Tony Sleep wrote:
> You may be right, but I thought all that were not Estar were plain old
> cellulose acetate, ever since the even more exciting nitrate stock was
> phased out.
Yeah, don't you miss that old Nitrate based stuff. now, those were the
good old days! None of this namby-pamby sh
Lloyd O'Daniel wrote:
>
> Art, I told him about that scanner. He really didn't want to wait another 6
> months or more for it to hit the pipeline. Also, he has a 6x7 so the 6x6 max
> info you posted was a deal-killer. OTOH, I have a large collection of 645
> and 6x6 from years past. I might wai
"Hemingway, David J" wrote:
>
> Rafe,
> FYI, I also have a new 8000 ED that has the same banding issue but I am
> having a hard time getting upset over it.:) When I do the fine ccd it does
> get rid of the problem but when I read the "help" associated with the
> button it says that "fine CCD" c
I think we've had this argument before, about two years ago.
Perhaps it is true that Plutonium is not as risky as once reported, but
individual response to ionizing radiation is just that, and therefore a
relative unknown, so I prefer to err on the side of caution, and would
recommend others do
Walter Bushell wrote:
> It is precisely the randomized nature of film that alaising does not
> occur. There is no grid, so there is nothing to beat against, so to
> speak.
So maybe the answer is to randomize the sensor array, Captain? Of
course, while keeping the dilithium crystals aligned..
Thanks for the enlightening (excuse the pun) essay regarding how film
speeds are determines.
I also had no idea that the decision was a mixture of standard and
consensus, and was always looking for conspiracy theories with
manufacturers in trenchcoats and secret handshakes ;-)
> and requires t
Am I mistaken, or wasn't the Minolta CLE also sold in a different skin
as a Leica?
Dave King wrote:
>
> I'm a big Minolta CLE fan also. I sold my Leica M camera years ago to
> get one. It doesn't have the build quality of an M, and the auto
> exposure shutter electronics can be finicky (don'
One area where there seems to be major movement is in density of
transistors. I just read somewhere that IBM has once again figured out
a way to increase density considerably... I think it was ten times the
current "standard". I only skimmed the article, but I believe they were
talking about ele
Tony Sleep wrote:
I far preferred the ancient M2 I owned previously,
> until that was stolen.
>
> Regards
>
> Tony Sleep
No doubt to pay off his/her Inland Revenue Bill ;-)
Art
Jack Phillips Stated:
Paul--
Be sure you check out Digital ROC and Digital GEM as part of your
comparison. I've been using Digital ROC on normally exposed images with
a wide dynamic range
where part of the image I'm interested in is over/under exposed with
great results. It is also very helpful
Jack Phipps wrote:
>
> You can check our website: http://www.asf.com.
>
> On the following page of our FAQ questions 6 and 7 answer your question
> (I've listed them below).
> http://www.asf.com/support/FilmICEFAQs.shtml#Q6
>
> Q6: Which scanners are available with Digital ICE?
> A6:
Hi Rick,
Actually, the manual is correct. The error you are making is in the
size of the file you expect you will be creating. If you are making a
scan of a 35mm film frame, you don't need to scan the whole flatbed
size, only 1" x 1.5", as you states. This doesn't make a 700+ meg
file. The si
Ray Amos wrote:
>
> Claudiu Falub wrote:
> >
> > Many thanks to all who answered to my request. It seems this is one very
> > effective list. I downloaded the software and hope to solve my nightmare. I
> > really don't understand why a famous company (read Nikon) can produce such a
> > garbage
Lynn Allen wrote:
>
> Hi Frank,
>
> OK, then that would mean that the sensor array is vertical to the line of
> travel, and the scan is horizontal, as we thought, and that makes sense. Now
> optics *could* cause light drop-off, but frankly I don't quite understand
> how that mechanism works, e
I don't know about a specific filter, but basically Tungsten film raises
the kelvin response of the film about 2500 degrees. Tungsten is about
3200 degrees and daylight is about 5500-6000 degrees. I would think
that by boosting the yellow channel (actually lowering the blue channel)
you should be
Frank Nichols wrote:
>
> (Newbie alert: Above is based on total ignorance...)
>
Well, if you are going to be ignorant, why do it half way ;-)
Art
PS; personally, I think you aren't being completely truthful. ;-)
rafeb wrote:
>
> At 06:11 AM 7/7/01 -0700, Art Entlich wrote:
>
> >You know, some people have had problems with Nikon software... a LOT of
> >problems.
