Arthur Entlich wrote:
> When was the last time you saw a 8mm movie film to video transfer system
> sold retail? I imagine there are some commercial outfits still offering
> video transfer services, but even those are probably disappearing.
>
How popular were 8mm movies as compared to still photos
Patrick Cullinan, Jr. wrote:
>Dear folks,
>
>
>If anyone is using a Scan Elite 5400 or Scan Elite 5400 II, could they
>please check their carriers for me to see if the teeth are of the same
>height? This could help me to get to a solution.
>
>
You've answered one thing I've wondered about. The c
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>You are mistaken. I've communicated with the head of service for
>Schneider Optics and Windex diluted 50:50 with water is the #1 thing he
>recommends for cleaning lenses.
>
>
One thing to think about is that it's possible that Windex has a
different formulation
depending
Laurie Solomon wrote:
>So Mike what you are saying is that unless the Nikon has a manual focus like
>the Minolta does the problem is not correctable with the Nikon scanner but
>is correctable with the Minolta; but both scanners have the problem under
>the autofocus option.
>
>
No, I don't think I
Arthur Entlich wrote:
> And even if a neg was to get scratched or damaged, that is repairable.
> However, a slight scratch on a CD may make it completely unreadable.
Note that there are software utilities for reading CD's that have
errors to extract the files anyway. One I've seen (can if config
?ISO-8859-1?Q?H=E5kon_T_S=F8nderland?= wrote:
> Yup, same solution here. Have your files on at least two harddisk
> spindles. The chances of both failing at the same time should be
> small. Use 3 if you are unsure and your data means a lot to you.
For backup of stuff stored on my computer (which
Chris Aitken wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Further to my previous messages I have obtained a Scan Dual I on trial. I
> have tried it with the Vuescan trial version (and also the Minolta drivers -
> so this must be a later model that works on XP).
As an alternative to blasting air at the negative before sca
Arthur Entlich wrote:
> Although I won't go as far as to say all cables are made the same or by
> only a few sources, I will say that most "off branded" cables are made
> to similar construction specifications and are often from the same
> off-shore locations.
Also, many companies that make low-co
My two cents is that the value of this list is its expertise
in film scanners. It's a film scanner group, not a group that
happens to talk about film scanners. If one just wanted the
group to be more talkative for the group's sake, we could just
start talking about politics or religion and have p
Clive Moss wrote:
> At 05:18 PM 9/30/2003, Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>>he told me he goes to Costco for his processing and printing,
>>and they charge something like $5 for developing and printing a 24
>>exposure to 4x6 prints.
>
>
> Our local Walgreens' was doing 4x6s from digital media for
Mario Teixeira wrote:
> "Thomas Maugham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Can anyone suggest a good way to clean slides and negs prior to scanning? I
> clean the best I can with a soft brush and light puffs of air but still wind
> up with dust on my scans. I verified that the dust is not in my scan
Austin Franklin wrote:
> Well, the fact is, when sampling audio, the odds are that the Nyquist sample
> rate (or anything but an infinite sample rate for that matter) won't catch
> the full amplitude of the signal, it only "sees" the voltage when in time
> the sample was taken, and it could be an
Austin Franklin wrote:
> But do they say ppi related to the recording output, and if so, is that the
> maximum, and when projecting onto larger film formats, obviously that "ppi"
> decreases? Again, from what you show for figures, it looks to be that 4k or
> 8k refers only to the physical number
> > The key practical point is that many if not most film recorders do not
> > actually operate at 4K despite the written specs so their resolution in ppi
I can't speak about the specific units you folk are talking about,
but my Polaroid film scanner (model 7000) is called a "4K" unit. It
puts do
Op's wrote:
> The image is rasterized into its components - this rasterization can be 4K (or
>smaller)
> (4032x2689) to 8K ( 8192x5461) ppi that's Polaroids figures. and these pixels
>are then
> broken down into 3 intensities of brightness for 3 filter values to make a colour (8
>or 12
> bi
Charles Platt wrote:
>
> > Not sure what you're doing that's "extreme", but with my Sprintscan 35/ES
> > (same as "plain" 35 I think), using Ed's Vuescan with the scan count set
> > to eight passes, noise in the shadows is reduced quite a lot, and the time
> > it takes isn't too horrible so long
"Hemingway, David J" wrote:
>
> I have an aging Polaroid Sprintscan 35, and I want to upgrade for the
> higher resolution and better dynamic range. I'm really sick of having to
> resort to extreme measures to get rid of noise in shadows.
