Very simply put, there are only three reasons I can think of for not
buying the SS4000.
1) If you have badly damaged images that have a lot of scratches or
surface damage, the SS4000 will not currently clean them up as simply as
will dICE cube. I say currently, because the possibility exists som
The Sprintscan plus is not yet on the market, but will be the
replacement for the SS4000. It will probably cost nearly twice as much
as current pricing on the SS4000. It has somewhat higher bit depth, and
a firewire or USB connection versus SCSI.
Art
Thomas B. Maugham wrote:
> I've seen re
Thomas B. Maugham wrote:
> Will the Sprintscan 4000 plus offer any significant features over and
above
> the current Sprintscan 4000? Will it replace the current 4000?
>
> Tom
>
No, Yes.
Art
U
If you can find a SS4000 at a good price you might wish to buy it.
David Hemingway has stated that the main differences are bit depth
increase from 12 to 14. Interface changed from SCSI II to USB and Firewire.
Art
Charles Stirling wrote:
> ** Reply to note from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri, 28 Dec
Hi Alex,
Do you have any darkroom experience?
The reason I ask is that Photoshop is designed around photo-darkroom
jargon, with masks and filters and the like, and it might therefore be
more comfortable for that reason. Since I don't use the other packages
I can't comment how they are designed
Hi Ralf,
Your scanner is suffering from the same problem I have encountered now
with two Minolta Dimage Dual II, and I will shortly be seeking out #3
from Minolta Canada.
It is either dirt on one or more of the R G or B CCD stripes, or more
likely a bad sensors or more than one on the CCD itself
Sadly, I suspect that part of the problem Agfa is facing is their
ownership. The company is now owned (and has been for several years) by
a pharmaceutical multinational (Bayer) and they probably have little
patience for a unprofitable product line, no matter how it improves
customer loyalty or re
Just a point about film names. Provia is made in two versions. The
standard version is rather grainy (in fact it is only made in the 400
ISO version now, if I'm not mistaken, having been superseded by Astia in
the 100 ISO version, and is the same film as Fujichrome 400 Sensia II.)
The fine gr
Jawed Ashraf wrote:
> London, UK.
>
> I was intrigued to discover years ago that houses aren't build from
brick in
> Canada, they fall apart because of the dry climate.
>
Don't tell that to anyone living on the West (Wet) Coast...
What do you think those trees with 30 foot around trunks
Dickbo wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Alex Zabrovsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Do you really notice the difference between regular, one-pass result
>
>>and those from multi-sampling ?
>>
>
> yes you do
Multipass results are most useful whe
gt; Jawed
> (LS40/Coolscan IV owner)
>
>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich
>>Sent: 10 January 2002 14:46
>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Subject
; Jawed
> (LS40/Coolscan IV owner)
>
>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich
>>Sent: 10 January 2002 14:46
>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Subject: [filmscanners] Re: LS4000 v
ipass.
>
> Jawed
>
>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich
>>Sent: 11 January 2002 03:28
>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Subject: [filmscanners] Re: LS4000 vs IV ED
>>
>>
&g
Just a guess, but some scanners focus using contrast elements within the
image. If the focus test point happens to be a very soft image area on
one which has no contrsting elements within it, the scanner may be
unable to find something to use as a reference to focus.
Art
Craig Auckland wrote:
Hemingway, David J wrote:
> Jim,
> There is a local but good size dealer in Cambridge, Ma that has good
deals
> on both components and systems. As they cater to system builders they
also
> have some info on building systems and the differences between the memory
> types. I know they are sa
For those who would be happy to jump down my throat otherwise, first the
disclaimer: I have never owned or operated a Nikon film scanner.
From Martin's description, I am guessing one of a few things might be
occurring.
1: software installation got corrupted
2: there is a hardware problem wit
Jim Snyder wrote:
>
> Great job, Dave! That is more than anyone could have expected. Polaroid got
> job openings? I would love to work with dedicated people like you.