>
> And quite a few have complained about Polaroid's
> scanner software as well.
>
> >Not having their scanner or need for their software...
>
Hi Lawrence,
I don't know what is causing your problems with shut downs, but often
these devices are thermally protected, so if they get too hot, they shut
down. Could it be the ventilation is blocked, or that it just is too hot
where you are scanning?
Or could you be having voltage fluctuati
"Enoch's Vision, Inc. (Cary Enoch R...)" wrote:
>
> >>The SS120 produces superior 35mm scans to the SS4000 and wipes the floor
> >>with the 4000ED. If the 8000 scans anything like the 4000ED then I'm real
> >>sorry for you Nikon users. The SS120 comes mighty close to Imacon quality
>
> Comment
I saw the Primefilm 1800 demoed at Comdex this year, and although it is
not a top end scanner, to me, they cut corners in areas that were less
important, and kept quality up as a result, and I have recommended it
over the Tamarack 2400 to people on several lists.
The most obvious area where Prime
"James L. Sims" wrote:
>
>
> Some of the features that Photoshop include (that Pain Shop Pro does not)
Oh-Oh, it appears I've been redirected to the S&M newsgroup (again!) ;-)
Then again, there does seem to be some correlation between color
management and scanning and masochism... ;-)
Art
"S. Matthew Prastein" wrote:
>
>
> And, it's just the "high end" that intrigues me. I have the feeling
> that PS 6.0 lets one be the Spielburg of stills. Is that so? Or am I
> just an idiot?
>
Other than the introduction of layers, and the history pallet in more
recent versions of PS, (I'm
rafeb wrote:
>
>
> >My comment, based upon fact, was that Nikon's scanner software has had a
> >history of many problems, and that these same problems extended to
> >several Nikon peripherals their scanners work with.
>
> Oh, poop, Art. Go to the PhotographyReview web site and
> look at how
"Enoch's Vision, Inc. (Cary Enoch R...)" wrote:
> >I'm musing whether Nikon has a factory in the "deep south" of the US.
> >I'm noting a very strong allegiance to the company coming from those
> >environs...
>
> Is my residence in the "Deep South" some sort of problem for you?
>
> I've been i
I'll chime in here and agree with Rafe (did I just type that ;-)), and
numerous others and support the idea that you not only don't need PS
6.0, but you don't need PS at all.
Yes, I use it, because at the time when I started with it, (version 2.5)
it was vastly superior to most else on the market
Lynn Allen wrote:
>
> Thanks, Art. So as I see it from your diagram, there *could* be a light
> fall-off outside the areas seen most clearly by the lens. I don't know how
> that would be measured, but with the Yellow Stain phenomenon, it's clearly
> in Kelvins, since it goes to yellow from what
Raphael Bustin wrote:
> A discussion on technical merits is
> what I expect. Recitations of unfounded,
> inflammatory opinions, alleged regional
> allegiances, pop-psychology and broad
> generalizations serve no useful purpose.
>
> rafe b.
Respectfully, IY(perhaps H)O.
Art
Dave King wrote:
>
> Rafe, you are right on the money.
>
> Dave
Luckily, most lists aren't much about money. ;-)
Art
The serious stuff:
Some people have taken personal offense to my admittedly flippant
comment about Nikon allegiances in the "deep south".
The comment was not intended to imply any sort of racial or geographical
slur, and was a light hearted jab at Nikon loyalists, two of whom who
recently made s
Well, first of all, I was saying most of us are just as smart and rich
as the average Joe, but not necessarily moreso, so I guess you're at
least that, but, only you know if you fit the box or not ;-)
And I'm not referring to Joe Average either, which is the moniker taken
by a very up and comin
Jawed Ashraf wrote:
>
> I have a 1800. It is made by a company called Pacific Image whose website is
> at:
>
> www.scanace.com
>
> The scanner can only take bare strips of film - it won't accept mounted
> slides.
The units sold in North America scan slides as well. It is both stated
in
Herm wrote:
>
> I have seen MANY ups that did not work.. some of them come with the internal
> battery disconnected for shipping and the user never read the instructions.. and
> has never tested the unit!
>
Now that's downright funny stuff! How about a big sticky label on the
device "this u
"Slavitt, Howard" wrote:
>
. At 4000 dpi, this gives me files of about 660 Megabytes in 10
> minutes! If I scan at 1/2 maximum resolution, 2000 dpi, the scan time drops
> to only 2 minutes or less for 6 cm x 9 cm slides, and I get an excellent 160
> MB 48 bit file, which is 80 MB after reduce
> Jack Phipps wrote:
>
. The attached file has
> several very fine lines at certain angles.
