. If
you want to handle more than 4 GB cleanly, you'l
Simon writes:
> Where did you get this information?
>From Microsoft.
Besides, you can see it for yourself if you look closely at XP; much of the
OS still carries the names of used by its direct ancestors. MS has hidden
quite a bit and has crippled a few functions so that you have to pay for
mo
Guy writes:
> I vote for his expulsion.
Consider following my example instead.
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate)
Austin writes:
> Isn't that a curve issue if you say it's
> only in the mid tones?
It might be, if that were what I had actually said. But I only mentioned
the midtones; I did not say that only they were affected.
If you divide a 100:1 ratio of luminosity into 256 equal parts, the
middle f
Laurie writes:
> Don't you have this reversed? My understanding
> is that JPEG is lossy while TIFF with LZW is
> lossless.
Yes, I do, sorry. Fortunately, you understood what I meant, not what I
wrote. I was in a rush, as usual.
Austin writes:
> How's that that "...result in a photograph
> containing virtually no contrast..."?
Using a wide gamut, the midtones are very compressed with respect to the
overall range of the image. When you display this on a device that doesn't
have much range compared to the gamut, the
Todd writes:
> Seems to me a good "S" curve algorithm could
> juice the midtones and still keep the highlights
> and shadows from from blowing and blocking, no?
Absolutely, and an S curve is what I had in mind (although I don't actually
know for sure what sort of adjustment the cameras are perfo
> yes; if there are many pixels of same color, image
> will compress more.
And that is almost never true for real-world photographs, although it is
certainly true quite often for computer-generated images such as diagrams
and the like.
> Wow, are you sure? The LZW TIFF was *larger*?
It can be i
Laurie writes:
> In practice, I do not think they are seperable
> so as to allow some other action to be carried
> out between the two processes, although it may be
> theoretically possible.
JPEG encoding requires the rough equivalent of a Fourier transformation on
the data; once that is underta
Laurie writes:
> I agree with this; but in many if not most
> cases, the compression level used or required
> is greater then the lowest possible amount,
> ranging from level 6 to level 3 in order to
> get the file small enough to be an email attachment
> or a web site download.
I was thinking o
Laurie writes:
> That is nice; is this also true when one works
> in color as opposed to grayscale or black and white?
Usually, if the number of bits for each color is the same. Note, however,
that in so-called high color, each pixel requires 16 bits: 5 for red, 5 for
blue, and 6 for green. Th
Ken writes:
> When I scan an image - into whatever file
> formet, I use TIFF out of Vuescan - and then
> open it in PS, I can immediately see some
> sharpness loss ...
As compared to what?
When I've compared scans to actual direct examination of negatives or slides
(Provia and Velvia) under a m
Laurie writes:
> For other than web work, some have suggested
> that saving an image for archival purposes as a LWZ
> compressed TIFF file is the best way to go
> for compression without artifacts.
True--TIFF is lossless, and so it does not create artifacts.
However, if you save an image as JPE
Maris writes:
> True enough, but if the image requires sharpening?
You cannot know if an image will require sharpening or not until you know
how the image will actually be used.
> I would think it better to convert to JPG and
> then sharpen rather than sharpen in TIFF and then
> convert.
Neith
Maris writes:
> Sharpening at that point was what I was
> suggesting, before saving as a more-compressed JPG.
Sharpening permanently diminishes the quality of an image, and it also makes
the resulting JPEG file somewhat larger.
---
Laurie writes:
> ... how does one sharpen between the conversion stage
> and the compression stage?
One does not.
There seems to be a widespread misconception here. While you are editing an
image, it _does not have_ a format; it isn't JPEG, or TIFF, or anything
else. The image is stored on a
Ken writes:
> ... but could someone offer a technical explanation
> of why sharpening has so much more visible effect
> on jpegs as opposed to TIFFs?
It doesn't.
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], wi
Preston writes:
> One pre-press expert in my area recommends
> ColorMatchRGB instead of Adobe98 for pre-press
> work. Is this a Mac vs. PC thing?
No, it is more of a printed-on-paper vs. electronic-display thing.
ColorMatchRGB is designed for print, whereas Adobe98 is for more general use
and ha
Ken writes:
> But when printing it's best to go direct from
> the TIFF isn't it?
It doesn't matter.
> When producing for the web, yes, I go to jpeg
> and then sharpen.
You can't. All images are bitmaps while you are manipulating them. JPEG
and TIFF are just file formats.
-
Laurie writes:
> Theoretically maybe ...
All images are bitmaps at the time of sharpening. The format in which they
were or will be stored is irrelevant.
Additionally, all sharpening degrades an image, so it should not be carried
out for images that are being archived, as you may need the high
Tony writes:
> This is only a minor sharpening to restore
> the sharpness of the original ...
Sharpness cannot be restored, it can only be simulated. Sharpening causes
deterioration in image quality, so it should be avoided until the image is
about to be prepared for a specific use. I archive
Unfortunately, there is no way to prevent visitors to your Web site from
stealing the images you display upon it. Jim's method is easily defeated
(you can take a screen shot by pressing Print Screen and capture the image
for later use, with or without a transparent GIF).