>
> Jim Snyder
>
Got a few hundred million bucks? I hear they are seeking an owner ;-)
Art
---
In deference to Tony, I'll make this short.
Leica users are too anal retentive to live in California.
Art
Tim Atherton wrote:
> exactly - this kind of question is much more appropriate to the Leica Users
> Group :-)
>
> tim a
>
>
>>
>>On Thu, 17 Jan 2002 13:00:31 +0200 Alex Zabrovsky ([E
Couldn't it double as a table, or your computer desk? ;-)
Art
Steve Greenbank wrote:
> A cheap way to buy a good large monitor is second-hand - nobody wants the
> 20"+ models (at least not in the UK as we mostly have rediculously small
> houses).
>
> I recently had the oppotunity to buy an Eizo
Yeah, well the difference is the owner of the Dallas Mavericks might not
have any other marketable skills ;-)
I understand DQ has great benefits, like discounted ice cream, or is
that ice creme, or is it "frozen dessert" ?
OB Scanners: Don't try scanning ice cream in your scanner, although I
he
I'm not Tony, but I have a few suggestions.
Unlike color photo papers, which are sensitive to color filters and film
base color, etc, you have a LOT more control with inkjet printing.
There are two ways you can get neutral B+W out of your inkjet printer
from chromogenic films.
1) Scan it as a b
One of the reasons these chromogenic C-41 based films were created was
so that people could get results without having to get what is now
"special processing" using black and white chemistry, allowing for quick
results at any lab offering color neg processing.
They have an added advantage of havi
Op's wrote:
>
> Then what happens when an image scanned in colour is desaturated in Photoshop and
>printed
> with colour inks. Epson do say, as you mentioned also, that by printing in this
>manor gives
> a smoother gradient.
>
> By keeping the scan colour RGB and desaturating it there is mor
Just for clarification, because I was not aware of this:
1) In the case of a film scanner, if one sets the scanner driver to
black and white film, and it scans in greyscale, is there a standard
method this is accomplished?
In other words, does it only use the green channel to create the scan or
in the other. That
might make quite a difference in some printer models.
I wasn't discussing scanning in greyscale versus RGB in this reply, nor
how the printing was accomplished.
Art
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Feb 2002 02:42:26 -0800 Arthur Entlich ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
&
Alessandro Pardi wrote:
> Ed,
> scan guru,
> I summon thee.
>
> I know you must be very busy with release 7.5, but may I ask you (or anybody
> else that happens to know the answer) what channels do you get pixels from
> when media type is set to BW negative?
>
> Thanks,
> Alessandro Pardi
>
A
A-ha.. Now this puts the question as to whether it really matters if one
uses a greyscale capture or makes one via Photoshop's desaturation or
conversion to greyscale then...
If Ed's method is a standard, then most scanners use averaging of the
RGB scan when they do a greyscale scan, which I susp
I haven't used either MF scanner in discussion, but I seem to recall
that Polaroid is working on a new holder for their MF scanner. However,
there might also be another consideration... Nikon scanners require a
flatter image to remain sharp throughout the scanned image due to a more
limited depth
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Converting a colour original to greyscale is a whole different ballgame, as
> messing with the proportion of R, G or B has the same sort of effect as
> coloured filters with monochrome film - eg the red channel looks pseudo-IR,
> you can darken skies by reducing the
I suggest that the bottleneck in your workflow is the flatbed scanner.
Although they are improving in terms of resolution, most are still
suffering from low dynamic range, meaning they can't "see" into the
shadows and highlights very well, especially with something as dense as
true black and whit
I can't specifically comment on the scanners you mention, although I
know there have been some good reviews of the Agfa 2500.
You may wish to consider some of Epson's higher end flatbeds as well.
In terms of Microtek, you should know that they make many of the
scanners sold by other companies. I
nimal degrading
of the image otherwise. David Hemmingway might be able to add as to if
there is anything in the works in terms of producing or licensing
something like dICE or FARE.
