In a message dated 23/5/01 9:28:55 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< If you ever want to use your scanner for other purposes (full res scanning
etc., full quality), then you are better off with another more expensive
scanner with ICE or FARE (dust removal algorithms), >>
Apparently some photogra
, 2001 4:52 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: filmscanners: What is 4,000 scanner quality like in practice.
In a message dated 23/5/01 9:28:55 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< If you ever want to use your scanner for other purposes (full res
scanning
etc., full quality), then you are bett
, May 23, 2001 4:52 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: filmscanners: What is 4,000 scanner quality like in practice.
>
>
>
> In a message dated 23/5/01 9:28:55 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> << If you ever want to use your scanner for other purposes (full res
On Wed, 23 May 2001 17:51:42 EDT ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> If I got a 4000 desktop scanner of my own it would need to produce
> about ten fully finished scans per hour to be worth considering. Is
> this possible considering the amount of time that dust busting might
> take?
IME with the
lto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 8:18 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: What is 4,000 scanner quality like in
practice.
On Wed, 23 May 2001 17:51:42 EDT ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> If I got a 4000 desktop scanner of my own it would need to produce
>
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: What is 4,000 scanner quality like in
practice.
Actually, Nikon has the Coolscan 8000, and Polaroid is now also shipping
(it's name escapes me) a medium format, 4000 dpi scanner. The Nikon has the
ASF ICE^3 suite.
Pat
- Original Message -
E-Cost is showing both the Nikon 8000 and Polaroid 120 in their product list.
Jim
Tony Sleep wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2001 20:04:57 -0500 Laurie Solomon ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> wrote:
>
> > I believe you may be mistaken or misinformed. The new 4000 ppi
> > scanners are
> > 35mm film scanners and
a source of income for starting shooters, I think it's overrated
and overstated. But that's my opinion, and it doesn't cost you more than the
time it took you to read it.
Best regards and good luck--LRA
--Original Message--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tony Sleep)
To: [EMAIL
Dear Lalle
Converting to dollar sums for universal simplicity. UK prices for "system
time" vary between $75 - $125. Apparently New York is slightly cheaper than
even the UK provinces.
If I get a 120 scanner I will also need a Computer to plug it into, a table
to put it on and by many accoun
> On Wed, 23 May 2001 17:51:42 EDT ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> > If I got a 4000 desktop scanner of my own it would need to produce
> > about ten fully finished scans per hour to be worth considering. Is
> > this possible considering the amount of time that dust busting might
> > take?
>
>
-989-6138
--
> From: Lynn Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 13:29:39 -0400 (EDT)
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: What is 4,000 scanner quality like in practice.
>
> 7.50 per drum-scan is a bit pricey,
Bob makes many reasonable points, in terms of the real time costs of
film scanning. It is not a greatly differing argument from that of
whether photographers should "waste" their time in the darkroom have
someone else do it for them.
To some extent the scan produced by the photographer has th
, then $7.50 US for a drum-scan would be pricey.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of William Alexander
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 7:34 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: FW: filmscanners: What is 4,000 scanner quality like in
practice.
Please
Lynn Allen wrote:
> As a former Art Director, I don't think that "Stock" is an appropriate
> medium--it never was for my uses. "Almost" is not good enough in today's
> competition to stake one's career on. You
> need a photographer you know, who can get the results you need. While
stock
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: FW: filmscanners: What is 4,000 scanner quality like in
> practice.
>
>
>
> Please forgive the group newbie, but is that $7.50 us for a drum scan and
is
> it considered pricey??? HOLY *#!%!!! I pay $28-$40/scan!!! Am I being
taken
>
:18 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: filmscanners: What is 4,000 scanner quality like in
practice.
On Wed, 23 May 2001 20:04:57 -0500 Laurie Solomon ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> I believe you may be mistaken or misinformed. The new 4000 ppi
> scanners are
> 35mm film scanners and n
Leisure Publishing Company
540-989-6138
--
> From: Lynn Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 13:29:39 -0400 (EDT)
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: What is 4,000 scanner quality like in practice.
>
>
Director
Leisure Publishing Company
540-989-6138
--
> From: Lynn Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 13:29:39 -0400 (EDT)
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: What is 4,000 scanner quality like in practice.
>
On Thu, 24 May 2001 20:19:20 -0700 Arthur Entlich ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> or you wouldn't see the incredible amounts of stock
> and cash transfers as smaller agencies ar being swallowed up by the
> likes of Bill Gates (Corbis) and Getty Industries.
Hm. Much more to do with their big w
On Thu, 24 May 2001 15:42:06 EDT ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Whenever I've mentioned 50Mb drum scans at $10 on the Stockphoto list
> I've had lots of people ask "where?".
And the answer is?? :-)
The going rate in London is 25-35GBP+17.5%VAT, about $45-65US equivalent!
Regards
Tony Sleep
On Thu, 24 May 2001 19:08:51 -0400 Ray Amos ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> In my opinion, Nikon has
> really improved the digital ice feature. I cannot tell any difference
> in sharpness "using" and "not using" digital ice cubed even when zoomed
> side-by-side until you could see the pixels.
If
On Thu, 24 May 2001 11:37:15 -0500 Laurie Solomon ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> Ok, if that is the case then I stand corrected; but I was under the
> impression that the Coolscan 8000ED has been is continues to be on
> backorder
> such that no one has actually been able to get their hands on on
Paul Chefurka wrote:
> > If I got a 4000 desktop scanner of my own it would need to produce
> > about ten fully finished scans per hour to be worth considering. Is
> > this possible considering the amount of time that dust busting might
> > take?
>
> IME with the Polaroid 4000, absolutely not. I
William Alexander wrote:
>Please forgive the group newbie, but is that $7.50 us for a drum scan and
is
it considered pricey??? HOLY *#!%!!! I pay $28-$40/scan!!! Am I being taken
for a ride? Please if anyone can suggest a less expensive vendor please do
so!
That was a gaffe. I was thinking "pric
In a message dated 25/5/01 1:37:27 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
<<
Please forgive the group newbie, but is that $7.50 us for a drum scan and is
it considered pricey??? HOLY *#!%!!! I pay $28-$40/scan!!! Am I being taken
for a ride? Please if anyone can suggest a less expensive vendor please d
25 matches
Mail list logo
