James, Mark & Michael--
Hey, guys, I didn't mean to turn this discussion into a flame-thrower
contest! :-)
Point 1, I haven't seen the specs on the vaunted PL3000 (sorry, I've been
busy). If apologies are required, then apologies are given. I'd still want
to see it (with a loupe) before I bought
if I may something good about Ed? He is skilled programmer and I have no
doubt he knows a lot about scanning. Now, what might be his reason to stay
around here? To learn about scanning? Probably not. He makes his living out
of Vuescan/vueprint and any input from the users is of high interest
> 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
>From: Roman Kielich® <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>So, maybe he's out of town?
I received this message from Ed today:
In a message dated 3/21/2001 4:23:16 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>You may also refer to the message and webpage I provided yesterday about
> grain removal:
I'm quite busy righ
raghty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2001 5:14 PM
Subject: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: VueScan Problem
> Larry wrote:
> > This is the first time the default settings wouldn't open
> > in ACDSee. Bu
In a message dated 9/2/2001 7:17:58 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I don't know if the compression settings have changed. Only Ed can answer
> that one. PSP gives an error I think about not being able to use a
> predictor of 7 with 48bit depth.
VueScan uses a predictor of 2 - 7 isn't a
Ed wrote:
> VueScan uses a predictor of 2 - 7 isn't a valid predictor. All 2 means is
> to take the difference between adjacent pixel values before compressing.
I don't understand. If a predictor of 2 is invalid why would you use it?
The error I get from PSP is "A predictor of 2 is only support
In a message dated 9/4/2001 6:16:48 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > VueScan uses a predictor of 2 - 7 isn't a valid predictor. All 2 means is
> > to take the difference between adjacent pixel values before compressing.
>
> I don't understand. If a predictor of 2 is invalid why would y
Ed wrote:
> > > VueScan uses a predictor of 2 - 7 isn't a valid predictor. All 2
means is
> > > to take the difference between adjacent pixel values before
compressing.
> > I don't understand. If a predictor of 2 is invalid why would you use
it?
> A predictor of 7 is invalid.
> A predictor of
ompressed 48-bit
files have just lifted a compression/decompression routine
from someone else, without understanding it very well.
Regards,
Alan T
- Original Message -
From: Rob Geraghty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 11:46 AM
One of the things that amazes me about Ed's work is
that, technically speaking, it is Vuescan that's
included in the Vueprint license.
Pat
--- Alan Tyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>
> As a *viewer*, Ed Hamrick's *Vueprint* is pretty
> well
> unbeatable, and it's included in the Vuescan
Rob Geraghty wrote:
> Roger wrote:
> >At 11:26 PM +1000 12/12/01, Rob Geraghty wrote:
> >>The archival nature of Kodachrome is awesome. It's a shame that the
> >>technology is being displaced by ektachrome in that respect. However
> I
> >>believe the modern Ektachrome films are much more archiv
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 proc
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 be more
> accurate by saying all "E-6" processed films if you wish to include
> Fujichrom
"Arthur Entlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 proc
You are wrong. I just checked my Eastman Kodak registered trademarks
list from 1991 (the last time they sent me one). They do not own the
trademark E-6, (or at least didn't in 1991) but they do own the
Ektachrome trademark. Interesting they do own D-19, D-76, D-76R and
DK-50 and even 4-X as
> Austin wrote:
> >Now that's an odd thing to do...claim a pixel has nothing to do with
> >physics... I don't know about your scanner, but mine is not Gnostic.
>
> *sigh* As I tried to explain earlier, Austin, *you* are talking
> about scanner
> pixels, and I am not. That's why you can't see the
Rob writes:
> The film is Provia 100F and the scanner is
> a Nikon LS30.
Hmm ... I scan Provia 100F (my favorite film) all the time with a Coolscan, too,
and I don't recall any problems with turquoise--then again I haven't shot
anything that was really a bright turquoise in recent memory. If an
Rob writes:
> I don't remember what manipulations I made on
> this image. Very little.
Hmm ... looks like you cranked the blue and red saturation pretty heavily.
Also, levels look adjusted for blue, but not for red or green.
My guess is that you lost or misplaced your green channel too greatly
My response to Rob Geraghty's comments on the Nikon SA-20 strip film adapter:
> Did the focus using the film strip adapter vary depending on where you were
> in the strip?
