> Another sidenote (WARNING) is that if you give a static
> (non-incrementing) name, like 'danastuff.tif', VueScan will write
> every image to that name, which means at the end of scanning several
> (many?) frames you have only one file, and it is of the most recent
> scan.
>
I consider this to b
> >Anybody knows some kind of "filter" to apply during scanning or in
> Photoshop
> >that parcially corrects for greenish color of daylight slides taken with
> >artificial light? (I would like to recover a slide collection that I made
> >almost thirty years ago in the assyrian rooms of the British
> Very strange. I've tried everybody's suggestions, scanning under SGH,
> NGH, Real 100 (Japan) even Royal Gold 400, but a shot I have of a
> blood-red DayLily keeps coming out deep purple. Any ideas?
>
> The problem may lie with the film, not the scanner. If the film sees
> colors differently
> > > PS Can someone confirm for me that all this discussion of IDE RAID is
> > > irrelevent
> > > to Mac users? Are there IDE RAID solutions for Mac?
> >
>
> Mac OS Z 10.1 has RAID capabilities built in. I believe it works with
> SCSI,
> IDE, or FireWire drives. The problem is that it can not
> > PS Can someone confirm for me that all this discussion of IDE RAID is
> > irrelevent
> > to Mac users? Are there IDE RAID solutions for Mac?
>
Mac OS Z 10.1 has RAID capabilities built in. I believe it works with SCSI,
IDE, or FireWire drives. The problem is that it can not be used as the
> On a related note - I kind if wish Vuescan didn't leave it so easy to
> overwrite a file, since it doesn't ask you if you want to overwrite
> the file of the same name. I've had to rescan a couple when I forgot
> to go into files and change the name. This is such a given in most
> Windows apps
> What is the dynamic range figure - i.e.3.2, 3.4 or whatever - a
> measurement of? Or maybe I should ask, what is the unit of
> measurement?
>
Two different answers:
1) The units are "specs" and it is a measurement of how far the manufacture
is willing to push them.
2) There are no units for
> ftp.polaroid.com/pub/imaging/input/ss4000/
>
Make that
ftp://ftp.polaroid.com/pub/imaging/input/SS4000
Appears to be case sensitive.
> If trying to contact www.xyzcompany.com, try
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> webmaster@...
> admin@...
> administrator@...
> abuse@...
> system@...
>
Don't forget to try
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> One of the new features of the upcoming release of Polacolor Insight is
> the
> ability to use one of several decimation techniques from nearest
> neighbor(lowest quality) to bicubic(highest quality also longer). Your
> choice would depend on use.
> David
>
Actually, the best technique use sinc
> > I've became aware of this when I was doing similar analysis recently;
> > that much of the apparent "scanner noise" was in fact film grain. So
> > now that I'm aware of this I factor it into my testing.
> >
> > --Bill
> >
>
> Bill,
> What you write, runs contrary to all of the recent (6 mont
> You might be interested in the measurements I made on my Nikon IV ED with
> the Stouffer B&W target. Different curves are obtained with different
> media settings in NikonScan and Vuescan. 0 is the lowest density step on
> the Stouffer which I estimate to be about 0.15 OD. The LS4000 should ha
For someone with time, Photoshop savvy, and an important slide that suffers
from the focus problem, I would like to recommend "A Multifocus Method for
Controlling Depth of Field" at
http://www.sgi.com/grafica/depth/index.html
The author, Paul Haeberli, takes two images of the same scene
> "Hemingway, David J" wrote:
> >
> > Any Mac users considering purchasing a SS4000??
> > David
>
Yes, why do you ask?
I am currently considering either the Polaroid or Nikon scanners. Not quite
happy with either and will probably wait several months for something
better. The Minolta Scan Mul
> Dean, don't you mean $1,450? CDW lists about the same price but no tech
> details
>
Yes, I slipped another digit.
The Sprintscan 4000 Plus is now listed at eCost for $14500. See
http://www.ecost.com/ecost/ecsplash/shop/detail.asp?dpno=962229
Only changes appear to be FireWire/USB interfaces and 14 bits per color.
> There is one good thing about that tough. The CCD require that the rays
> come in at 90 degrees. Especially with a wide angle lens the exposure
> rate would depend on the distance from the middle point. I have to
> admit that I don't know how bad that effect is, though. Also I believe
> that len
> Which brand of compressed air/gas is recommended?