>
> Jack Phipps
> Applied Science Fiction
I didn't find the attachment with your post, am I the only one?
Art
As those who bother reading my comments know, I am an advocate of buying
used equipment and non-bleeding edge. It saves money, it sometimes even
protects you from the "first buyer screw" which means you end up paying
the most for a product which isn't perfected, and end up playing beta
tester wit
Steve Greenbank wrote:
>
> In the UK I think this scanner is available under several brand names
> Jessops 1800U ,Black widow filmscan 2000 and Microtek Filmscanner 35. I
> would suspect of these Microtek may be the real manufacturer.
It is not produced by Microtek, and I do not believe the Mi
> It's best generally to use CD-R as they are generally more reliable than CD-RW and
>they are cheaper too.
Can you supply me with any references for this statement, in terms of
reliability?
This concerns me since I use CD-RW for most of my CD file storage.
Art
Dear Burt,
Dell is being more honest with you than the companies that make and sell
CD-R burners.
Basically, if you are burning a regular CD-R (and not one preformatted
as
a "Direct CD", which BTW, don't work that well either) you should not
expect to be able to burn from any source that is slo
"Enoch's Vision, Inc. (Cary Enoch R...)" wrote:
>
> On 10-04-98 I posted the following to this list:
> "Let's not forget the corollary to that expression is "with Nikon you don't
> get what you pay for." By that I mean customer support. I learned that
> unhappy lesson with my first film scanne
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I would like to express my deepest thanks to all those who provided me
> with
> such helpful information. You have saved me probably weeks of
> frustration.
> Hopefully I will now only have hours of frustration figuring out how
> to
> implement your suggestions .
> "Wilson, Paul" wrote:
>
> Not that I'm returning my scanner, but I'm curious.
>
> Does anyone know how this works? Normally the merchant I purchased
> the scanner from has a 14 day return policy. However, it sounds like
> Polaroid is cutting the merchant a break so therefore it should
> tr
rafeb wrote:
>
> However... there IS a price to pay, and it gets back
> to the LEDs vs. cold-cathode lighting issue, I think.
>
> If I'm not mistaken, ICE requires IR-LED illumination.
> The Nikons have this, the Polaroids don't. But it
> also seems that shallow depth-of-focus may be a side-
Chris Hargens wrote:
>
> Bankruptcy doesn't entail an end to service agreements, etc. It merely puts
> creditors on hold.
>
Bankruptcy protection puts creditors on hold. Bankruptcy puts creditors
in line for any assets.
I suspect a white knight will come along. Polaroid is too valuable a
n
Norman Unsworth wrote:
>
> I too have a Scan Dual II and never had a problem using it with Vuescan.
> It's always found the scanner, no problem. However, I need to make sure the
> scanner is on first, then fire up Vuescan.
>
> Norman Unsworth
>
For the last week, I have been playing with my
It seems to me for some reason that most of the newer medium format
scanners manufacturers decided to forego the zoom lens approach
that Minolta has and continues to use with their Multi models,
and just basically use the same optics for all the film formats.
That eliminates the need for fan
The FBI arrested and ultimately had convicted a guy selling Sony
Playstation 2 units on ebay.
He sold dozens during the early announcement period and racked in
considerable funds. He sort of forgot to send any out to the purchasers
however. ;-)
Art
Steve Greenbank wrote:
>
> > So, the "very o
"Enoch's Vision, Inc. (Cary Enoch R...)" wrote:
>
> At 07:09 11-07-01 -0400, I wrote:
> >It was admittedly difficult for me to be objective because of prior bad
> experiences with an LS4000
> >and Nikon technical support. From list feedback it seems that times have
> changed for the better to
"Hemingway, David J" wrote:
>
>I have all the Nikon and Polaroid scanners and never use either
> software or hardware dust removal.
If you own all these personally, than that explains Polaroid's
current predicament... you're salary is killing them. Then again,
if the company owns them all, w
Steve Greenbank wrote:
>
> Most of the information I have seenis via http://www.cdmediaworld.com and
> links from there. My own personal experience is that CD-RW is more
> temperamental.
>
> Steve
>
Thank you and others for the links. I will read them, and try to decide
if CD-RW should con
Tony Sleep wrote:
>
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 20:36:11 -0700 Arthur Entlich ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> wrote:
>
> > It is not produced by Microtek, and I do not believe the Microtek 35 is
> > the same product. It may be called other names in the UK, however.
