available for the plugin version? I did see the
help files for the standalone version but it seems rather sparse.
Thanks...
Tom
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 10:25 PM
To: [EMAIL
David J. Littleboy wrote:
It seems to be between the Canon 9000 (dye-based inks) and the pigment ink
Epson 2100, 2200, or 4000 (same printer: the only difference is where you
buy it). The Canon (as I understand it) doesn't do full-bleed A3. However,
I'm finding the Epson 950C _very_ slow
Are you sure this isn't a result of the different focal points of
different colors?
You've probably noted that infrared, for instance, has a fairly large
difference in focal point than the visible spectrum (the offset is
indicated on most lenses as a red line or dot). This holds true for the
I have not installed the release version of this software yet, but I
worked with it in several versions in beta for months, and spent many
long nights helping it along to its final version 1.0.
This software is not a replacement for IR cleaning, but then again it
doesn't really need to be on a
Doesn't Photoshop work with WinNT?
If so, you can surely use the plug in.
Or have we changed subjects and I'm confused as to what the reference is
now... ;-)
Art
Eric wrote:
Bummer that there isn't a version for WinNT, either. That's one of the
reasons I went with Polaroid.
Eric
manifests problems
from dust and scratches - the dust and scratches are on the film, not in
the
Nikon scanner hardware, are they not?
Maris
- Original Message -
From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 5:37 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re
I just noticed today (and I have no idea how long it has been there)
that Polaroid UK is advertising a major price reduction on the SS4000
to 599 pounds. I have no idea if that is pre or post VAT, but it seems
cheaper than the price you found, which seems to imply the price
reduction is recent.
It is more the other way around. Microtek makes the SS4000 and SS4000+
for Polaroid, and they are basically the same scanner with different
firmware and software.
The Artixscan 4000f was available some months after the Polaroid SS4000.
Same for the SS4000+ and Artixscan 4000tf. Polaroid has
It would appear Miegapixels is mega not functioning. I'm getting no
connections with either Netscape or I.E. for any of the links Chris has
posted.
Art
Simon Lamb wrote:
Is this list an advertising forum for Megapixels? It is good that
contribution can be made regarding comparisons between
I just noticed, for any UK residents, that Polaroid UK is showing the
SS4000 for sale with a 599 pound list price.
It seems to be a still active product there.
Art
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Hi Ed,
To my knowledge, you will be hard pressed finding this scanner new.
Polaroid sold off the stock in their warehouse just prior to the SS4000+
coming out. They also were liquidating them to bring in some money
during their Chapter 11 proceeding.
At that time, the SS4000 scanners were
Austin,
You regularly chastise people for using inaccurate or incomplete terms.
Shall we discuss depth of FIELD versus depth of FILM as an
example, in spite of the fact that EVERYONE knew what the people were
referring to? Yet you found it necessary to parrot out of some obscure
book not once,
Fair enough. I still tend to believe there is more than 4000 dpi in
medium to low speed films. Or at least that there is more than the 4000
dpi captured by prosumer scanners, which might not be a true 4000 dpi.
Otherwise we wouldn't need drum scans anymore.
Now, don't get me wrong, I think
Hi Laurie,
Sorry for the misappropriated quotes. It was bad editing on my part. I
was trying to respond to your questions about the several different
measures being used, but I fear I might have further confused the
matter, as I was trying to convert it all into ppi, rather than lpi.
Am I
Austin Franklin wrote:
T-Max 100 has a resolution rating of around 200 line pair/mm, that's over
10k samples per inch, and would be a file of APPROXIMATELY FOR EXAMPLE SAKE
(since you are being anal about arithmetic ;-) ~10k x ~15k or ~150M pixels.
Austin
The term Austin is looking
Laurie Solomon wrote:
4K simply means 4000 (and 96) pixels across the 36mm film chip.
Actually, 2889.9ppi.
The problem above is the direction of the film being measured.
A film recorder refers to the longer dimension as 4K, so the 4096 pixels
across, represents the approximate 1 and
Alan Harper wrote:
I have been thinking of switching to Windows--I can't imagine that it is
worse than this. (This is one of about 5 similar problems I am having due
to flakey software and strange interactions between Mac OS X and Classic.)