Not sure what you're doing that's "extreme", but with my
Eddie Cairns wrote:
The 33 Mhz PCI bus also is 32-bits wide, so that's about 900-megaBITS
in raw bandwidth (PCI can't really go quite this fast, but let's not
go there just now). Of course, some other master might want to
use the PCI bus too. :-)
Mike K.
P.S. - There also is a 66-Mhz PCI bu
Eli Bowen wrote:
> The CDs often have errors that
> are not reported by Easy CD Creator; I only find out later when the disk
> stops playing halfway through a song or starts "dropping" chunks of music or
> starts making noises that shouldn't be there. I get this even when playing
> the CD back on
Stuart wrote:
> >Once again, everything you say is likely true in the United States of
> >Waste and Consumption, but it sure isn't true here in Western Canada, and
> >I bet it also isn't true in Europe, Australia, and most other places.
> >
> >Art
>
> What !!- u mean there are other countrie
Arthur Entlich wrote:
> Lastly, even if
> my video card and monitor can produce 1600 x 1200 pixel screen, I'd be
> unlikely to use it that way, due to the way it would shrink icons,
> cursor and tool sizes on a 17" screen.
I think the sweetspot is now at 19". My wife, who uses her PC mostly
for
Jim Snyder wrote:
>
>
> But, a properly designed program usually uses speed keys for the buttons
> anyway, and location is not a concern. I have yet to meet many users that
> don't recohgnize the efficiencies picked up by shortcuts, aliases, and speed
> keys. Even the function keys can be program
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Also, I was asked by one person to put the buttons at the top, above
> the tabs. This ends up looking quite cluttered, and it's easy to press
> a tab instead of a button, and vice versa. Putting the buttons at
> the bottom and having the menus and tabs at the top seem
shAf wrote:
>
> Austin writes ...
>
> > > "Halftoning" really has nothing to do with digital imaging ...
> >
> > I completely disagree. Halftone is a process, and is implementation
> > independent.
> > ...
>
> I only separate "halftoning" and "dithering" chronologically
> (traditionall
Laurie Solomon wrote:
>
> Ian,
>
> Partial possible answers to your question are:
>
> >I wonder why there are so few people film scanning then printing with dye
> >sublimation printers?
>
> (1) Dye sublimation printers may be too costly as compared to inkjet
> printers both to purchase and to
Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
> you also use a full series of panels. So, place just one dot the size
> of a period anywhere in the image, and the printer will use up a full
> set of ink panels to do that. Consumable costs are constant. You do
This isn't true of my Alps MD-1300. It would only use a
Michael Wilkinson wrote:
>
> I can not for the life of me understand anyone prefers to uprate and
> overdevelop film when film of the higher speed is readily available .
One reason is that the pushed film will have less grain than the
non-pushed one, and for those of us who are particularly gra
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I'm from the old black and white school of hard knocks. If I wanted fine
> grain I shot a slow film, asa 50 or slower. For a higher speed and still fine
> grain Tri-X.
With "fast" Provia 100F there isn't much grain to look at. :-)
>
> If I wanted a tighter grain in
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 12:52:47 +1100 Julian Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> wrote:
>
> > If they state an unqualified figure for Dmax,
> > then when measured by some "reasonable" process it should meet that
> > figure. With the likelihood that it will not, this would mean that they
> > are jus
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In a message dated 1/8/2001 11:55:37 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > The 3.9 dynamic range sounds unbelievable. I wonder how they achieve that?
>
> 3.9 just means 13 bits of dynamic range. They're using a 14-bit A/D
> converter, which most vendors convert t
Laurie Solomon wrote:
> I am not sure that I understand what you are saying here or how it relates
> to my points. We are talking about the historical archiving of data across
> changing technological developments in digital media on which the data is
I mean that I agree that having to change f
Arthur Entlich wrote:
> reading formats become obsolete, the other problem is that some of the
> methods of storage can be disrupted with a simple loss of a few bits of
> data, making the whole thing unreadable. A scratch in a photographic
> print rarely makes the image undiscernible, a scratch o
Laurie Solomon wrote:
> from that media; but the copying of the 20 CDR onto the new media in five
> years from the older media even at 40X still will take a fair amount of time
> even though it will be less time per CDR than it took to originally record
> the data on a 2X CDR. However if one has
Chris McBrien wrote:
> also the more images that we can store on a piece of media,
> the more 'we' are liable to loose should the media fail. I can just
> get one image from my FujiFilm MX2900 Zoom onto a 1.44MB floppy. It
> could be argued that I may just loose one image if a disc goes ba
Chris McBrien wrote:
>
> Surely longevity is the key word here and not pure capacity.