Art
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 17:54:56 -0800
>>From: Arthu
Regarding archiving... I don't wish to open the can of worms up fully,
but there is a good question as to if digital is a better method of
archiving than film.
Current film dyes are quite stable, especially if care is taken during
processing with archiving in mind. After that, keep the film in a
Some of you might have noticed that I haven't been complaining much
about my film scanner lately. Those same people probably know I'm not
easy to please...
So, did my Minolta Dual II suddenly get fixed, or was it replaced with a
new one that worked "like butter"?
No such luck.
What did happen
John Prokos wrote:
> Art,
>
> I know I asked for opinions and I am truly grateful for yours! However I
> have to respond to your statements. How much has film changed since the time
> people used 8" floppies and 12" Bernoulli disk? Digital moves on and film
> moves on and people update their to
Thanks for answering my query and your input and views.
Art
Moreno Polloni wrote:
>>>How much faster is the best SCSI (Ultra wide?) than current ATA 100 7200
>>>
> rpm technology? Is it worth the extra hassle of SCSI?
>
> The best SCSI drives run at 15k. They are really fast. I don't have any
Dave King wrote:
>
> Can anything be done about the "lazy sensor" problem? Is this something
> that gets more pronounced over time with CCD scanners?
>
> Dave
>
Eek!, My two different Minolta Dual II had them from day one... and they
get worse over time...? Oh oH!
Art
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Is there a new version of Insight that will work with the former SS4000?
> Is it out of Beta yet? I have tried to look for Insight updates on the
> Polaroid site, but I seem to lack the roadmap for finding them.
>
I'd recommend you address this to Dave Hemmingway, a
I just spent a half an hour writing a reply to this, and Netscape
crashed on my when I went to send it... Poof! Gone!
One more time (this is going to be much more abridged!)
I think I coined this usage, so I will try to explain...
CCD scanners use a chip which contains one or more lines of se
I'm sure he isn't going to tell you (if he did he'd probably have to
kill you ;-))
You might take the time to read the info from the link Jack supplied.
It goes through the process, as much as they are going to release.
The process is fascinating, and I'm very impressed with the results they
sho
Larry Berman wrote:
> Just installed beta 13.
>
> Are we scanning at dots per inch or pixels per inch?
>
> Larry
You are kidding, aren't you?
Art
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubsc
I feel much better, since I'm usually out of Wednesdays ;-)
However, I'm not sure it is fair to limit the "my wife is divorcing me
because..." threads to just one reason and to just one day. These are
matters that could be termed "emergencies" by some, that can't wait a
week. Of course, not as b
> -Original Message-
> From: Preben S. Kristensen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 3:58 AM
> To: Jack Phipps
> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Digital ICE
>
>
>
>>and Digital PIC our new process for scanning exposed undeveloped film.
>>
>
>
> Jack,
>
> This sounds
Jack Phipps wrote:
> Good morning Art!
>
Thanks for your comments and expansion of the information. I understand
that you're not the principle inventor, or even on of the engineers, and
you are trying to translate the info to us in a "lay" fashion as you
understand it.
I enjoy seeing how y
Even Ed has mentioned that you will not gain much, if anything from
doing so. The noise levels aren't easily improved upon on the SS4000
and SS4000+, but if you have the chance to try it, let us know if you
get any improvement without loss due to misregistration.
I did try a multipass (x4) and l
Jack Jansen wrote:
> Art,
> Thanks for the explanation of "lazy sensor." Too bad about the half hour
> Netscape owes you.
> I have a follow-up question. When you say "one or more elements are
> electronically outside of the normal
> response curve, usually, it seems slower or less responsive,
I think the issue is one of pragmatics. All CCD scanner have some noise
in shadows. It appears though that some keep that noise near or below
the black point, and therefore it becomes basically moot. Further
still, in isn't as if multipass scanning is "free". It adds 2-3-4 or
more times the amo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Did you do any direct comparisons between the SS4000+ and the Dual II
> on this? I've found ICE very useful on damaged film (and to reduce
> the need for dust spotting) so I'd be hesitant to move to a scanner
> without it, unless the starting point is th
I think this is a problem with the Win versions as well. I was unable
to get it to "scan from disk" either on the newer beta versions of ver 7.5
I had to use an earlier version (7.3, I think) to get the disk as source
to work.