>
Try using a hurricane blower, available from photo stores. This is just a
large version of the rubber bulb as used for cleaning optics. Lots of air,
never any worry about permanently marking your film with the liquid
propellant, and it never
I have not seen anything on this scanner before so here goes. If someone
else has already posted this, sorry - our mail system is running almost a
day late.
Minolta has some information up about their new scanner at
http://www.minoltausa.com/main.asp?productID=888&whichProductSection=1&which
Se
> How did you access the PhotoDisk TIFF test file.?
>
It looks like they have moved it since I originally downloaded it. I went
up one level from the URL I posted and now find it in
ftp://ftp.photodisc.com/Tech/PDTarget . The original 47 MB TIFF file seems
to be gone.
> New review of Nikon IVED scanner.
>
> http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN/CSIV/C4A.HTM
>
They also have reviews of the Nikon 8000, Nikon 4000, and Polaroid 4000
scanners. I know of no other site that comes close to the quality and depth
of their scanner reviews. The test test targets (a per
> Don't buy into this "magic resolution" claim. Just because a particular
> pattern (that has nothing to do with the variety of real images you will
> be
> printing) prints "better" at a particular DPI does not mean there is a
> universal "magic resolution" for every/other image(s).
>
> The imag
> Just how is this chart/print supposed to be interpreted? At first I
> thought
> all resolutions printed well on my Epson1160 with MIS VM quadtone inks.
> Then
> I noticed that there are heavy lines scattered about within each
> resolution
> target, but then I looked at the PDF, and they are ther
> I have a Mac G4 silver with OS 9.2.1 and Microtek scsi and firewire 8700
> flatbed scanner; I just got the latest version of Vuescan BUT I do not see
> from the list of the supported scanner models, from the Vuescan menu the
> Microtek 8700..; in fact when I ask the software for a preview sc
> you said the "magic resolution for your Alps MD5000 is 300 dpi.
>
> Two questions, How does one determine the magic resolution of
> one's printer? and since I am lazy, what is the magic resolution
> of an Epson 1280?
>
>
>
Look at my other post in this thread that has a 56 kB pdf file attac
> #1 Resize the scanned pixels so the image is 4 inches by 4
> inches within photoshop keeping the 2900 dots of data from the
> original scan. (I am not at all certain how this works, but this
> is what I got from reading "A Few Scanning Tips" by Wayne Fulton
> and Photoshop 6.0 seems to do it.
> If people on this list don't know who I work for !! :0)
>
Sorry, I probably should not have responded to the original post - it just
struck me as funny and obvious that the review would be favorable to
Polaroid. I have seen enough of David Hemingway's post to know that,
although he works for P
> The October issue of MacWorld will have several film scanners reviewed.
> Watch for it on your news stand!
> David
>
Gee, I wonder if this posting by [EMAIL PROTECTED] means that the review
is favorable to Polaroid?
(Rhetorical question only - and I see nothing at all inappropriate with the
ori
> Yeah, that article has stuck in my mind also. I remember
> that the method had to do with mathematically analyzing
> circles of confusion to sharpen unsharp images (don't
> remember anything about motion blur, but it might have been
> there). I onced asked about it on some list or other and
> so
> One final trick I tried in PS that seems to work (but I'm sure is not a
> good Idea) was to output from vuescan without a profile then open in PS
> and force my monitor profile on the image [with convert to working space
> after ticked] and that seems to do the trick. The image in PS looks like
> I just aquired a Microtek 45T scanner, but it did not
> come with the Microtek CD. I have Vuescan, so I'm not
> out of luck. But if anyone on the list has the CD, I
> would appreciate a copy, if at all possible. Please
> contact me directly at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Try going to ftp://ftp.microtek.
> > > > Use a dispersive microlens array. Over each camera pixel is
> > a microlens
> > > > that focuses the light and a blazed, dispersive microlens that
> > > > separates the
> > > > colors. The CCD would have three small pixels underneath each
> > > > microlens to
> > > > sense the RGB color
> > Use a dispersive microlens array. Over each camera pixel is a microlens
> > that focuses the light and a blazed, dispersive microlens that
> > separates the
> > colors. The CCD would have three small pixels underneath each
> > microlens to
> > sense the RGB color information. US patent 5,6
> Er how do you implement scenario 3?
