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
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
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,
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
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. No
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
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 have to
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...
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
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, it
does not
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
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
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
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 about 100
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
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
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
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
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
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, and
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
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
for other brands more serious , with better and more reliable
products
, LAST BUT NOT LEAST with a BETTER CUSTOMER CARE OVERALL !
Sincerely.
Ezio
www.lucenti.com e-photography site
ICQ: 139507382
- Original Message -
From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL
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 if
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
[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:
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
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
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
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: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED
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
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 'unsubscribe
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 big
-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 interesting, but
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 your
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
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, do you
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
[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 that
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 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
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
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, as
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 tools.
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.
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: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED
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
[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 white
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
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])
wrote:
I haven't made a test of the two methods, but from what I can
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 good
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
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
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 more
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
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
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 ([EMAIL
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
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
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
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 saying
)
-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 vs IV ED
Dickbo wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Alex Zabrovsky [EMAIL
]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich
Sent: 11 January 2002 03:28
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: LS4000 vs IV ED
I took a look at the website and the Astia samples. You need to fix the
titles under the samples, they are either missing (in the cropped images
once
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 grow
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 vs IV ED
Dickbo wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Alex
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
The icon is in the Control Panel,
The assorted programs are in:
C:\windows\system (Adobe Gamma.cpl)
C:\windows\system\color (Adobe Monitor Settings.prt)
C:\Windows\Start Menu\Programs\Startup(Adobe Gamma Loader.exe)
C:\Program Files\Common Files\Adobe\Calibration (Adobe Gamma
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
I'd say the list you posted this comment in might be a good starting
point, as many people own them who are members here.
What is it you need to know, as that might generate some specific
answers for you?
Art
Thomas B. Maugham wrote:
Can anyone point me to a discussion list for the Polaroid
Feliz Navidad y Prospero Ano Nuevo (sorry, my alt character set doesn't
work well for accents and tilde ~. ;-)) In light of recent difficulties
your country has been facing, I do hope the new year is a prosperous one
and that things settle into a better place with the new administration.
Art
Firstly, I would do whatever I could to shrink the file size. That
would include bringing it down to 8 bit/color (24 bit) and flattening it
so it has no layers on top. Of course, if you haven't done so, save the
file in its larger form before doing this.
Then, make sure wherever it is you send
This is very interesting information. Does Canon's software work
consistently in dust removal, or do they have the same problem? It does
make some sense that the IR channel be refocused, since we know that IR
light has a different focal point than does visible white light, and
this is often
Hi Paul,
There are a few people on this list who use the Canon FS4000, so
hopefully someone will come to your aid soon.
Your do have another option in a 4000 dpi 35mm scanner under $1000 US.
That is the Polaroid SS4000, which is being offered in the $500-700 US
range after rebate. Although
Yes, I believe I have images on file of the same building.
Where did you see the Moiré? If it is on the monitor, can it be removed
or altered by viewing the image at a different magnification? If so, it
may not really be there other than at certain pixel interpolations
on your screen. If it
Keep in mind that the dyes in E-6 based films are not colored when they
are coated on the film. They have to be transparent and very low
density when they are in an unprocessed form, so the light can go
through them. As it is, the silver halide components block enough
light, causing each
is called publication No. E-135,
think they own that trademark too? ;-)
Art
Jim Snyder wrote:
Original Message -
From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Not to be too picky, but Ektachrome is a Kodak trademark, and Fuji
therefore doesn't make any Ektachrome films. You probably would
I'm sending this your way again. I first sent it about 4 days ago, but
maybe it was lost in the great abyss.
Art
Dear David,
I've finally cleared some space in my schedule to spend some more time
with the SS4000+. The Silverfast disk still hasn't shown up here, BTW.
I spent a fair bit of
Boy, am I RED-FACED! This was supposed to be a private e-mail message.
My apologies to David Hemingway.
Da*n, I think that's the first tiem I ever did that!
Art
Arthur Entlich wrote:
I'm sending this your way again. I first sent it about 4 days ago, but
maybe it was lost in the great
Kodachrome is a really odd dog. As some my know, Kodachrome starts life
in your camera as a rather complex black and white film, with color
separation filters in between each sensitive layer. It contains no dyes
to form dye clouds, etc. The E-6 films do contain the dyes that will
Not to be too picky, but Ektachrome is a Kodak trademark, and Fuji
therefore doesn't make any Ektachrome films. You probably would be more
accurate by saying all E-6 processed films if you wish to include
Fujichrome, although even the E-6 process is owned by Kodak, and Fuji
calls their
shot at the same time, with similar treatment
are still quite satisfactory. (And some of the above movie stock has
survived much better.)
Hersch
At 06:48 PM 12/11/2001 -0500, you wrote:
On 12/11/01 9:25 AM, Mário Teixeira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED
I downloaded several full size but JPEGED samples from the first link
below.
I looked at them in Photoshop under magnification. They seem fairly
highly jpeged (they are blocky as is typical of jpeg compression). One
image, at 1990 x 1602 pixels is only 411kb in size, the other at 2386 x
be kept stable. No consumer scanner can
currently capture them fully, and in terms of space and storage, film is
still more reliable as a medium than nearly any digital format.
Art
Rob Geraghty wrote:
Mário Teixeira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Personally, I
I cannot address bugs or compatibility. The Primescan 1800u is a USB
interfaced scanner, and is apparently made by a Mictrotek subsidiary.
The scan quality, for the price (new), is reasonable. In fact it is
better overall than some of the 2400 dpi models sold (Tamarak, etc)
It uses a
Very few people have been successful with this unit. Unfortunately, it
is a poor product, at a low price for a film scanner. It lacks dynamic
range (ability to scan a wide contrast range) has very poor shadow
response, and the resolution is also not very good.
Most people tend to return it
401 - 500 of 1234 matches
Mail list logo