Art
Larry Dodge wrote:
> I have not been able to get Vuescan 7.5
You might wish to address Al Bond about this. He has one.
He can be reached at: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
he also subscribes here.
Art
Tomek Zakrzewski wrote:
> Hi list,
> Are there any people with experience on Minolta Dimage Scan Eilte II? I
> wasn't able to find any online review of this scanner.
I don't know of any way to determine the film type without looking at
the film edge. The code indicates the slide was processed in April of
1980, using mounting machine or processing line 4 in Melbourne (M).
My slides were mainly process is Vancouver (V) and Toronto (T) Canada,
some in Fairlawn
Yes, it is made with National Semiconductor, and it is considered
equivalent to a 7 meg in current bayer pattern technology, although it
actually has 3.53 "million pixels".
Due to the fact that each pixel records all three colors RGB, using
color filtration/separation caused by the natural charac
I'm assuming these defects move around and are not permanent in the
files, in other words an image with this defect if opened another time,
or on another system, will either not show it or show it in a different
location.
The first thing I would do is to start your system in "safe mode" and
see i
The inventor of this new chip was thinking out of the box (he's a
physicist, not an engineer, so maybe that explains it)... He's also no
youngster. Dr. Mead, no stranger to brilliant inventions, is 67 years old.
The concept takes advantage of the way light reacts when it passes
through silicon.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Austin said:
>
>>The sensor array still have individual sensors for each of the
colors, but
>>uses three of them per PIXEL.
>>
>
> I guess you could call them 'individual', but the diagram 1/2 way
down this page:
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0202/02021102
Yes, that's exactly what I expect to happen. Until they aren't cost
effective, and everyone moves to this new technology, or even something
cheaper and better. It's not just teh imaging sensor chip that makes
this a better system, it is the lack of necessity to process the image
information thro
I didn't read the patents yet, but here is my take on what I did see and
read and comprehend.
I used the words "filters" and "color separates" in an earlier post, but
that's probably not the best use of terms.
The way the Foveon chip works is via the use a natural phenomenon
regarding the way ph
I'm guessing your calibration strip might be damaged, or dirt is on the
sensor itself.
Art
Ian Jackson wrote:
> Preben,
>
> I have exactly the same problem on my HP Officejet 1150c scanner. I
> cleaned the glass, mirrors, lens and even the ccd window but no
> improvement. I changed the cold
ibration strip which is a white band with a new
> one using a mask and text correction fluid. It looks as good as new. Still
> no improvement. CCD is absolutely spotless but I cleaned it with isopropol
> alcohol anyway.
>
> Ian
> - Original Message -
> From: "
rown/multicolor bands on the scans ...
>
> I will never buy an HP product any more and I strongly suggest
everybody to
> look for other brands more serious , with better and more reliable
products
> , LAST BUT NOT LEAST with a BETTER CUSTOMER CARE OVERALL !
>
> Sincerely.
>
ThomasH wrote:
>
>
> But the point here is that so many people, including myself, believe
> that this merger is a nonsense because the both companies are in
> similar troubles and have a largely overlapping spectrum of products.
As an HP stockholder, I have my view on this merger,
I don't own a Nikon, but that number is way off. I've owned four film
scanners and even on my original DX 486 I was getting 5 minute to 7
minute scans. Today I get 2-3 minute scans on my Celeron 500 with
either SCSI or USB. In fact, the SS4000+ at 4000 dpi gives me a scan in
a couple of minutes
Since digital cameras have come up a bit due to the new Foveon chip...
I recently saw an ad for a Sony digital Camera at a local chain store.
Sony 1.3 megapixel camera
1X optical Zoom Lens!
2x Digital Zoom!