Yes. Curl in the film (transverse and longitudinal) can throw some parts of the
image outside the zone of sharp focus. The
> In a message dated 9/2/2001 10:19:26 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>> Since the banding problem has not turned up with the Polaroid
>> implementation I don't think that the three row CCD idea is something
>> that does not work in practice. It may or may not depending on how it
>> is im
In a message dated 9/3/2001 4:37:59 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Do both the Vuescan one row CCD scan and the NikonScan Fine scan produce a
> lower quality scan than the three row CCD scan?
Quite the contrary - they both produce a higher quality scan than the
three row CCD scan, albeit a
Alan wrote:
> JASC hasn't taken compression/decompression of 48-bit images
> seriously because PSP can't work with them. If you do load a
> 48-bit image you can only save it as 24-bit.
Oh, sure. I was just pointing out that ACDSee wasn't the only program which
had problems with the Vuescan compr
On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 14:44:50 +1000, you wrote:
>The only way you can change the "dimensions" of an image without changing
>the number of pixels is to change the dpi. For example, a 300x300 pixel
>image at 300 dpi will print 1" x 1" on paper. If you change the dpi to
>150 dpi, it will print 2" x
On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 22:15:16 -0700, I wrote:
> For example, Photo House offers a
>choice of "Interchange Format (JPEG/JFIF)" ;
Oops, left out the other choice, which I just noticed, which is "TIFF
JPEG (JTIF). Is that something like the TIFF LZ compression you have
been mentioning? When migh
"Ken Durling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If you're resizing an image from 3000 pixels in the width to
>> 750 pixels, you're throwing away 75% of the data!
> Aha, okay, see my other reply. I'm slowly coming out of the fog here.
> So what's the most "lossless" way to get my 30MB TIFF file to the
> If you're making web images, the dpi for the screen is 72dpi.
> End of story.
I'd suggest more like 100dpi these days. The Mac used to "maintain" 72dpi
simply by specific monitor/video card settings, but I don't know if they
still do that today.
On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 19:12:10 +1000, you wrote:
> I try to keep my jpeg files inside 50K for general web use. You can
>make quite reasonably sized images on the screen that as a file are inside
>that limit. Waiting for larger files to download gets boring, and people on
>the web tend to have sho
On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 19:12:10 +1000, you wrote:
>If you're making web images, the dpi for the screen is 72dpi. End of story.
Right, but scan at 72 dpi and you get crap. One day I'll understand
all this. ;-)
Ken
On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 12:39:14 -0700, you wrote:
>Right, but scan at 72 dpi and you get crap. One day I'll understand
>all this. ;-)
>
>
Hold on - thanks to you all, maybe I DO understand this. If scanned
at 72 dpi, even a 4x6 print would need quite a bit of interpolation to
get it up to a go
> Hold on - thanks to you all, maybe I DO understand this. If scanned
> at 72 dpi, even a 4x6 print would need quite a bit of interpolation to
> get it up to a good screen size, ergo crap.Is that correct?
No, not interpolation. Interpolation ADDS data. Decimation removes data,
so scanning
On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 15:49:22 -0400, you wrote:
>
>> Hold on - thanks to you all, maybe I DO understand this. If scanned
>> at 72 dpi, even a 4x6 print would need quite a bit of interpolation to
>> get it up to a good screen size, ergo crap.Is that correct?
>
>No, not interpolation. Interpol
> I guess I'm missing the point here. If I were to scan even a 4x6
> print at 72 dpi, and then want to display it anything larger than
> 288x432 pixels, wouldn't interpolation be necessary? Even more with a
> slide or a negative?
But you wouldn't scan at 72dpi if you wanted larger images (pixel
On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:08:40 -0400, you wrote:
>> I guess I'm missing the point here. If I were to scan even a 4x6
>> print at 72 dpi, and then want to display it anything larger than
>> 288x432 pixels, wouldn't interpolation be necessary? Even more with a
>> slide or a negative?
>
>But you wou
> I'm still not entirely sure why high
> res scans look better on a screen only capable of displaying 72dpi.
I assume you mean when you scan them at 27xx and then downsize them to
72dpi, that comes out far better than scanning them AT 72dpi? That's easy,
if that's the case. The PS software does
Ken Durling wrote:
> Right, but scan at 72 dpi and you get crap. One day I'll understand
> all this. ;-)
My advice is to ignore any references to dpi when scanning for the web.
