You might consider the Polaroid Sprintscan 4000. The scanner is excellent;
there are several scanner programs available for it, including Insight,
Vuescan, Silverfast and binuscan and several of the Polaroid support people
are on this list and can help you out.
STEPHENJENNINGS
P h o t o
> I have a Book on local fauna to publish with more than 600 scans (most of
> them are 10 x 7 cm). I hope to buy a filmscanner to scan the Provia fuji
> slides. Someone talk about a Nikon LS 2000, others on Microtek 4000T
For this size, 2700ppi will be plenty, and you would need more RAM for scan
Check out http://www.halftone.co.uk for reviews. The Nikon LS 2000
andMicrotek 4000T are considered by many to be the best 35mm scanners under
$2K. Kodak has a new scanner, the RFS 3600
(http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/scanners/rfs3600/3600I
ntro.shtml) which could be competat
phy site
- Original Message -
From: "Tony Sleep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 9:08 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: infos on Nikon LS 2000 or Microtek 4000T
> > I have a Book on local fauna to publish with more than
Tony -
You wrote:
>Is there a good rule-of-thumb for the amount of RAM >needed for scanning &
>editing files at different resolution in Photoshop. >This is probably "more
>is better," but are some specific recommendations on >this?
I used a Minolta Scan Dual (2438 dpi) with 160mb of RAM and that was
adequate even
ROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 10:12 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: infos on Nikon LS 2000 or Microtek 4000T
> >Is there a good rule-of-thumb for the amount of RAM >needed for scanning
&
> >editing files at different resolution in
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bob & Glenna
> Marin
> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 11:29 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: filmscanners: infos on Nikon LS 2000 or Microtek 4000T
>
>
> T
]]On Behalf Of Bob & Glenna
Marin
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 9:29 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: filmscanners: infos on Nikon LS 2000 or Microtek 4000T
Tony -
You wrote:
At 11:01 15/12/00, Ezio wrote:
>I do agree and also I suggest to have FAAASS disks
>...
>Photoshop ALWAYS goes to disk ... I have 256MB RAM on a AMD 800MHz and still
>there is disk activity ... this is why I received a great improvement when I
>have passed to 2 x Ultra160 S
That's right, but the problem is when you start to work with multiple layers
in PS.
I have just upgraded to 384M from 192M, hopefully this will speed things up
a bit.
Mark...
> >
> > Is there a good rule-of-thumb for the amount of RAM needed for scanning
&
> > editing files at different resolu
I've just had a film scanner and photoshop for a couple of weeks and am trying to
figure out how to use photoshop effectively. So, I'm certainly no expert and I may be
doing something wrong. However, I've found that with a 20 something meg file, with
certain tools (most notably the burn tool)
ECTED]]On Behalf Of Mike
> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 9:59 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: filmscanners: infos on Nikon LS 2000 or Microtek 4000T
>
>
> I've just had a film scanner and photoshop for a couple of weeks
> and am trying to figure out how to use
EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Frank Paris
> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 7:58 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: filmscanners: infos on Nikon LS 2000 or Microtek 4000T
>
>
> I have a 733 MHz Pentium III. How big a disk do you have and what
> percentage
> of it
its your system pagefile or photoshop that is
doing the swapping)
Cheers,
Jas
-Original Message-
From: Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, 15 December 2000 3:59
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: filmscanners: infos on Nikon LS 2000 or Microtek 4000T
I've just had a
[stuff about photoshop speed snipped]
Out of interest, has anyone noticed whether the OS makes a difference - I
seem to recall that NT gives better memory management with PS so Win2K
should also?
The main question I wanted to ask was whether making a RAM disk and pointing
the PS "scratch disk" a
On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 13:28:47 -0600 Bob & Glenna Marin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Is there a good rule-of-thumb for the amount of RAM needed for scanning &
> editing files at different resolution in Photoshop. This is probably "more
> is better," but are some specific recommendations on this?
On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 21:58:35 -0800 Mike ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I tend to use a very large brush with the dodge and/or burn tool as my experence is
>in
a
> conventional darkroom and that is most like how I would dodge and burn in the
>darkroom.
Large brushes are cruel & unusual punishm
Behalf Of Mike
>> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 9:59 PM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: RE: filmscanners: infos on Nikon LS 2000 or Microtek 4000T
>>
>>
>> I've just had a film scanner and photoshop for a couple of weeks
>> and am trying
Thanks for the info.
You mentioned video cards which brings up another question. In a month or so, I'm
going to build a dedicated digital darkroom computer. What, in the opinion of this
group, is the best video card available for photoshop? I've been told by some that
for this purpose a c
ums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mike
> Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 9:54 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: filmscanners: infos on Nikon LS 2000 or Microtek 4000T
>
>
&g
ch hard disk is consumed by
temp files?
Bob Marin
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rob Geraghty
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 5:34 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: infos on Nikon LS 2000 or Microtek 4000T
[stuff about
0
> À : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Objet : Re: filmscanners: infos on Nikon LS 2000 or Microtek 4000T
>
> Check out http://www.halftone.co.uk for reviews. The Nikon LS 2000
> andMicrotek 4000T are considered by many to be the best 35mm scanners under
> $2K. Kodak has a new scanne
> Thanks for the info.
>
> You mentioned video cards which brings up another question. In a month or so,
> I'm going to build a dedicated digital darkroom computer. What, in the
> opinion of this group, is the best video card available for photoshop? I've
> been told by some that for this p
I thought that sounded a bit slow so I gave it a try myself.
I opened a 51.9 meg file on my PIII 450 in 6 seconds.
I have 288 megs ram and a 30 gig (1/3 full) HD@7200 rpm
Paul
>I have a 733 MHz Pentium III. How big a disk do you have and what percentage
>of it is full? I'm not doing anything fan
There seem to be some Photoshop tools which don't quite work in "real
time". The tool I typically find that makes me feel like I'm in "delay"
mode, is the smudge tool. I'm using a Celeron 500 with 384 megs. I've
just learned to avoid that tool.
Art
Mike wrote:
> I've just had a film scann
Hi.
> scanning
> Is there a good rule-of-thumb for the amount of RAM needed for scanning &
> editing files at different resolution in Photoshop. This is probably "more
> is better," but are some specific recommendations on this?
I've found that anything less than 256 Mb slows down scan acquis
Bob & Glenna Marin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The way an OS sets up a RAM disk is by "stealing" or allocating some RAM
> from main memory.
I'm aware of that. I program computers for a living. :)
> This is, essentially what PS is doing normally.
In some respects yes - for things like the work
28 matches
Mail list logo