Since I was in the store's camera department for other reasons, I asked
the sales clerk
Since dICE, the scratch and dust part of the process, requires an IR
channel be used, the simple answer is it can't be used in scanners
without one. Also, ASF has indicated it is a pretty hands on process to
get everything working, as the characteristics of the firmware and
software need to be fin
For serious results you need proper illumination as the manufacturers
"sometimes" provide.
There are some websites (don't know them offhand) that discuss use of
external lighting sources.
HP made a unit for 35mm slides to use with their flatbeds which
consisted of a triangular device with a diff
I downloaded your images to look at in Photoshop. There are a couple of
possible reasons for what you are seeing, but they aren't grain, per say.
The main problem seems to be in the green channel and to a lesser extent
the blue. It may be that the green channel of this scanner has poorer
dynami
Norman Unsworth wrote:
> Like I said, give us a break.
>
> Norman
>
I've said my piece (and my peace).
Art
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe fil
I'm assuming you have corresponded with some of the people on this list
who already own one, and are aware of some of the issues with this model.
There has been a lack of availability of this model since it came out,
and there is some conjecture that it is because Nikon is still ironing
out bugs,
Hemingway, David J wrote:
> Ed is from the western United States but has been residing in the UK for as
> long as I have known him.
> David
>
The Mystery is solved!
Of course, the other mystery is why anyone would do such a thing! ;-)
Art
-
I ain't touchin' dat won ...
Art
David Lewiston wrote:
>
>>The Mystery is solved!
>>
>
>>Of course, the other mystery is why anyone would do such a thing! ;-)
>>
>
>>Art
>>
>
> Perhaps he prefers to live in a country where *English* is spoken...
>
> David L
>
>
---
Neville Skinner wrote:
>>
>>http://dragon.larc.nasa.gov/retinex/pao/news/
>>
>>Judge for your selves...
>>
Yes, that is the site I was speaking of. Obviously, some of the images
are over processed, and look a bit silly, but with a little finesse the
results could be startling.
PS: I get ab
From reports I have received, the problem with the banding is a design
flaw, and one in firmware.
Most CCD based scanners use a tri-line CCD sensor which has each line
represent one of the standard color separations. In other words, one is
filtered red, one green and one blue. Since each capt
I'm the local armchair expert on everything. Ask Moreno.
IDE drives when through an evolution. Computers made before 8/94 were
typically restricted in their BIOS to acknowledging 528 MB drives.
After that, until about 1996 drives were only recognized in BIOS up to
2.1 gigs. Then DOS 6.X and Wi
Laurie Solomon wrote:
> For starters, if the prints are sticky, it is because the inks have not
> completely dried or are not being absorbed into the paper completely but are
> resting in a puddle on top of the paper. If that is the case, than spraying
> with an acrylic spray probaly will not
Moreno Polloni wrote:
>>If a drum scanner isn't in your future, consider the
>>Polaroid 120 for
>>medium format films. Reports I have received
>>indicate it neither
>>suffers from banding or soft edges. Some people
>>here could tell you
>>more about their experiences with it. However,
I just realized there is another potential problem here. DOS, WIN 3.1
and the first editions of WIN 95 use a method of storage which is made
up of smaller units called FAT 16. After that, you had a choice of FAT
16 or FAT 32. If you formatted the partition as only FAT 16, it will
only have acce
Gee, next time I will have to read ahead a bit before spending time
reinventing the wheel. ;-) Glad your problem was a simple one to solve.
You've dodged all the IDE/BIOS problems that can present themselves.
Most newer computers do fine with EIDE, but the 32 GIG wall can rear its
head even in
I think what Les is trying to say is that his lens would act like a
"32-65 or whatever" as it would appear on a 35mm field, if it was placed
on a reduced size digital chip.