>
> A
rafeb wrote:
>
> There's no harm in being careful, that's true, but no
> need to overplay the dangers either.
>
> When I upgraded from my first film scanner (a Microtek)
> I sold that unit to a fellow in Vancouver BC. Long
> story short... the unit was carefully packaged, and
> arrived quite
OK, how about a contest, the person that comes up with the best buyer
for Polaroid (and their reason why) gets a free CD copy of "The Learning
Company's" (bought out by Mattel, and a money loser for them ever since)
"Cyber Patrol" from me. This #1 rated censorship program
is the perfect software
"Shough, Dean" wrote:
>
> > I'd have bought a Polaroid SS4000 in the blink of an eye if it had the
> same functionality.
> >
>
> I am waiting for Polaroid (or someone else) to release a 4000+dpi 35 mm
> slide scanner with ICE^3. Looking at the current prices on the SS4000 ($950
> according to
Raphael Bustin wrote:
>
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, Johnny Deadman wrote:
>
> > on 7/12/01 7:10 AM, Jeffrey Goggin at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > >> I think Kodak should buy out Polaroid.
> > >
> > > If the two companies merged, what would they call the resulting entity?
> > > Kodaroid? Kodap
Maybe what you are seeing isn't dust?
I don't think ProviaF uses dyes that are IR opaque, no matter how
dense... In fact, try a piece which is totally unexposed (like from the
camera leader) and see if that is at all opaque to IR. I doubt it.
Art
Rob Geraghty wrote:
>
> OK, I'm confused. I
Arthur Entlich wrote: (ashamedly)
> If you own all these personally, than that explains Polaroid's
> current predicament... you're salary is killing them. Then again,
> if the company owns them all, well, no wonder they ran out
> of cash ;-)
>
That should teach me t
Jeez, I just can't win. You complain when I quote information gathered
from what others tell me and post, and magazine and other sources, and
then you complain when I provide information based upon my own
experiences... what's a guy to do? ;-)
The stats I gave on the number of badly packaged par
I'm looking over my Nikon lens chart here, which is admittedly a bit
outdated, but other than some very wide lenses (13mm, 15mm, 18mm, 20mm
and a fast 24mm) one 200mm, one 300 mm ED and one 105mm micro, no fixed
focus Nikon lens has more than single digit number of elements.
However, almost every
Lynn Allen wrote:
>
> I don't think Kodak is strong enough (or willing) to do so--this might be a
> test of my prognosticatory powers...if it happens, someone can tell me "I
> told you so." :-)
>
Someone I spoke to today suggested Fuji might be interested in the
Polaroid name, as it is quite
I think you are correct that Minolta will be releasing a new 35mm
scanner soon. The Elite is being heavily discounted, and a 4000 dpi
version would make sense.
Art
"Shough, Dean" wrote:
I expect (hope?) that
> either Polaroid or Minolta will come out with a scanner that does what I
> want in
rafeb wrote:
>
> But curiously, our man from Polaroid is in ICE-denial,
> saying that his (perceived) clientele doesn't value ICE.
>
> Nor did I, until I had a chance to work with it.
>
> As I recall, David was in similar denial when some
> of us informed him (way, way back) that we'd really
Tony Sleep wrote:
>
> Are you sure you are setting the black point correctly? Virtually all
> scanners degrade to green/blue mush at the dark end, but the more
> competent ones do so at luminance values which are below those found in
> the shadows. If so, you will be able to clip the black poi
Jeffrey Goggin wrote:
>
> >Other than the Minolta Multi, the other MF scanners seem to work
> >similarly to a flatbed, in the sense that regardless of the size of the
> >original, the resolution of the CCD remains fixed (in this case at 4000
> >dpi.)
>
> This may be true of the current Nikon a
Lynn Allen wrote:
>
> Out of 20 Kodak Gold CD-Rs distributed, I've had no reports of problems.
> Unfortunately, Gold discs are no longer available. I'm now using the Kodak
> Silver, and still no problems (knock wood). If this all blows up in 5 years,
> you can say "I told you so!" :-)
>
Evil
Raphael Bustin wrote:
>
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, Lynn Allen wrote:
> >
> > Someone has angered the Scanner Gods. I think it was Art. ;-)
>
> Jeez, I thought Art *was* the Scanner God.
>
> rafe b.