>
> As the amount of stored data increases we do not want to have to spend
> a bulk of our time copying all the library CDs onto the latest media,
> we want to be creating and storing the latest
> information/m
Austin Franklin wrote:
>
> > Further, at least at first,the
> > "oversampling" CD players were low end units
>
> That's not quite true, they were mid range units, and it was because the
> initial interpolation filters were quite bad, and were only 2x to 4x, and
> certainly did not meet the audi
Chris McBrien wrote:
>
> David,
> I can't stress enough the need to create and organise folders
> and file names.
>
> I stores the images from my digital camera in the form of...
> 01-Garage,jpg
> 02-Cat.jpg
> et ce
Rob Geraghty wrote:
>
> Mike wrote:
> > Well, not really. The oversampling business in CD players is mostly
> > a method to save as much as maybe a dime in their production costs to
> > reduce the cost of the analog output reconstruction filter.
>
> Regardless of why they use a particular techn
Austin Franklin wrote:
>
> > The oversampling business in CD players is mostly a method
> > to save as much as maybe a dime in their production costs to reduce the >
> > cost of the analog output reconstruction filter.
>
> Not quite. There is no oversampling in a CD player, it is interpolation
Rob Geraghty wrote:
>
> Mike wrote:
> >Exactly why one might use an anti-aliasing filter ahead of the CCD which
> >I and others have mentioned (and which one person called "cheating" which
> >it is, in the sense of the winner of a race "cheated" by running faster).
>
> When I was reading somethi
Tony Sleep wrote:
>
> > Exactly why one might use an anti-aliasing filter ahead of the CCD which
> > I and others have mentioned (and which one person called "cheating" which
> > it is, in the sense of the winner of a race "cheated" by running faster).
>
> It doesn't buy you any more information
Tony Sleep wrote:
>
> > Remember, aliasing is when two or more different input signals appear identical
> > at the output of a sampled system. This only happens when the input signal
> > exceeds
> > the Nyquist limit of the sampled system.
>
> I've just twigged that you and others are only thi
"Shough, Dean" wrote:
> The optics in a scanner cause an image to be formed on the scanner's CCD.
> This image will have various aberrations and diffraction artifacts that
> cause the image to not be a faithful reproduction of the original piece of
> film.
I'd call that things like "distortion",
Tony Sleep wrote:
>
> > Filtering is not aliasing.
>
> Agreed. But ...
>
> > Furthermore, aliasing doesn't occur in the
> > continuous domain. And that is where the effect I described occurs.
>
> It's a physical fact of CCD's, the mismatch between sub-Nyquist target detail and
>pixel
> size.
Rob Geraghty wrote:
>
> Bill Ross wrote:
> >Just a thought - getting a small 10k rpm drive for current
> >work plus a cheap large 5400 to park stuff might make for
> >faster overall workflow at comparable price.
>
> >From what I've seen, 7200rpm drives are cheap enough that it's hardly worth
> g
Rob Geraghty wrote:
> Price for an array: 2 x IBM 7200rpm 15GB drives + Promise RAID Controller
> total cost about US$330
I've been doing upgrades lately, and in addition to going to a 950Mhz Athlon T-bird,
I paid an additional US$20 to get the RAID version of the ABIT KT-7 motherboard.
It prov
Frank Paris wrote:
>
> The two horizontal lines on Trinitron monitors are intrinsic to the design
> and as far as I know will always be there. I know, it is a nuisance. I'm
> always mistaking them for a scratch on the film, for that's just about what
Those lines are shadows of wires used to tens
Austin Franklin wrote:
> > Giving people the impression that 1/8th or 1/15th second shutter speeds
> > are advisable for sharp images is, if nothing else, not responsible
> > advice.
>
> That's absurd. It's not an impression, it can be done with practice. No
> one said they are 'advisable', th
48 matches
Mail list logo