Art
izzet wrote:
> Well, actually your 18-35 zoom is not turning into anything, it is still
> 18-35 regarding dof, magnifi
Hi Les,
I haven't used it. I do recall some displeasure expressed over this
film some time back by people who were scanning it. Whether the success
depends upon the operator, the film speed and grain size, or even the
scanner in question (lighting source, optics, or resolution (DPI/LPI)) I
don'
Mikael Risedal wrote:
> Best site IMO - digital cameras.
> Go to dpreview.com
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0202/02022309fourdslrs.asp
>
> Still doing all my works ( since Aug 2001) with my D1X, superior results
> compare to 24 x 36 film and my LS2000 , LS4000 and Polaroid scanners. N
Your observations about the film holders on the SS120 are, or at least
were, valid. I know Polaroid has acknowledge the need to redesign the
holder for the SS120. I don't know how far along they are in this.
There were some suggestions made about dulling the finish with mildly
abrasive "sand pap
I don't mean to sound thick, but your posting is too cryptic for me to
understand how in any way it discredits what I have said (and I even
went to the website you site... which just repeats what you wrote below...)
Can you please expand on this further so my thick head can understand
your fine l
Peter,
Just for the sake of accuracy, the second line attributed to me, was not
written by me. I did not reply to Austin's posting, in general, I don't
anymore.
Art
Peter Marquis-Kyle wrote:
> [Austin]> > > Out of curiosity, do you have a web site
>
> [Arthur]> > What does having a web site h
John Pendley wrote:
> My scans have improved dramatically since you gave me some
> pointers. Thank's very much. Grain is no more a problem for me now than
> it was in a wet darkroom.
I'm really glad to hear that. It's always nice when I get a bit of
positive feedback. (Publicly, no less..
Hi Mark,
If it is a normal lens I can almost absolutely state it was not on the
lens. There is no way a "normal" (45-55mm) lens can focus at the lens
surface. I assume this Canon 300 is an SLR with exchangeable lenses,
Your explanation pretty much clinches it. It was a hair stuck between
the
Bernie Kubiak wrote:
> The hair (or whatever) isn't likely on the lens but inside the camera,
> somewhere between the lens and the film. Unless you're using a very
> small f stop, a hair on the lens likely wouldn't show. The other
> prospect is sloppy processing.
As much as some labs are de
Just as a final thought, I don't even think the hair could have been on
the back surface of the lens, as that too would not be in correct focus
at the film plane.
Art
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTEC
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 ve
[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 t
The word "Mexico" might have something to do with it.
Even if the components themselves are good, a monitor needs to be
assembled and adjusted correctly at the factory, and I wonder if that is
being done.
Sony, perhaps more than some companies, seems to be suffering from the
competition in the m
Roger sent me some samples of his experiments with Vuescan's long pass
using the Minolta Dual II recently, since I also own one, and it is
really a substantial improvement over what Minolta's software can do
(pretty ugly green noise in the shadows) and a reasonable improvement
over Vuescan's one p
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 w
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 othe
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 c
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 better,
bjs wrote:
>
So the question is: Does
> the Polaroid occasionally mess up its exposure setting and is this a Vuescan
> bug or a firmware bug (assuming Vuescan is calling a firmware auto exposure and
> not setting it on its own). Or simply an unexplained anomaly? Beats me.
>
> Cheers,
> B
Tony Sleep wrote:
>
> > I have the same card, no photoshop and such and it also shows up through
> > vuescan followed by photoedits, where after
> > at-first-sight-not-so-ridiculous
> > sharpening I get magenta pixels in otherwise whitish skies.
>
> If from colour neg, this is characteristic o
"Hemingway, David J" wrote:
>
> I have been watching with interest with interest and a little apprehension
> this project. Now that you have gotten to the SS4000 I will voice my concern
> regarding some results and conclusions.
> I am skeptical about tests using multiple operators with various
"Hemingway, David J" wrote:
>
> Arthur,
> I don't think it is as much an issue of manufacturers "misrepresentation" as
> much as it is we just don't talk to each other. I know Polaroid is usually
> conservative in their specs, much to the consternation of our sales folks. A
> good example of th
401 - 500 of 1406 matches
Mail list logo