Only 5, and you're complaining?
Any OS that
If Bill gave everyone who bought all the other garbage OS's his company
has sold them previously a free copy of XP (and maybe compensated
everyone for the wasted hours and days and months of hardship as a
result of those bug-infected vermin he called software) I'd be much
kinder to him. Mr.
Don't ask me why I am refereeing between these two, but I'll make one
stab at it.
Since both people are anal retentive, at least I shouldn't get any sh*t
on me ;-)
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
As I recall it was someone who was trying to decide if he should now
jump in and buy a film scanner (now that they were at 4000 dpi) or wait
even longer (he had already waited for 3 years watching the film scanner
progression) until they got even higher resolution and better dynamic range.
So,
How big?
Bigger than a bread box ;-)
Adobe suggests that you should have at least 3-5 times the amount of RAM
memory in your system as the image size to avoid needing the scratch
disk. SO, a gig of memory should be close to doing that. However, the
use of the history pallet in recent PS
it.
There are not many lenses that have the resolving power of the Leica 90 AA
and Zeiss 180 Sonnar.
Tell mw what is a more valid test than using the exact same image in both
scanners and I will give it a try.
Simon
on 9/5/02 11:10 pm, Arthur Entlich at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is possible
As odd as this might sound for a MS product, that is, in principle, all
that is involved. However, I have found it is usually wise when adding
hardware to a MS OS to rest your vocal cords for several days prior, in
case you require them for a session of screamed 4 letter words, when you
whole
I would ask Minolta if they have Win2000 drivers, and if so, I'd go that
route. Everything I have read indicates that at least for now, XP is no
deal. A lot of it's structure is based upon the NT OS, which is what
WIN 2000 is as well. WIN 2000, overall got reviews as one of the most
stable OS
It would be a very large waste of that CCD size. A 10,000 element CCD
could make over a 10,000 dpi/ppi scan (at least in one direction).
10,000 divided by 2.5 (nearly medium format dimension) = 4000 (dpi/ppi)
The SS4000 probably uses a 4000-5000 element CCD.
Art
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's a good start, but their website needs a lot of corrections. SOme
links are dead ends. Several links for Minolta products point to the
first generation products when the source page indicates the second
generation products. The Minolta Dual II refers to Tony's review of the
original Dual,
I use Creator 4.0. on a Plextor 8X drive without buffer underrun
protection. I had a rate of failures with version 3.5 and 4.0 both with
this drive of about 25% until I changed to brand name disks. Since then
I have had a ZERO failure rate.
I always shut down all programs in my task bar prior
I would agree that this sounds like a failure of the calibration process
within the scanner. Was the CCD unit itself cleaned, or can it be
accessed? Is it possible some dirt/dust was transferred from the mirror
onto the CCD unit? Still more likely a calibration issue, especially if
sudden and
I would assume all mirrors used in scanners are front surfaced. Front
surfaced mirrors are VERY delicate and easily scratched and should be
handled with the greatest respect.
Art
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rob writes ...
A few months back I wrote asking whether anyone had seen very
pronounced
This halo-ing is a likely result of hazy residue on either lenses or
mirrors as you suggest.
Streaking is more likely a result of dust on the CCD or calibration
problems.
Art
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Also a general loss in vibrancy of
images if a general and even haze on it.
The symptom
, 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 PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2002 12:17
Subject
This sounds very interesting. Can you step through the process in a bit
more detail? Which version of Photoshop are you using, and how does one
Apply Image in Darken Mode, what menu items and tools are you using
exactly. I'm new to this approach.
Thanks,
Art
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I
Two comments:
1) Epson dye ink based printers always need good quality clay coated or
other specialized inkjet paper to provide the best quality result. If
you are after a printer than gives best results with standard bonded
paper, the HP will win, but the inks are sometimes Velvia
Hi Ted,
You're welcome.
By the way, I just live a good swim from you -
just outside of Victoria, BC
Art
Ted Bayer wrote:
Hi Arthur:
Thanks you -- this is very informative... and much appreciated.