Yes, so don't anger me! ;-)
Art
Steve Greenbank wrote:
>
> The music CDs were just one part of the examples. Some of the later music
> CD's are MP3 discs that are standard ISO data discs. I don't think I have
> ever used a RW for an Audio CD. Also the examples of saving data to transfer
> from one computer to another is again
Lynn Allen wrote:
>
> Art wrote:
>
> >It seems to me for some reason that most of the newer medium format
> >scanners manufacturers decided to forego the zoom lens approach
> >that Minolta has and continues to use with their Multi models,
> >and just basically use the same optics for all the f
Lynn Allen wrote:
>
> Sorry about that double post, everyone. I *hate* my Mail service!!! ;-)
>
Didn't you just pretty much just make it a triple post? ;-)
And yes, I'm editing the rest out so that it won't be a quad.
Art
Rob Geraghty wrote:
>
> Gordon wrote:
> > Rob: I once had a roll with about 3 frames that looked like
> > they were full of flyspecks. I ran it through Vuescan to
> > see if it would remove the "dust." It wasn't dust. It was
> > in the emulsion, probably done in the devolempent process.
>
>
Rob Geraghty wrote:
>
> Art wrote:
> >Maybe what you are seeing isn't dust?
>
> I can't imagine what else is could be. They are black spots, and they sure
> as heck look like dust. I can't imagine they could be in the image itself,
> because they are in precise focus and nothing in the image
I don't have a specific recommendation for extracting the images from
very dense film, as it is a matter of experimentation, and the knowledge
that scanners don't much like density.
However, I do want to warn people that there is a new type of x-ray unit
being used in many airport systems now. T
Austin Franklin wrote:
>
> >
> > Yes, this is in fact exactly what I am speaking of. Minolta does this
> > on a small scale with their Multi scanner line.
>
> That's not zooming, it's changing the magnification. That is entirely
> different.
I'm not sure I see a difference in this case.
The FAA has a regulation for the US (which is also usually honored in
Canada) that is a traveler requests "hand inspection" of camera and
film, that the carry-on luggage X-Ray security person is supposed to
grant you your request. That usually does not require opening the
camera back.
Sometime t
> Norman Quinn wrote:
> No just the film. This is the 1st time I have had fogged film too.
> The poor technican at the lab thought his machine had misdeveloped
> them, but strips B4 and after mine were fine.
> It must be X-ray. I had just returned from a trip.
> Norman Quinn
Older machines i
Yes, the issue is not just the percentage. You will note, if you play
with USM, that all three settings are involved in the degree of USM
that's visible.
If you decrease the radius, let's say to under 1, you can boost the
percent to several hundred before you see any obvious artifacts from the
p
"The" Epson printer group is [EMAIL PROTECTED] BUT, be warned, it is very
active, very opinionated, and often very acrimonious!
It is (or was) on the e-group site, so you can check it out there. If
it is as it used to be, expect several hundred postings a day. I had to
give it up.
Art
Frank
OH, now I'm clearer on this...
This relatively fast, unexposed film was X-rayed 8 times prior to being
exposed. That would place it at considerable risk of being damaged.
Art
> Norman Quinn wrote:
>
> > No just the film. This is the 1st time I have had fogged film too.
>
> Did the film trave
The last time I was in the states, about a year ago, I left from an
airport in Syracuse NY. When I asked for hand inspection of my camera
bag and film, the two elderly gents, who looked like they were retired
FBI to me, said they wanted to have the equipment chemically "sniffed".
They took some
Austin Franklin wrote:
>
> I believe this says it all:
>
> > Austin I can only suggest that the opportunities I take to dis
> > the Leaf are
> > only as annoying to you, as your chest puffing comments about the Leaf are
> > to every one else. Okay, can't speak for every one else - annoying to
I hate to rain on your parade, and I honestly hope your scanner
continues to give you great service, BUT, don't you think that it should
not have been necessary to have your scanner sent back to you in
basically a broken state? And do you not also think that it was during
their first repair that
This is one area where I likes how HP dealt with this in their S-20
software.
The unit made a full pre-scan of the film strip, and then you went into
a software area which allowed you to adjust the frame indicators, and
you could move this bars around on your screen. This means you could
change
HP does make service manuals for many of their products, but they are
very costly. Very few companies want non-"professional" service
providers buying these things, so they make them too expensive to be
worthwhile owning if you are only repairing "one ofs".
I think there are a mixture of issues
I find you comments about analogue "feel" very interesting , as I just
wrote a reply in the "other" scan list that I think I will post here as
a result. I think this is called convergence. ;-)
Actually, I just realized, that Dave wrote the comments I am replying
to in both lists...
