ject: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: VueScan 7.2.11
Available (new focus test)
> Brian wrote:
> >actually polar coordinates might be more applicable in this case.
>
> It still comes back to the question of - relative to what? The
orientation
> according to the scanner, or
Brian wrote:
>actually polar coordinates might be more applicable in this case.
It still comes back to the question of - relative to what? The orientation
according to the scanner, or that displayed on the screen? Having a graphical
interface with the ability to click on a point is harder to co
Jawed wrote:
>An 8-bit A/D really would struggle.
I agree but it was as I mentioned, an artificial example. Maybe I should
have worked with what I actually have, which is a scanner with a 12 bit
A/D that the firmware drops out the 2 LSB from to return 10 bits per channel.
It doesn't matter how
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
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
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
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
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?
The error I get from PSP is "A predictor of 2 is only support
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
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
Larry wrote:
> This is the first time the default settings wouldn't open
> in ACDSee. But then I haven't used VueScan in about two months or so.
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
Alan wrote:
> Vuescan no longer requires me to have the device show in
> the device manager before vuescan finds it, I think it
> might even cause windows to put it in the device manager.
>On my machine, yes indeed it does cause windows to put the
> scanner into the device manager WITHOUT me doing
Terry wrote:
> But you know what? I don't feel taken. I got a chance to
> check out the products first and decide whether they were
> worth my money. I decided they were, and paid, and got
> exactly what I paid for.
I'm not exactly sure how long ago I bought Vuescan, but for US$40 I've receiv
>PS. I have just recently returned to this list after a long break. Does
>anybody know if Ed Hamrick still partakes?
Dunno.
> If not does anybody have his
>email address at hand?
I think it's [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rob
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
15 matches
Mail list logo