I once had trouble grasping the concepts but Wayne Fultons site
www.scantips.com was a big help. In particular look
rling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 2:47 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Re: Hello, thanks, and more.
| On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 12:39:14 -0700, you wrote:
|
| >Right, but scan at 72 dpi and you get crap. One day I&
pixel dimensions of the image only, e.g.
480x640 or whatever.
Maris
- Original Message -
From: "Ken Durling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 2:39 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Re: Hello, thanks, and more.
.
Maris
- Original Message -
From: "Ken Durling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 3:08 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Re: Hello, thanks, and more.
| On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 15:49:22 -0400, you wrote:
|
| >
| &
k as sharp.
Maris
- Original Message -
From: "Ken Durling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 3:22 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Re: Hello, thanks, and more.
| On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:08:40 -0400, you wrote:
Austin Franklin wrote:
> > Hold on - thanks to you all, maybe I DO understand this. If scanned
> > at 72 dpi, even a 4x6 print would need quite a bit of interpolation to
> > get it up to a good screen size, ergo crap.Is that correct?
>
> No, not interpolation. Interpolation ADDS data. Deci
"Maris V. Lidaka, Sr." wrote:
> Screen dpi is not necessarily 72dpi - it depends on the size of the screen and what
>resolution you set your monitor to - consider a 17" monitor at 600x800 pixels v. set
>at 1200x1600 pixels - the second will have double the dpi of the first.
>
> Ignore dpi for w
Your scanner software is probably scanning at full resolution then
downsampling to meet the output specs you gave it. This is actually
a good thing when implemented properly because it makes the UI easy:
just tell it what results you want and it does all the calculating
and manipulating aut
> We
> use a 42 bit Microtek Scanmaker X12 USL scanner, ant
> it works well. On our old, cheaper 24 bit Umax we could not do
> this.On that one, we needed to scan at full resolution and
> then convert in Photoshop.
Exactly what I was saying. There is no set rule which is better for "any"
s
> > > Hold on - thanks to you all, maybe I DO understand this. If scanned
> > > at 72 dpi, even a 4x6 print would need quite a bit of interpolation to
> > > get it up to a good screen size, ergo crap.Is that correct?
> >
> > No, not interpolation. Interpolation ADDS data. Decimation
> remo
Fine by me - you just have to know how to work out the math (which you do).
Maris
- Original Message -
From: "SKID Photography" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 6:13 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Re: H
OK, now I have a better understanding of your question.
The big problem most people have is seeing images are composed of two
things, dimension (the size in inches, for instance) and then resolution
(the number of pixels that make up each inch.)
This makes things more complex than necessary. Th
Harvey,
If I'm reading your comments (below) correctly, the only difference
between your old scanner and your new one in this matter is how the
software operates. A 72 dpi scan at 200% making a 8 x 12" screen image
is the exact same thing as a 144 dpi scan of a 4 x 6" print. And you
don't need
As mentioned, the 72 dpi number is a bit long in the tooth these days.
It was a Mac standard used for screen fonts, but is no longer valid for
most monitors which use higher resolutions. Larger monitors (17, 19, or
21") often function at 80-100 dpi or even slightly higher.
Now, 72 dpi (or even 1
Arthur,
You bring up interesting points. I have never actually done side by side comparisons
of the PS or scanner
downsampling to see if there is a noticeable difference. However, I have not
comprehended a difference by 'my
memory' (always a scary proposition) going either way. I will try to
Photography [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 5:10 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Re: Hello, thanks, and
more.
Arthur,
You bring up interesting points. I have never actually done side by side
comparisons of the PS or scanner
> 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
David,
Im very
PROTECTED]
Subject:RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Re: Hello, thanks, and
more.
> 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 q
- Original Message -
From: "Austin Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 11:56 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Re: Hello, thanks, and more.
> One of the new features of the upcoming release of P
d we are talking about digital imaging systems, arent we?
Heres some info on decimation filters, if youre interested:
http://www.darkroom.com/MiscDocs/AN9603.pdf
http://www.darkroom.com/MiscDocs/HSP43214.pdf
The first document is a basic guide to digital filtering, and is quite for
those who don
c·i·ma·tion /"de-s&-'mA-sh&n/ noun
Bottom of Form
I think you will find there is room for both uses
Modestly & Illiterately,
David
-Original Message-
From: Steve Greenbank [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 9:03 PM
To: [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
me... I too use downsample and upsample, and I think they both are
easier to understand.
Art
Steve Greenbank wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Austin Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2
> Pretty violent term for describing removal of some pixels, if you ask
> me... I too use downsample and upsample, and I think they both are
> easier to understand.