I use the Ted in Olalla signature because there is another Ted on the
Leica Users Group
Since we are sliding into OT land, I'll just make this last short comment.
As compared to drives I've had previously, which were slower, and were
cooler.
The tech support guy mentioned to me that their new 10,000 rpm SCSI
drives run so hot that they had to incorporate heat sink fins into the
more grain aliasing than the current crop of 3 x 10,000 CCDs/4000ppi
scanners. If that is the case, why would anyone buy the Photo for example.
Simon
Arthur Entlich wrote:
I'll reply to you in more detail in private mail.
One of the principle advantages of the 4000 dpi native resolution
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It would just gall me to spend that much on a scanner and still have to worry about
focus. (I cut my teeth on a Minolta Elite which had fixed focus and yet was sharp
over
the whole frame.)
Al Bond
A fixed focus scanner would likely be such because it has a
dickbo wrote:
Just mount in glass and the problem ceases to exist, not only that your
originals are better protected.
Most, if not all, photo archivists will tell you today that glass
mounting of slides is considered to accelerate aging due to chemical
off-gassing getting trapped between
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am starting with a 4000ppi image with the scan being the same size as the
slide when I scan in Vuescan. When I print in PS I go to Image Size and then
change the image size to, say 8x10 with image proportions constrained and
change the resolution to 360 dpi.
Yes, exactly. He used color filters when shooting his exposures, used
dodging and burning, used toners, and at later times, used someone else
to print his work in the darkroom...
Heck, worst of all, he turned most of the world into black and white
Such deceit! Obviously, his prints can't
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So far, the only reference to the ss4000 Plus on dealers' websites is
just coming soon with a
guestimate of cost between UKP 900-1000 (inc VAT). The price for the
4000tf is around the
UKP800 mark, including a (Win98 compatible) Firewire card and Silverfast.
What is the sound of a half joke?
A stifled laugh, perhaps?
Or maybe a hidden tear
We don't need Macs, we just need PCs that run the Mac OS, that all ;-)
Art
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Howard -
I'm only half joking when I suggest that you keep the scanner, dump your Windows XP
anyone who has one
say if a US model has a 230v selection or auto selection switch which would
make a personal import viable?
Regards
Philip Elkin
- Original Message -
From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 2:38 PM
Subject
As I probably mentioned before, HP provides an ear syringe with their
S-10/20 series film scanners. It is a lovely dark blue.
Art
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 06:28:06 -0400 Julian Vrieslander
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
In practice, I find that my Bausch Lomb ear syringe
Hi Tony,
I guess what I am saying is that I DO live right smack in the middle of
a Pacific Northwest Temperate Rain Forest (a highly endangered one, at
that), so yes, about 8 months of the year it is very damp. I use a
dehumidifier to keep the moisture down. One advantage is we get very
little
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Arthur writes:
The dust, or defect is above the jet streak
at the very top of the image. It is a gray
smudge, which seems to be dust or a defect in the
slide.
So there is. You must have spent a lot of time examining the sky. Remind
me to shoot only on days
I'm assured this is just some sort of statistical abnormality, and not a
trend. ;-)
Art
Austin Franklin wrote:
Art,
Slides have
certain advantages over negatives, even if the only one were that one
can look at the film and see the image shot rather than an inversion
with an orange mask;
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Arthur writes:
On my monitor, there is some distinct, what
appears to be Newton Ring color distortion in
the sky of this scan.
Yes, I see it, now that it has been pointed out. I see another ring up near
the condensation trail in the sky. They are pretty faint
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
For an example of a recent scan, see
http://www.atkielski.com/Wallpapers/images/EiffelInvalidesPaper1600x1200.jpg
This is a scan of a Velvia 6x6 transparency, ICE set to normal, no GEM or
ROC, no other adjustments, and then tweaked in Photoshop (slight
, will you
promise me you won't use it? Being an old, tired issue, and all... ;-)
Art
Lawrence Smith wrote:
On 4/17/02 5:09 PM, Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No it doesn't, and that's the problem, Dicko. Negative stock makes
negatives (most of the time).