>
> Some radical new advanced semiconductor that can measure the colour of all
>
> incident photons?
>
> >
> > 3: One chip with twice the density (each pixel position contains full
> > RGB info).
>
Use a dispersive microlens array. Over each camera pi
On one of the threads someone asked about a tutorial on Photoshops curves
tool. Imaging Insider ( http://www.imaginginsider.com/ ) just wrote an on
this very subject and they include a PDF file. Use
http://www.imaginginsider.com/data/archive/508/4PpYQ55ZTI.pdf to
directly download the 2.1 MB
> > When the digital cameras get to 16M pixels, I will
> > consider
> > getting one...but I will probably always use film anyway, since I
> > shoot
> > mostly B&W these days, and I don't do weddings any more.
> >
>
Kodak already has a 16M pixel back out for Hasselblad cameras - the Kodak
DCS Pro
> Do people on this list use software such as Monaco EZ Color or Colorvision
> Profiler. If so which is the preferred option and why, or are there any
> cheaper alternatives.
>
I just purchased the Spyder / PhotoCal / Profiler RGB Bundle through
Chromix. So far the only thing I have done is use
> >placing their DLLs in the System folder. However, a work around to this
> >problem is to put the DLL in question (the one that the newly installed
> >application wants to place in the System folder, overwriting the current
> >DLL in that folder) in the application's own folder. Then create a ze
> Scan Multi is up to 4 x 5"
>
Not according to the Minolta web site:
DIMÂGE SCAN MULTI ...
"Usable film types include 35mm, Medium format, APS, 16mm, and TEM."
Are you thinking of the Polaroid SprintScan 45i Multi-Format scanner? It
looks interesting at 2000 dpi for 4x5. I will check used pri
> Or a used Minolta Scan Multi which are available for around £500
>
But the scan Multi only goes up to 6 x 9 cm, not 4 x 5 inches. Are you
thinking of either the Leaf, the Nikon LS-4500 or the Polaroid? I don't
think any of them would be under $1,000US.
Not this question again! But scanners are coming way down in price, their
resolution is going up, and now 12, 14, and even 16 bits per color are
readily available. I have some 20 year old 4x5s (B&W, negative, and slide)
that I would like to play with again - I haven't worked with them or done
an
> >It turns out that it is impossible to create lossless compression scheme
> >that does not cause some files to expand in size. A set of random files
> >always expands. There is no way to encode the random information that
> does
> >not take up at least as much space as the original file. Bec
It turns out that it is impossible to create lossless compression scheme
that does not cause some files to expand in size. A set of random files
always expands. There is no way to encode the random information that does
not take up at least as much space as the original file. Because of this,
This is the reply I received from Ed. I am forwarding it to the newsgroup
as I don't believe the Ed is currently subscribed and can not post. Bad
news for Mac users of VueScan.
Dean Shough
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> --
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, Augu
> Mac OS no longer supported
Last I heard Ed was working on adding FireWire (or USB?) support to the Mac
OS X version. I believe he dropped off this list for a week so he could
start programming after he obtained the SDK from apple . Sound like Apple
must have done something to really piss Ed o
> I'm guessing that you don't like the way file names are
> entered. I can't use standard file dialogs to enter file names
> that have the letter "+" in them, but I suppose I could drop
> this feature (specifying the plus after the digit(s) to be
> incremented) and use standard file dialog boxes.
> There are GUI tradeoffs that I need
> to make in order to accomplish this, and this
> drives some Mac OS GUI purists crazy.
>
True. If I had not heard (probably from this list) that VueScan did great
job of scanning I never would have gotten past the interface. This was long
ago when VueScan
> I vote for an option for the two-pane approach--definitely.
>
I didn't like the old VueScan, semi-two pane approach. But, two windows
that clearly separate the previewing from setting the options would be a
good thing. The preview window should have just the preview and the command
buttons to
> yeah but you guys miss the point
>
I don't think we miss the point, but rather we have different priorities. I
would love it if VueScan had a better (and more Mac like) interface, but
given the choice between improving the guts of VueScan or the interface, I
will take the guts anytime. Especi
I get around all of these problems by not using these features in VueScan:
- I never have used the crop box. Probably a carryover from when the Mac
version did not have it.
- Tried to use folders once. Now I just leave the images in VueScan's
folder and manually move them afterwards.