>
> Art
Yes, it's roots seem to be quite violent. For people who design and work
with digital imaging systems, it's a very common,
In a message dated 12/5/2001 2:06:23 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Ed asked if anyone was interested in writing documentation a while back,
> and I made an offer. I don't remember why I was turned down.
I don't recall anything about this either. If anyone has some paragraphs
of text tha
Harvey wrote:
> Fuji's Velvia chrome film is the most stable of the Fuji
> chrome films (significantly more stable than the rest).
> I think that's he only one that is more stable than Kodak
> Ecktachrome...But my knowledge is a few years old.
Is there a relationship between stability and film sp
on 7/19/01 9:51 PM, Roger Smith at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm inclined to agree with Dean - I seem to be able to avoid
> most of VueScan's quirks, and admittedly there are more on the Mac
> than on the PC. Ed has explained any of them that I have asked him
> about, and he continues to improve
> At 5:24 PM -0400 7/19/01, Johnny Deadman wrote:
> >While I like everyone else appreciate the extraordinary effort
> Ed puts into
> >developing this app, I am frustrated that so little effort is
> put into the
> >user interface. Human interface design clearly isn't something
I too felt teh inte
It's curious most of you are doing less modifying in PS from recent scans, I had been
doing little PS modifying, but have had to make the substantial curves adjustment
lately in PS to bring blue down 20-30 points and red up 5-10 points.
I roll I was working on of beach pictures I changed the bl
- Original Message -
From: "Johnny Deadman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Filmscanners" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 10:16 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Re: Vuescan gripes
| on 7/19/01 9:51 PM, Roger Smith at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>One of the neatest things about VueScan is how easy it makes
>>setting up a new scanner. I recently switched from a Canon FS2710 to
>>a Minolta Scan Dual II. I installed the Minolta software and had a
>>quick look at it. I then opened VueScan, used the same settings I had
>>been using on the
st preview and scan
in memory. It saves me several minutes each time I do it compared to a
re-scan with other software. I don't suppose rescanning is much good for the
film either. You can effectively rescan (without actually physically
scanning) with different settings for nearly everything ex
and how much more money it would cost..
count me among the vuescan satisfied users group.. I'm not much for snazzy user
interfaces, I want results and quick!..what other program can you get updates
every week or so?.. it just keeps getting better.
Johnny Deadman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>thi
>and how much more money it would cost..
>
>count me among the vuescan satisfied users group.. I'm not much for snazzy
>user
>interfaces, I want results and quick!..what other program can you get updates
>every week or so?.. it just keeps getting better.
>
I can say from experience that writing c
On Fri, 20 Jul 2001 07:26:33 -0700 Alan Womack
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> It's curious most of you are doing less modifying in PS from recent
> scans,
Definitely the case here with VS output from an SS4000. Also 'White
balance' seems to have improved considerably over the past few months.
On Fri, 20 Jul 2001 10:41:49 -0500 Maris V. Lidaka, Sr.
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> | Vuescan has a wonderful engine but a TERRIBLE, AWFUL interface
> |
>
> YES
I disagree, though I personally preferred the 2-pane approach. I find
it
functional and fine - at least on PC where UI fascism is
"Tony Sleep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You want 'awful' try any Kai software
Yes I hate the way the Kai products introduce an utterly unfamiliar
interface. Similar to another product I tried from Germany which bore
absolutely no interface similarity to Windows standards. I gave up on it
In a message dated 7/22/2001 6:19:26 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I disagree, though I personally preferred the 2-pane approach.
I keep going back and forth on this myself. Most other scanner
software uses a 2-pane approach with the options and
buttons in one area and an image that's nev
on 7/22/01 7:00 AM, Tony Sleep at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> | Vuescan has a wonderful engine but a TERRIBLE, AWFUL interface |
>>
>> YES
>>
> I disagree, though I personally preferred the 2-pane approach. I find it
> functional and fine - at least on PC where UI fascism isn't as rigorous 'cos
At 18:46 22-07-01 -0400, Johnny Deadman wrote:
>let me introduce you to the theory of dogfood
>
>dogs like dogfood. no, they love it. They slobber all over it. they wolf it
>down. they can't get enough of it, even though it's total crap
>
>why?
>
>because we don't feed them steak
>
>what is the r
Ed,
I vote for an option for the two-pane approach--definitely.