Humans do n
Tony Sleep wrote:
>
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2001 01:38:51 -0700 Arthur Entlich ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> wrote:
>
> > I hate to rain on your parade, and I honestly hope your scanner
> > continues to give you great service, BUT, don't you think that it should
> > n
>From my read on this, their service is at least equally as bad, while
costing more, as do their scanners. Further, they tend to maintain an
arrogant attitude about consumer complaints when the repairs are not up
to standard.
If you think my comment is inaccurate, feel free to spend your time
p
It should have read, "and we like to incorporate it into our machines."
And it is moving into both our machines and their programming. Often in
areas where physical devices need to be moved through a continuous
range, an example would be auto focus devices where the programming
makes assumption
rafeb wrote:
> I don't give a rat's ass about your observations
> on this topic,
I stand behind my statements.
Even with your nice expensive Nikon scanner, I STILL own a lot more
Nikon equipment dollar per dollar than you do, and I can speak with
years of experience with their equipment as t
Lawrence Smith wrote:
>
> p.s. glad you liked the Cuba images. It's a great place. I can't wait to
> go back. nikon is running a story about my trip with 15 of the images on
> nikonnet.com in the travel section under 'articles'.
Let's hope they don't change their minds after they read your
If a $500 scanner can produce a scan which has no banding, I think a $3K
one should as well.
The expectation that a $3K scanner should work well enough to not
produce banding is, IMHO, not an unreasonable one. Heck, I expect it of
a $500 one too.
Certainly, there are likely differences between
Lawrence Smith wrote:
>
> My replacement 8000 was humming right along and I thought I was home free
> but I scanned a slide with lots of deep blue/purple sky and sure enough,
> banding galore. I have a tag to send it back to Nikon but I'm a bit
> skeptical that it will make much difference at
I had a number of discussions with HP technical staff regarding the
banding problems in the HP film scanners, which also manifested mainly
in dark areas on slides and we batted this around a fair bit.
Banding seems to have an odd tendency to vary in making its appearance
in devices using stepper
Dear Mike,
Thanks for the most interesting revelations.
One question... the Minolta DUal Dimage you ar currently using... is it
the SCSI model (I) or the USB model (II)?
Thanks,
Art
Mike Duncan wrote:
>
> I have made some measurements on 4 scanners (Canon FS-4000, Polaroid
> SS4000, Nikon LS
Lawrence Smith wrote:
Why have I
> not won the lotto yet? ;-)
>
> Lawrence
>
>
Hey, you're about to be presented with the best prize (wo)mankind has to
offer, a child!
Cherish that gift, cause all the other stuff is just grown-up's toys.
Art
I don't know how heavy the ED 8000 is, but these days most electronics
have minimal heft to them and aren't very solid.
I have found that as a result, using a solid platform for devices like
film scanners might help them to be less likely to create sympathetic
vibration in the shelf or table they
To the best of my knowledge, at least here in Canada, the same division
that handles the camera repairs also handles the digital scanner
repairs. These days, most cameras (including Nikon's) use more
electronic circuitry than mechanical parts, so it wouldn't be a stretch
that both camera and scan
> >I would love to see a more hybrid kind of management approach, where a
> >mix of N.A. or European customer service and consumer awareness was
> >mixed with the usually superior manufacturing and quality control of
> >goods produced in places like Japan.
> >
> >Art
> >
I just realized, to a g
rafeb wrote:
>
> At 12:52 AM 7/20/01 -0700, Art wrote:
>
> >I don't know how heavy the ED 8000 is, but these days most electronics
> >have minimal heft to them and aren't very solid.
>
> Hi Art. Your "sources" might have told you that
> it's 19.8 lbs, which information is freely available
>
I believe catalog use (for sales) is usually considered "fair use", and
protected from copyright infringement. You might wish to place a
watermark through the image, so the digital file is not reproducible in
any realistic manner.
Art
LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
>
> Technically no; but you can proba
Actually, Nikon LS2000 and LS30 and I suspect all the newer 35mm
models, at least, move the scanning "unit" (CCD, lens and lighting
source and any mirrors), and not the film.
Yes, they move the film into frame position, but then the fine movement
is done by moving the scanner "head".
This does
Lynn Allen wrote:
>
> Given: That the stepper mechanism is accurate, and not just a piece of
> trash...
> Then: It would not matter whether the copy is moved or the scanning head is
> moved.
>
I don't fully agree. One can design a very precise metal screw or other
method for moving the CCD
101 - 200 of 1406 matches
Mail list logo
