Title: RE: filmscanners: AcerScanwit
Dear Arthur,
yes, you're right. We use Cold-Cathode lamp to scan the normal and then use LED-IR to scan dust & scratch. And as I survey the market, we found only Nikon use all LED as light-source to do the scan.
Best Regards,
Honda L
Tony Sleep wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Apr 2001 15:11:19 -0400 (EDT) Lynn Allen ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> wrote:
>
>
>>> I'm shocked at the 6 min, 9 sec scan time with ICE at high quality
>>
>
> It's a long time. But I have frequently spent 30+mins manually doing what
> ICE does.
>
As Jack mention
Lynn Allen wrote:
> Art wrote:
>
>
>> some have mentioned that doing this two scan process might lead
>
> to somewhat off registered scans, and if this is the case, it could make an
> inferior IR overlay for dust and scratch removal.
>
> What part and how big a part would resolution and rep
At 01:48 PM 5/04/01 -0400, you wrote:
>> What part and how big a part would resolution and reproduction size play
>>in this scenario? Inquiring minds want to know. :-)
>
>...misregistration of the separate IR pass is
>purely theoretical -- Ed Hamrick and Acer have confirmed that it *could*
>happen
> What part and how big a part would resolution and reproduction size play
in
> this scenario? Inquiring minds want to know. :-)
Empirically, it's unknown. The misregistration of the separate IR pass is
purely theoretical -- Ed Hamrick and Acer have confirmed that it *could*
happen, but AFAIK nob
Art wrote:
>some have mentioned that doing this two scan process might lead
to somewhat off registered scans, and if this is the case, it could make an
inferior IR overlay for dust and scratch removal.
What part and how big a part would resolution and reproduction size play in
this scenario? Inq
On Wed, 4 Apr 2001 15:11:19 -0400 (EDT) Lynn Allen ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> >I'm shocked at the 6 min, 9 sec scan time with ICE at high quality
It's a long time. But I have frequently spent 30+mins manually doing what
ICE does.
Regards
Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online port
Tony Sleep wrote:
>
>> The other hand is co-work with ASF to have ICE
>> function inside, due to we're not using LED light as our light-source,
>> so we
>> need to scan twice to check the place of dust & scratch.
>
>
> Intruiging! So you do ICE without an IR channel! Everybody has guessed
I just wanted to mention to any Acer Scanwit clients and others who want
to provide suggestions and guidance to Acer on new filmscanner products
or features, that Mr. Honda Lo contacted me via email and seems
genuinely interested in feedback from end users, particularly about
software improv
At 07:46 AM 5/04/01 +, Tony wrote:
>..I think you will find that most people here regard the Acer as good enough
>to stand comparison with much more expensive models, especially for
>slides.
No arguments from me as a pretty happy Acer user.. if we can control
grain-aliasing/noise on negative
--- You wrote:
I think you will find that most people here regard the Acer as good enough
to stand comparison with much more expensive models, especially for
slides. If you added individual RG&B channel exposure control, you would
improve the scanning of colour negatives - the main users' compl
On Tue, 3 Apr 2001 14:09:53 +0800 Honda Lo ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> Dear Tony,
> in fact, 2740S compare to 2720S, we improved the A/D from
> 12bit to
> 14bit
Thanks - I did not realise this.
> The other hand is co-work with ASF to have ICE
> function inside, due to we're not u
riginal Message-
From: Collin Ong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 11:45 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: filmscanners: AcerScanwit
On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Jack Phipps wrote:
> total times to scan the four images. Images were gathered using a 600MHz
>
Colin wrote:
>I'm shocked at the 6 min, 9 sec scan time with ICE at high quality. I'm
wondering how this compares
to other ICE-enabled scanners, because that scan time would be intolerable
for me at least.
With all due respect to ICE, a 6-minute+ scan is a knockout punch for anyone
doing archiv
mes, where it would be nice to experiment
with the scanning exposure to get tone in the most desired
details.
Regards,
Alan T
- Original Message -
From: Shough, Dean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 1:56 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners
On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Jack Phipps wrote:
> total times to scan the four images. Images were gathered using a 600MHz
> Pentium III computer with 512MB RAM.
>
> w/o ICE w/ICE ICE time factor
>
> Auto Preview 73 sec. 138 sec.1.89 X
Dean wrote:
>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.
M
Hi, Todd--
I've been doing Scanwit 2720S since last April. I'm taking it "off List"
because I (and probably some others) think I've probably been hogging too
much reply-time.
You wrote:
>The fact remains though that Acer tech support
claims they only support the scanner when connected to their S
Gamez
-Original Message-
From: Todd Radel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 11:58 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: AcerScanwit
From: "Collin Ong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Can you give some real-world numbers on how long a normal scan and
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.
Arthur Entlich wrote:
> It would appear you might have an answer to some of your frustrations in
> that Acer appears to be monitoring this list. Perhaps Mr. Lo will be
> able to start facilitating some changes to benefit all Scanwit owners.