I'd love to sit around
Hi Titis,
I took a look at your two scans (I'm biting my tongue not to make a
comment about the rhyme between two scans and your last name.) ;-)
Anyway, from what I can see, these two samples show two different problems.
You'll note the Scanwit lines are somewhat random in position and
So they cooked the film for you and then threw cold water on it to cool
it down afterward, eh?
Well, just call it an artistic filter permanently etched into the film ;-)
Art
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL
Hi Lloyd,
I'll ask the question that Simon may have anyway...
What platform are you and your friend using, Mac or PC?
Art
Lloyd O'Daniel wrote:
I have the SS4000, but I have access to a friend's SS120. Your
experience does not mirror his or mine. We both actually prefer Insight
to
Hi Simon,
I am pleased you have brought these issues into the public list because
there are people here who have more experience with Insight than I,
especially in terms of how it functions with the SS120.
Further, I had another thought. It is possible that there are aspects
of the software
Hi Al,
I tried to send this in pribvate mail, but it is claiming an illegal or
unknown alias...
I see you mentioned Insight 5.0. Although there has been mention that
shadow detail isn't improved with 5.5, if you have not done so, you may
wish to try 5.5.1, and also make sure that you have the
I didn't take the two samples into Photoshop yet and play with them and
do USM filtering, etc., but I did look at them closely.
The Minolta seems to be excessively contrasty, and the shadows block up
quicker than the Nikon. Take a look at the area under the blue-purple
flower, especially right
Berry Ives wrote:
I can't obtain the Multi Pro image; just a white image.
Berry
My browser (Netscape 6.2) didn't like opening it on a separate page (I
wanted to click between them), so I left the NIkon on the one browser
page and cut and pasted the URL into the other open browser page,
david/lisa soderman wrote:
I saved one @2000ppi w/no ICE...and one @4000ppi
w/ICE.
Just to clarify, does that mean we are looking at the non-dICE scan that
was scanned at 2000 dpi on the Nikon samples?
Meanwhile... any thoughts, comments, questions or suggestions are warmly
welcome.
in 16 bit?
Thanks a lot
Titus
- Original Message -
From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 4:35 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Help with Vuescan?
In general, it is suggested that USM or sharpening be the last thing
done on an image
In a word, yes, you get some advantage. For one thing, you get 4 bits
extra per color (RGB) which is a fairly major difference in the number
of colors produced. There are 8 bit, 10 bit, 12, 14 bit scanners, and
beyond. Photoshop uses the standard 8/24 and 16/48 bit. Of course,
Photoshop can't
Hi David,
Very interesting comparisons.
What I find particularly interesting is that the Minolta shows more
detail (including all the junk (DDSG-dust, dirt, scratches and grain))
than the Nikon does.
Have you attempted defocusing yet? The Minolta claims to be about 20%
higher resolution, 4800
Chest X-rays are some of the lowest used on people. I think they are
even less than an X-ray done for a tooth. In terms of danger to health,
chest X-rays, due to both the location, and the level of radiation
required, are of quite low risk to adults.
Pilots and flight attendants are probably
As Kennedy has been discussing, some defocusing may not be a defect, but
a way to lessen aliasing of high frequency detail. Most 4000 dpi
scanners probably do not need to defocus much to prevent aliasing, but
the Nikon may need a bit more due to the lighting type.
Art
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hope we are not going to have this same drawn out discussion about
using local processors versus using the processors available when we
travel, again. If so, how about I save you the time and just upload the
whole d*mn argument from last time. (actually I don't have it archived,
but I'm sure
Digital Cameras certainly have their place, and you'll get no argument
about it. It is just that an erasable reusable film would have many
advantages digital cameras do not. It is still the cheapest method to
temporarily (assuming it could be reused) storage method. When I go on
a shoot, or a
Jack Phipps wrote:
Actually, the Nikon 8000 has a diffuse light source.
Jack Phipps
Applied Science Fiction
That's one for Nikon, only half a dozen to go, and they'll finally have
it figured out ;-p
Art
Jack Phipps wrote:
You walk up to a kiosk and drop your exposed, undeveloped 35 mm film
canister into our processor. The processor automatically extracts the tongue
(not a simple task, a first in the industry we believe),
Can't speak of a fully non-assisted tongue expressor but our lab
David Lewiston wrote:
Can the customer use the developed film after processing?