The reality is that you
If the FH-835 is the standard holder that comes with the 8000ED (I don't
have it in front of me now), I've used it, and it seems to work just fine.
- Original Message -
From: "Tomek Zakrzewski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 20:44
Subject: [filmscan
If the FH-835 is the standard holder that comes with the 8000ED (I don't
have it in front of me now), I've used it, and it seems to work just fine.
- Original Message -
From: "Tomek Zakrzewski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 20:44
Subject: [filmscan
The Epson 2450 is widely regarded as a good scanner for such purposes. No
SCSI, though, as far as I know.
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 16:29
Subject: [filmscanners] Flatbeds for 6x6 negs.
Hi,
Apologies if this has be
Austin writes:
> It's to what degree it sees it.
Samples do not have "degrees"; either they exist, or they don't.
> Who said there were?
"It's to what degree it sees it."
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PRO
Laurie writes:
> I know of no PC motherboard that will support
> that much RAM even if one could aford to buy it.
That's why I said "if you can afford AND CONFIGURE."
My own motherboard is limited to 1.5 GB (and that's what I installed).
Windows XP Home Edition is limited to 2 GB (a marketing-i
Denis writes:
> To carry disk performance to the max, go with
> a striped SCSI array of 15000 RPM drives!
Very expensive, though. Also, one thing tends to lead to another: If you
use 15000 RPM drives, you soon have to start worrying about keeping the
whole machine from melting down in its own
Austin writes:
> B&W film can easily handle 10 stops, with
> very little effort.
It can _just barely_ handle ten stops, from zero to maximum density. Since
some margin is necessary in order to hold detail, ten stops is potentially
difficult to achieve. Fortunately, it's not generally necessary
Arthur writes:
> I believe what Anthony is saying is that
> it is rare that a 10 stop difference would
> occur in adjacent areas of an image, not that
> a full image wouldn't contain a 10 stop range
> of contrast.
Actually both. I can't recall offhand seeing a 10-stop range in a single
image, e
Arthur asks:
> Scanning reference: has he yet incorporated a
> decent color management system into his OS?
Windows XP does indeed include system-level color-management capability,
although it isn't very elaborate. It is apparently not automatic;
applications must explicitly choose to avail them
I doubt that XP will Win 2K. There is no server version of XP, and Win 2K
Pro is a more compatible desktop for Win 2K server than is XP. XP and 2K
share the same post NT4 code base, from what I understand.
- Original Message -
From: "Lloyd O'Daniel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTE
Rob writes:
> What size computer do I need so that I may
> work happily with Photoshop and 200M scan
> file size.
The largest and fastest you can afford. Seriously.
RAM is the most important. You should have at least a couple of times as
much RAM as your image size to work at a reasonable sp
Austin writes:
> 10 stops is not hard at all to get in a
> single scene.
Examples?
I routinely scan slides in which there is at least some detail at every
point in the image, light and shadow (excluding specular highlights and
light sources)--often more than I realized was there. Clearly, the
Stan writes:
> I take a lot of photos in mountains and
> deserts, metering with a handheld 1 degree
> spotmeter and I don't recall ever seeing
> more than 6-7 stops ...
This correlates well with my experience. I can see a ten-stop spread in two
different scenes, e.g., the difference between exp
Howard writes:
> Is putting in a Firewire card as simple
> as opening the computer case, shoving
> the card into an empty slot (just kidding...
> lets say gently inserting) and turning on
> the computer and having Windows XP find
> new hardware and plug 'n playing the driver
> to the card automat
The LS-2000 mirror is indeed silvered in front. Nevertheless, I've managed
to clean it without damaging it, as far as I can tell. Besides, what choice
do I have? If the mirror gets dirty, what else can you do?
- Original Message -
From: "Arthur Entlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL
Les writes:
> Is there a good safe procedure for opening
> the scanner and accessing these parts?
Not necessary on the LS-2000.
Remove all adapters from the scanner. Turn the scanner on, and wait until
it starts to advance the scan head towards the front of the scanner. Turn
the scanner off a
Dual boot is transparent to a scanner, so it shouldn't matter. Be sure that
you install the software in two completely different places on the machine,
however (you should not install it into the same directory on the same drive
in the same partition, for example).
- Original Message -
F
Dave writes:
> I do Norton Win and Disk Doctor, then defrag.
Things like that were useful in Windows 3.1, but they haven't been necessary
in ages; they probably hurt more than help in NTFS-based systems like
Windows NT, 2000, and XP.
> Read about utilities including System Mechanic
> here:
Hmm
David writes:
> I shoot medium format (t-max 100) film and the
> end use is for high qualiy glossy magazines and
> corporate publications, usually A4, very
> occasionally A3.
Any decent scanner will be more than sufficient for this type of work, as
offset printing can't come close to the quality
1 - 100 of 320 matches
Mail list logo