Well, it seems that my earlier problems on Win2k may be
> acer Communication & Multimedia / PGA
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 10:26 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
&
Todd Radel wrote:
>
> Other than Acer's incredibly bad tech support and buggy software (see my
> earlier post), I've been quite happy with the 2740S, especially with VueScan
> and the GIMP. I think it's a good value for the money.
>
> --
> Todd Radel - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Todd,
It would a
Jerry Oostrom wrote:
> I have a 2720 that does not function properly. The problem is probably
> background noise in the CCD. During calibration only the responsiveness to
> the white light is calibrated for each CCD pixel. I think you can compare
> it to determining the whitepoint for each pixel.
Tony wrote:
> Sorry, I have no direct (test) evidence about this, and it appears a
> prejudicial comment. Whether qualitatively inferior to other
implementations
> of ICE (as some have said), I don't know, but the extra pass for IR is
slower.
Well, it is most definitely slower. And Ed Hamrick say
On Mon, 2 Apr 2001 11:33:06 -0400 Todd Radel ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I
> do not have another ICE scanner to compare it with, so I cannot evaluate
> Tony's comment that the Acer does an inferior job. ICE at a reasonable price
> was the main reason I bought this model.
Sorry, I have no dire
Title:
Dear Tony,
in fact, 2740S
compare to 2720S, we improved the A/D from 12bit to 14bit ( all they use ADI
product, the best in the suppliers ) to try to get more clear data come in. The
other hand is co-work with ASF to have ICE function inside, due to we're not
using LED ligh
From: "Collin Ong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Can you give some real-world numbers on how long a normal scan and a ICE
> scan take?
I can certainly do so. Every few days I scan another batch. Next time I'll
try to remind myself to grab a stopwatch first.
-- Todd
--
Todd Radel - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 2 Apr 2001, Todd Radel wrote:
> * Digital ICE does indeed slow down the scanning, but to me the end results
> look much better than running a non-ICE scan through a despeckle filter. I
Can you give some real-world numbers on how long a normal scan and a ICE
scan take?
Thanks!
Todd wrote:
>Glad to finally de-lurk! This list is full of great information, thanks
everyone!
Glad you did, Todd, and thanks for the input! :-)
I, for one, am always happy to "meet" another Scanwit user to share
information with. Was starting to get a *complex* from the "lucky" (and very
hard-
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 16:08:50 -0600 Maris V. Lidaka, Sr.
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> > Not that many reviews but those that are out there say it works well.
But
> > apparently VueScan no longer supports it, though it supports the 2720S.
>
> >From discussion here, the 2740 is the exact same
On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 10:04:01 -0600 Maris V. Lidaka, Sr.
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> There was a message on the
> comp.periphs.scanners group that the 2740S was not supported
Probably the extra pass for IR is more coding than is justified, since
no other scanner requires one.
Regards
Tony
On 29 Mar 2001, Richard Starr wrote:
> --- You wrote:
> Have heard of folk using them on a Mac, but not me.
> --- end of quote ---
> Thanks for the replies on the Acer scanners. How would it be driven on a Mac if
> it isn't supplied with Mac software? Woudl Vuescan be required?
I have used the
Richard wrote:
> Thanks for the replies on the Acer scanners. How would it be driven on a
Mac if it isn't supplied with Mac software? Would Vuescan be required?
Vuescan should work. Also call Acer Customer Service and ask if a Mac driver
is available. (1-800-452-2237 in the US--don't be surpri
Maris
- Original Message -
From: "Tony Sleep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 8:26 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: AcerScanwit
| On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 16:08:50 -0600 Maris V. Lidaka, Sr.
| ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
|
| > Not th
On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 16:08:50 -0600 Maris V. Lidaka, Sr.
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Not that many reviews but those that are out there say it works well. But
> apparently VueScan no longer supports it, though it supports the 2720S.
>From discussion here, the 2740 is the exact same scanner as
--- You wrote:
Have heard of folk using them on a Mac, but not me.
--- end of quote ---
Thanks for the replies on the Acer scanners. How would it be driven on a Mac if
it isn't supplied with Mac software? Woudl Vuescan be required?
Rich
Take a look at the Photoscientia site, www.photoscientia.co.uk.
As for me..(amateur opinion follows!)
I have the Acer 2720, and I like it very much. Neutral, slightly
undersaturated colors (a very slight cyan/blue cast on mine, easy to
correct). Good shadow detail and very little shadow noise i
Richard wrote:
>There are a bunch of Acer Scanwit 2740S scanners on Ebay. Is this a
competent
machine? Anyone using one on a Mac?
Not on a Mac, but it's not platform-dependent (it's SCSI--G-4
notwithstanding). And yes, it's competent; the 2740 is an upgrade from the
2700S. But keep shopping--t
Not that many reviews but those that are out there say it works well. But
apparently VueScan no longer supports it, though it supports the 2720S.
Maris
- Original Message -
From: "Richard Starr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 12:04 PM
Subject
40 matches
Mail list logo