Yes, to tie up your recyclable newspaper with.
I think I read the machine keeps your film. As I understand it, the
image degrades rather quickly after the Pixel dust is applied. I
believe I read that the
By the time most of use can afford audio equipment that actually has a
detectable difference from the mainstream, most of us (will) have ears
that can no longer detect it. ;-)
Art
Owen P. Evans wrote:
I find this to be the hogwash of audiophilia!
I once was part of all of this snakeoil,
Since I inspired this thread by my question, I think I'll jump in here.
I think Jack was simply making a comment about the external most
surfaces (since those are the ones most in question in terms of whether
they would be able to be corrected via dICE). He was not implying that
the inner
Arthur Entlich wrote:
That should read:
By the time most of us can afford audio equipment that actually has a
detectable difference from the mainstream, most of us (will) have ears
that can no longer detect it. ;-)
Art
Well, if digital cameras fulfilled all the criteria, then film would
have been gone a long time ago. Obviously, it still doesn't.
I haven't yet found a media card that stores the equivalent of 7400
megabytes (36-38 exposures at about 200 megs each), costs under $5, and
fits into a canister that
Hi Jack,
I think, more than you may realize, I agree with you.
I think any scanner can benefit from the dICE trio, and I was being
quite straight with you when I said I respect what your company is doing
and the ingenuity of the concepts.
However, we seem to be mixing apples and oranges,
The few people who still consider me sane are probably going to think me
unbalanced by the end of this posting.
Yes, Jack does indeed sell dICE. He signs his name with Applied Science
Fiction, which is indeed the company that owns the rights to dICE, ROC,
GEM, and a few other acronyms I can't
Arthur Entlich wrote:
In my haste, I made a few errors which made reading this difficult:
It should read:
If you can get a SS4000 for a good price, I would grab it. It was,
and is, a great scanner. Both units are supported by Silverfast,
both units can use the full features of Insight
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 19:14:19 -0500
From: Hemingway, David J [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gees Al, we introduced the 4000 Plus only weeks ago. How elderly can that be
He's referring to the old, now-obsolete,
Sure, the SS4000+ is a very nice product, and if you're in that market
as a first time purchaser, or upgrading from a 2700 dpi scanner, you'll
be very happy with it. But, the SS4000 is no slouch. People who bought
it at closeout got the best buy in a prosumer film scanner available.
And even
of a sample scan, then
I'll see what I can do.
David
--- Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I
can't refer to the Minolta Multi Pro because I
haven't used it, don't
know anyone personally who owns one, and no one has
yet sent me any
sample scans to test.
But I know the Dimage II. And I
I was listening to the news today, but only caught the tail end of this
story... I think someone here in BC was busted with many millions of
dollars (street value) of MS, Adobe and Corel counterfeit software that
he was selling both on line and through local buy and sell papers. He
was producing
The curvature of film is directly related to the drying technique used.
(Air temperature dry, force hot air dry, hang dry, loop over and dry,
etc.) Most of my dip and dunk suffer from a curve in the other
direction at the middle of the roll (frame 18-19-20) because the labs I
use all seem to
If the negs are really bowed, speak to your lab. They are using
incorrect drying technique. Chances are they are using too hot a
temperature, or the drying is being done unevenly.
All force-dried negs tend to have a bit of a curve, but if it is severe,
they need to change who they are doing
Although I agree that hardware sharpening, or even non-disclosed
software sharpening, is problematic in testing for non-sharpened images
in analyzing sharpness, I question the value of looking at a
non-sharpened image in terms of determining which scanner has higher
resolution, unless there is an
DRP wrote:
le 5/03/02 7:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] à [EMAIL PROTECTED]
a écrit :
You'll need to use the glass Medium Format film holder
to do this. You can actually scan up to 38mm x 83mm at
4800 dpi.
Hi all.
For me, glass holder = more dust, less def, Newton rings and time loss.
