Good to see some discussion on this list again!
Preston Earle wrote:
> I think the scan resolution should be determined by how you plan to use the
> final images. A 4000ppi scan will give a file capable of being printed to up
> to 17" x 25". If all you want to do with most files is display them o
Note that with vuescan, you can save raw images, then pro
cess them later. I generally don't work that way, but it
is another option.
In the scanning process, almost every
thing is done post processing. The exception would be mul
tipass scanning (usually multiple sampling, not really mu
ltiple pas
On 25/02/2009 Peter Marquis-Kyle wrote:
> I say scan once, at the
> highest resolution the scanner can do (in this case 4000 spi), and
> create the best archive image for whatever use happens later.
Agreed. 4000ppi will also reduce any issues with grain aliasing, which can
be more of a problem at
On 26/02/2009 li...@lazygranch.com wrote:
> I just bought three 1.5 terrabyte drives
RAID can add resilience but no way can it be considered safe, so don't
forget the other 4!
Here I have:
3 x 1TB RAID3 = 2TB
2 x 1TB for backup (on another LAN PC)
2 x 1TB for offsite backup.
So that's 7 x 1TB fo
I think raid 0 is probabaly as safe as it gets. Once you
spread the data, then I agree things could get exciting.
There is a chance of the OS peeing on your data.
I hav
e a Seagte external for backup, but I have nothing that c
an handle 3T. However it took me a while to fill up the 6
00 Gbytes on
I'd like to point out that I never had a Seagate product fail. Of
course, that could be luck. They come with 5 year warranties.
Of course, I probably just cursed one of my drives by mentioning I had
no failures. I've built PCs for people that would spend the extra money
for a Seagate and had the d
There is DVD+R and DVD-R. For technical reasons, +R is pr
eferred. DVD-RAM is to be avoided.
I have had the sam
e issue regarding an unreadable DVD, and I always run a v
erify. However, the reader was my own notebook. ;-) Peopl
e tend to upgrade their desktop burners more often than n
otebooks, s
ers_ow...@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of li...@lazygranch.com
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 10:52 AM
To: lau...@advancenet.net
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Advice on scanner settings
You can JPEG2000, which has a lossless option. I would have to research it,
but I think it only uses 8 per color. Y
: [filmscanners] Re: Advice on scanner settings
Security isn't much of an issue these days since you coul
d encrypt locally. Goin out of business is very likely. M
ediastor was in the same business and went under.
-Original Message-
From: "LAURIE SOLOMON"
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2
ncenet.net
Subject: [filmscanners]
Re: Advice on scanner settings
You can JPEG2000, which h
as a lossless option. I would have to research it,
but I
think it only uses 8 per color. You are should do the LWZ
tiff.
-
---
Unsub
ary 26, 2009 10:57 AM
To:
lau...@advancenet.net
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Advice
on scanner settings
Security isn't much of an issue t
hese days since you coul
d encrypt locally. Goin out of
business is very likely. M
ediastor was in the same busi
ness and went under.
-Original M
> Seagate is tops in the industry at 5 years.
Was? They have just slashed their warranty to 3 yrs on some drives -
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3188
> I have my reasons not
> to like Seagate, but none are due to drive quality.
They've just had a load of trouble with their latest barracu
On 26/02/2009 li...@lazygranch.com wrote:
> There is DVD+R and DVD-R. For technical reasons, +R is pr
> eferred. DVD-RAM is to be avoided.
This was DVD+R
> Nowadays, most publishers have ftp.
Yup. Except this was a monstrous 1.5m x 1.5m @300dpi file, which took up
most of the DVD and would have t
Fortunately got the 1.5Tbytes. Also, they still have 5 years.
The only computer part I have they really seems to be junk are these
Gigabyte Rocket fans. What a pain to replace. One stopped turning, but
the system shut down. The other lost it's speed control. I use Zalman now.
Bob Frost wrote:
>>
Both methods (printing and looking) are too subjective for my taste in
regard to this issue. I'd really like to see a objective map of the
changes. My personal sense is that jpeg is much better than most people
give it credit for.
It was designed with human vision in mind, so it does more damage
The Vuescan IR is pretty good. However, I view film scanning like
playing a LP. At the very least, you need to blow off the dust.
Carlisle Landel wrote:
> Bunch,
>
> Wow! The list lives!
>
> Thanks to all for the advice.
>
> Especiallly, thanks for the reminder that IR filtering doesn't work
> f
Carlisle Landel wrote:
> Bunch,
>
> Wow! The list lives!
>
> Thanks to all for the advice.
>
> Especiallly, thanks for the reminder that IR filtering doesn't work
> for Kodachrome.
>
> I've got the bulk slide feeder, so the plan is to simply drop a box
> of slides in and start it up, then go away
17 matches
Mail list logo