- I always
> | Ask yourself -- how did the pros manage to get
> | nice looking colors before the ICC came along
> | to "fix" everything?
>
Work in a closed system. Basically, the scanner directly outputs CMYK file
that matches the characteristics of the press. Ignore what the monitor
shows. If you need
> > I don't really have enough RAM in my computer, only 384.
>
> Just a thought. Do you get stop/start motion of the film carrier because
> of
> spooling, during the actual scanning process?
>
First - RAM is dirt cheap these days - I just ordered 2 - 512 MB RAMs for my
new G4 from Coast to- Co
> > **In any case as we know and has already been discussed many times on
> > this list, the **quoted** dynamic range is usually based on the num of
> > A/D bits and so is not related to either Dmax OR Dmin in any case!
>
Once one manufacture starts doing this the others would be crazy not to
f
> I would have said the same thing yesterday, but with the cat out of the
> bag about Polaroid's finances, there might be more of a fire sale going
> on than a clearance.
>
One can hope - 5080 dpi, ICE^3, and low noise. Let's not forget cheap.
> What about the ls-4000?
>
>
>
> > I am waiting for Polaroid (or someone else) to release a 4000+dpi 35 mm
> > slide scanner with ICE^3. Looking at the current prices on the
> > SS4000 ($950
> > according to CNET) and the $200 rebate currently being offered, I expect
> > something soon.
>
S
> I'd have bought a Polaroid SS4000 in the blink of an eye if it had the
same functionality.
>
I am waiting for Polaroid (or someone else) to release a 4000+dpi 35 mm
slide scanner with ICE^3. Looking at the current prices on the SS4000 ($950
according to CNET) and the $200 rebate currently bein
The pop photo article is on line at:
http://popphoto.com/Camera/ArticleDisplay.asp?ArticleID=33
> > Medium format, 48000 dpi, 16 bit A/D, ICE^3, SCSI and FireWire.
>
> Let's see, at 48,000 dpi, my 120 scans would be about 20gb. Damm! I need
> more ram and a bigger drive.
>
I seemed to have slipped in an extra zero. Make that 4,800 dpi.
See http://www.steves-digicams.com/diginews.html
Medium format, 48000 dpi, 16 bit A/D, ICE^3, SCSI and FireWire.
> >Silver based black and white film won't pass IR, so there's no way to use
>
> >IR dust removal with it.
>
>
> Granted that it's not going to be effective for *dust removal*, wouldn't
> IR
> still be extremely usefull for a badly-scratched silver-halide neg?
>
ICE depends on differences bet
> > printed at a resolution of 2 microns per pixel
>
> Just as a matter of interest, how the hell do you do this!?
>
I believe they use some sort of scanning laser device. "They" being some
other part of my company - I don't even know who or where as someone else
took care of the details after
> > That is what MTFs (Modulation Transfer Function) are for. The MTF for
> > optical systems can be either computed (see Canon's EF Lens Work) or
> > measured.
>
> Yes I know this, it is what I was referring to without calling it MTF -
> and my point was that Nyquist renders MTF incalculable
> Just for clarification. You are speaking of the Minolta Dimage Dual,
> which is rated at 2450 or so DPI, not the Dual II, which is rated at
> 2820... is that correct?
>
> Art
>
> Shough, Dean wrote:
>
>
> >
> > This is a very small snippet of
> I am sure the Nikon is substantially faster than the Leaf, since the Leaf
> is
> a three pass scanner, and the Nikon is one pass, but since the Leaf can do
> B&W in one pass, and has a ND filter for scanning B&W, I believe it easily
> holds its own with any other scanner for B&W work.
>
Why wou
> > I think there are two issues here. One is that a 4000 dpi scanner
> > doesn't capture 4000 dpi, and I've yet to get a straight answer on what
> > they actually capture.
>
> You won't get one - it simply isn't calculable and varies empirically
> according to subject contrasts, luminance an
> > OK, I *know* what happens when a very good camera lens does this
> > test--the
> > end of the scale turns to mush. Can anyone say what happens when
> > a CCD does
> > this? My guess would be "noise," but I frankly don't know and I've never
> > seen it done. Any comments? I'm reaching.
>
It lo
> There are two factors that decrease the resolution of the red channel.
> Smear and bloom.
>
And chromatic aberrations. Especially if the scanner does not properly
block the IR light.