Stan
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2001 4:03 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Re: Vuescan gripes
I keep going
> 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 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
OTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2001 4:02 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Re: Vuescan gripes
>
> I keep going back and forth on this myself. Most other scanner
> software uses a 2-pane approach with the options and
> buttons in one area and an image that's never obscured in
> another area.
>
> At 18:46 22-07-01 -0400, Johnny Deadman wrote:
> >let me introduce you to the theory of dogfood
> >
> >dogs like dogfood. no, they love it. They slobber all over it. they wolf it
> >down. they can't get enough of it, even though it's total crap
> >
> >why?
> >
> >because we don't feed them
Sounds like a dog (and cat) fight to me. Not to take sides, I value all
your opinions, but it seems that VueScan is just another tool and is only
as good as the person using it. Irrelevant whether it's on a Mac or PC.
Even the Mac and PC are just tools, dependent on the user.
Larry
> > >let
In a message dated 7/23/2001 1:41:15 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I will be very interested to hear when VueScan will support
> FireWire scanners running under MacOS X.
It looks like I now need to wait for Mac OS 10.1 before being able
to add FireWire support to OS X.
Regards,
Ed Hamri
In a message dated 7/23/2001 2:38:27 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> As long as we're using up your programming time here Ed, why not a dual
> monitor approach as well?
If I made the options one window, the preview another window and
the scan a third window, then this would work fine. Howe
on 7/23/01 11:25 AM, Shough, Dean at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 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
> wi
> PS. I don't want some long protracted argument over whether a digicam is
> like a scanner. My point is they use a lens, a CCD, an A->D
> converter and a
> computer to convert a physical image into a digital image. Given
> the vastly
> superior processing power available to most film scanners the
threw away
the some code...
Jawed
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Stan Schwartz
> Sent: 23 July 2001 04:28
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: filmscanners: Re: Vuescan gripes
>
>
> Ed,
>
> I vot
L PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Johnny Deadman
> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 1:52 PM
> To: Filmscanners
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: Re: Vuescan gripes
>
>
> on 7/23/01 11:25 AM, Shough, Dean at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I don't think we miss the point, but rather
At 03:52 PM 7/23/2001 -0400, John Brownlow wrote:
>on 7/23/01 11:25 AM, Shough, Dean at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > 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 b
> no honestly this is nuts. If I had a week to spare I could prototype a GUI
> in RealBasic. There's nothing hard about it.
I agree - there's nothing hard about prototyping a GUI. The hard
part is making the subtle things work.
For instance, if I had two panes, I'd get dozens of e-mails a
day f
ent to let Ed
be Ed. :-)
Best regards--LRA
>From: "Frank Nichols" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: filmscanners: Re: Vuescan gripes
>Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 16:26:56 -0600
>
>I respect Ed's programmin
At 05:54 -0400 24/7/01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>One of the hard parts of a user interface is making
>options appear only when the chosen scanner
>supports these options, or if one option is chosen,
>making other dependant options appear or disappear.
Actually I'd prefer them to stay on screen b
on 7/24/01 5:54 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I recommend people keep their eye on the
> ball - i.e. the quality of the images that VueScan
> produces. I personally would be quite happy
> using an MS-DOS user interface if this
> produced better looking images.
Ed, this who
In a message dated 7/24/2001 1:02:14 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Ed, this whole thread started because I was complaining about BUGS in the
> interface, not the design per se.
I'm quite happy to fix bugs, and I add every bug that's reported
to my list of things to fix. Most of the probl
on 7/23/01 6:36 PM, Stan McQueen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Yeah, and way back when I was using Macs, I could prototype a GUI in
> HyperCard real quick, too. However, converting the prototype to actual Mac
> code was often a big job--sometimes not even doable at all in any
> reasonable time. R
> 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'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 box
> 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.
on 7/24/01 5:54 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I recommend people keep their eye on the
> ball - i.e. the quality of the images that VueScan
> produces. I personally would be quite happy
> using an MS-DOS user interface if this
> produced better looking images.
Very G
Ed, you're a wonder. I've certainly seen lot's of software that is more
quirky than Vuescan, and not as effective. Your openness and willingness to
take gripes as suggestions to improve your product is, to say the least,
refreshing.
It's a great product and one of if not THE BEST software bang fo
on 7/24/01 2:29 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have no idea what "embedded backspace characters" means.
it means that Vuescan creates a file with a name which includes a backspace
character. This is very hard to see until you scan the files with some
utility which renders
101 - 200 of 13873 matches
Mail list logo