I have now read several histories of the LS-2000 and the LS-30 scanners
which involve problems with halos/flare that developed over time. This
probably happens with most film scanners over time, as they pick up
dust, evaporated or vaporized lubricants, plasticizers from wiring,
residue off
I actually got to speak to a chief engineer at Plextor at one point,
after I was having problems with my drive and was not getting to far
with the tech people. He was really very nice about it, especially
since, as it turned out, after we checked into the Adaptec codes for the
failures/errors I
Based on what Plextor told me, I suspect you may be right.
Art
Steve Greenbank wrote:
I have always been led to believe Plextors were the best.
When I with the vendor who actually made TDK drives - I was told Plextor. I
already suspected this as the depth of the equivalent (and the other
I think you are being unfair, then.
Yes, failures occur in any product line or any manufacturer, but Plextor
has a reasonable warranty (I don't know if HP has cut their drive
warranties to 90 day like many of their printers and scanners or not),
but Plextor is one year.
I found them to be very
I can attest to there having been production run problems with this and
the Elite II scanners which are both made by the same company (not
Minolta, BTW).
Some are fine, and good value for their cost, some are problematic and
downright defective out of box. A pity, really, if their QC was
When you use the term flare do you mean that light areas near dark
ones tend to be washed out around the edges, almost like a soft focus
halo around the very brightest areas?
If so, you've brought up an issue that has been discussed before in this
group and the other scanner group without
I suggest you might wish to read the archives on this and the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] list.
The streaking problems are an unfortunate quality control defect that
has appeared in numerous of these scanners, both the Elite II line and
the Dual II line.
If you get a good one, and I have no idea what the
OK, that probably explains things. It is something Nikon worked out
with WIN98SE and with Microsoft. I think most of us are not going to
easily make Firewire work with Win98SE and our scanners. Too bad!
Art
Bob Frost wrote:
Art,
The NEC Firewarden IEEE 1394 Host Controller driver for the
I think you have something there. Simply, those drives probably
originally sold for a lot more money, and were probably better made as a
result.
There seems to be a mid-point in most products where the technology is
finally sound (earlier CDR product was well built and very expensive,
but
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 10:29 PM 3/1/2002 , Austin Franklin wrote:
Take it back and...do what?
Keep it and give me my money back. I know that's not going to happen. They will just
replace it with a refurbished one. Of course I can try and sell it off and then
switch brands.
Arthur Entlich wrote:
I suggest you might wish to read the archives on this and the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] list.
Sorry, that's an error on my part... it should read [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Art
Unsubscribe
Vegetarians please ignore: One of the best things I've found to clean
front surfaced mirrors (and it is also good for lenses) is a CLEAN
chammy (chamois). I found even lens tissue was too abrasive for the
mirror unless extreme care was taken.
Art
Op's wrote:
The mirror is a top coat type
Don't say I never gave you anything ;-)
CAVEAT EMPTOR - CDD2000. Some users of Philips CDD2000 and derivative
units (like the HP4020i) have reported that the drives went bad over a
short period of time, often 1 to 3 months. While these cases represent
the minority of users, reports have been
Berry Ives wrote:
Mine had to be sent back, but it was purchased prior to June, 2001.
Berry, can you elaborate on this statement? What was wrong with the
first one? Was it replaced or repaired? What is the significance of
the June, 2001 date, or are you just suggesting the early units
I have been running Beta 5.5e for a while and I believe I am now running
Beta 5.5_1, which is I believe the newest (I've had quite a few on this
system, so forgive me)...
The few bugs I ran into were in earlier versions than either of those,
so I don't think you'll find any fatal bugs in the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh, forgot to mention- I am interested in the MAC version - is there a
difference (IE the Mac doesn't have a right mouse button)?.
Oops... That is an important aspect... I never tested the Mac version.
Sorry.
Art
I second that... I'd love to find an LCD model that had reasonably
accurate color and luma levels for a closed loop system.
Art
Robert Meier wrote:
--- Moreno Polloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The biggest issue for me was that the newer flatscreen CRT's I tried
were
not as sharp in the edges
301 - 400 of 1234 matches
Mail list logo