> I now think a lot is possible here, having had to eat my words some months
>
> ago when I was arguing that manual corrections to colour neg appeared
> mandatory, and could never be done in software because human judgement
> and intent were involved. Just to make me look maximally silly, Ed Ha
> I have posted an image which shows the bleed onto a page on our website -
> it
> can be seen at http://www.imagequest3d.com/flaring/
> I have experienced the streaking that Harry describes as well - but not
> since
> I switched from the Coolscan III to the LS 2000.
> I will try rescanning th
There is no need to buy an expensive UltraSCSI PCI card for use with a
scanner. Try the Adaptec 2906 for under $50. Works great for me with my
Minolta Scan Dual on both my old PowerBase 180 and on my newer G4/500.
Scanners use the original narrow and slow SCSI protocols. The only reason
to b
> > 24.1 x 36.0 mm as I measured it. Extra 0,5 mm will be useful - it is
> rather
> > difficult to position the film precisely
>
>From the LS4000 pdf file:
Scanning area (max.) 25.1 x 38mm (3,946 x 5,959 pixels)
Effective area SA-21: 23.3 x 36.0mm (3,654 x 5,646)
(size/pixels) MA-20(S): 25.1 x 3
> What's new in version 7.0.18
>
> * Changed processing to do infrared dust removal
> prior to restoring colors
>
I know that your algorithms are different from what ASF does with ROC and
ICE, but it looks like ASF does their ROC first, and then uses information
from ROC to improve GEM. P
> However, I wonder how ICE can compensate for fingerprints that are
> in the shape of the emulsion: I thought it just detected opaque
> material.
>
One of the subtle points about ICE is that it works with defects that block
just a portion of the IR light. From the patent, ICE measures the amou
> Quite the color difference when enabling ROC ... which colors are
> more realistic??
>
Anybody just happen to have a 50 year old IT8 or Q60 slide? Or a faded
photo that includes a known color test chart? Anybody with a LS4000 that
could scan it?
> Ed wrote:
> > I'm thinking of adding a focus offset option, in millimeters, for the
> offset
> > from the center of the image. I could alternatively add a focus
> > position (%) option, which would put the focus position some percentage
> > of the way into a frame (50% would be normal, 30% woul
> > Can I ask members to detail the way they go about cleaning slides.
>
> Canned air & PEC-12 solution on lintless cotton for removing
> anything from the emulsion surface.
>
No canned air for me. I much prefer a hurricane blower (no built in brush)
where I just squeeze the bulb. I can use th
> I want to clarify if the "striping" I am seeing is what Vlad is speaking
> of, and if anyone else sees what I am.
>
> I am seeing a couple of bands of darker sky. They start at the left
> side and go toward the right. One, for instance, goes right through the
> "Rooster" weathervane on top
> | I won't disparage Timo's wwwsite either. No doubt he's trying to be
> | helpful and there is good information there. Although somewhat
> | off-topic, if you are at curious about the controversy regarding this
> | guy, there is a very interesting and informational debate going on
> | between
> I used to write patents, and my group used to use what we called the
> "mother test"; you should write the patent application in such a way that
> you could read it to your mother, and she would understand the basic point
> of the invention. If you could do that, there was a good chance that ev
> So the question is, are the lenses in film scanners flat field, or are
> they
> slightly dished to accomodate film curvature? Or are some small apeture,
> high
> depth of field lenses working with more sensitive ccds.
>
Kodak and others used to make projection lenses with field curvature
desi
I had assumed that VueScan and other scanner software already did black and
white point compensation, but I think you may be right that they do not do
black point compensation. I have done B&W compensation for area CCD cameras
I use at work and it greatly improves the uniformity.
> I think every reference I've seen regarding noise is scanned images
> identifies the Blue channel as being the most noisy. I have never seen an
> explanation of why this is so, but does not appear to be dependant on the
> light source or specific scanner. Maybe the noise isn't coming the film?
>
> Your results will vary depending on the image you use. I hope this data is
> useful. Your conclusions will vary depending on your needs obviously.
>
I did a similar test using a 1k by 1k piece out of the PhotoDisc test image.
The original image is extremely sharp and contains nice flesh tones a
> Mike: Thanks for the color setting information for the skin tones,
> especially
> as it related to the print.
>
Actually, it reminded me of a print (pre digital) that nearly drove me
crazy. I had photographed by roommates girl friend against an off white
wall. When I corrected the color so t
> > And here's their new 2400dpi flatbed/tranny scanner
> > http://consumer.usa.canon.com/scanners/csd2400uf/index.html
>
> Interesting that they list FARE as a feature on this flatbed scanner.
> FARE is the name they gave to their IR defect removal technology in their
> 4000 dpi filmscanner anno
> A4 is 8.3" x 11.7"
>
> A3 is 11.7" x 16.5"
>
For size (and weights) of paper in other sizes try
http://www.tssphoto.com/sp/dg/weight.html (also a good site for printer
info and output comparison).
> > Basically the new 4000 dpi m/f scanners will output such large files
> that
> > handling them demands a new ball game in desktop systems: files of 500
> to
> > 700 Mb will be common at 4000 dpi, (in 16bit), and no doubt 6000 dpi
> will
> > come along soon for 35mm. If you do 5x4" - god help yo
> Interesting that Nikon is also a major provider of semiconductor
> manufacturing equipment, in which they include steppers that perform
> *much* more finely that 4000 lines/in.
>
At a *much* higher price. The problem is not making a stepper that steps
6.35 microns, the problem is doing it for
> What I would like to know is your opinion of Vue Scan as the medium for
> controlling
> the linear or raw scans into PShop instead of my Minolta software.. I have
> been too
> busy to take the time to figure out VS for my purposes...
>
I typically use VueScan to send a high bit file to Photosho
> GEM doesn't use the IR channel nor is it dependent on any
> hardware. However, when I asked ASF about their plans for a Photoshop
> filter plugin for grain removal, they did imply the algorithm needed
> to be tweaked specific to the scanner used ... and I can't imagine why
> it would not ne
> is GEM available only at the hardware level? or is there a way to do GEM
> post scan? more specifically will i ever be able to take a raw scan
> (RGBI)
> from the LS2000 and do GEM processing on it?
>
>From postings I have seen from ASF, the official answer is that ROC and GEM
require ASF to
> My main area of concern (like Lynn Allen) is in the related area of
> grain-aliasing problems. I think most 2720 dpi users will have
> encountered
> problematic negatives (OK Lynn - and *slides* as well!) where the aliasing
>
> effect becomes horribly obvious. Whereas blurring techniques an
> BTW, yesterday scanning news groups didn't carry any of Ed's replies. So,
> maybe he's out of town?
>
Or maybe he working on version 8? ;-)
I am sorry to see him go and hope he returns to filmscanners soon. I think
he contributed a lot to this group and hopefully he learned from us. I know
> I propose that we return to using this forum for filmscanners and stop
> flaming people.
>
> | i agree about ed. on top of that he is almost rude if you are not good
> with
> | software and e-mail him personally with questions. vuescan is a
> difficult
> | programs with daily updates and i wish
I am surprised that some of the quotes I included from the ROC patent did
not generate more response. I want to comment on some portions of ROC (or
at least the patent that ROC seems to be based on).
> "The infrared scan is used to detect imperfections in the film medium
> itself. As discussed
> Maybe Ed or someone else has a better idea about how the Vuescan grain
> removal option could be expanded and in a practical sense work even
> better.
> If you do then please give us your input.
>
I don't know about VueScan, but I did read through US Patent 5,673,336 which
seems to be the ba
> When you're satisfied, change the resolution back and reinsert the
> "Viewer"
> line instructions for the real scan.
>
I expect that the filters are very sensitive to resolution and that if the
resolution is changed that the effects will change dramatically. The IR
cleaning may be similar at d
> AFAICR Ed mentioned a while back that he stopped showing the results of
> the
> filters (including clean, sharpen, restore colours) in the preview to
> speed up the preview. This is IMO a problem since you can't see the
> difference between the different filters until you do a full scan.
> I'd
> I had understood that grain removal was a by-product of the ICE-type
> cleaning and therefore could not be separated. If it can, certainly I
> agree
> that should be an independent option.
>
Not sure about VueScan, but ASF's GEM and ROC do not depend on ICE. Two
separate sources for this stat
> > Anybody give me hint on why when I print form Photoshop to my Photosmart
> > printer, I get a cross hatch pattern? Not in all photos.
> >
>
Did these images come from an unregistered copy of VueScan? It's possible
that when you downloaded a new copy of VueScan that you forgot to copy over
1 - 100 of 156 matches
Mail list logo
