[filmscanners] Re: More settings questions
RGBI would make sense for raw, but I assume you are going do to light IR cleanup. I'd would use neutral. It compensates a bit for the dynamic range of the film. Personally, if I were to do what you are doing, i.e. batch scanning, I would do it raw and RGBI TIFF. But if you just want to save RGB, put the IR cleaning on light and use neutral. Carlisle Landel wrote: Bunch, OK, the TB drive has been ordered, I'm almost ready to go. A few more setting questions. TIFF file type: The choices are 24, 48 and 64 bit RGBI. Which one do I choose? Use a Vuescan color balance preset, or set to none? Thanks again for the help. Carlisle Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Advice on scanner settings
I'd like to point out that I never had a Seagate product fail. Of course, that could be luck. They come with 5 year warranties. Of course, I probably just cursed one of my drives by mentioning I had no failures. I've built PCs for people that would spend the extra money for a Seagate and had the drives arrive DOA. More than once mind you. One was from IBM, and the other Fujitsu, a company I thought had it's act together. If you get external drives, consider spending a bit more and get esata. I have this general distrust of USB. http://www.carbonite.com/ These people advertise heavily on http://techguylabs.com/radio/pmwiki.php I have no idea if the service is any good, but it is online offsite storage, and relatively cheap. Offer code I believe is Leo, but you could just listen to any of his podcasts and get the code. The offsite service is handy in the event of fire or theft. Tony Sleep wrote: On 26/02/2009 li...@lazygranch.com wrote: I just bought three 1.5 terrabyte drives RAID can add resilience but no way can it be considered safe, so don't forget the other 4! Here I have: 3 x 1TB RAID3 = 2TB 2 x 1TB for backup (on another LAN PC) 2 x 1TB for offsite backup. So that's 7 x 1TB for 2TB of storage. I don't trust HDD's much. -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Advice on scanner settings
Fortunately got the 1.5Tbytes. Also, they still have 5 years. The only computer part I have they really seems to be junk are these Gigabyte Rocket fans. What a pain to replace. One stopped turning, but the system shut down. The other lost it's speed control. I use Zalman now. Bob Frost wrote: Seagate is tops in the industry at 5 years. Was? They have just slashed their warranty to 3 yrs on some drives - http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3188 I have my reasons not to like Seagate, but none are due to drive quality. They've just had a load of trouble with their latest barracuda drives - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/16/barracuda_failure_plague/ Bob Frost -- From: li...@lazygranch.com Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Advice on scanner settings--Thanks!
The Vuescan IR is pretty good. However, I view film scanning like playing a LP. At the very least, you need to blow off the dust. Carlisle Landel wrote: Bunch, Wow! The list lives! Thanks to all for the advice. Especiallly, thanks for the reminder that IR filtering doesn't work for Kodachrome. I've got the bulk slide feeder, so the plan is to simply drop a box of slides in and start it up, then go away and drop another in when I get to it. I figure if I do a couple of boxes an evening, it'll eventually get done. I'm going with the memory is cheap theory and will use the 4000dpi TIFF settings. Best regards, Carlisle Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Help With Vuescan
The good news is I run a 5400-II with Vuescan. The bad news is I haven't a clue why yours isn't working. Did you run that calibration step that the software requests? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yesterday I tried to use Vuescan but it was frustrating. Here's the situation: my old Nikon LS4000 is in urgent need of cleaning. I had a Minolta 5400-II on the shelf in an unopened box. Right after I bought it Minolta abandoned the business so I just forgot about the unit. Now I need to use it. Minolta's software is worse than awful. Any adjustment in the scanner interface at all blows out all the highlights. I have hundreds of valuable and faded historical images to restore. So, Vuescan to the rescue. No matter how I set the input and output options I get nothing. The preview scan is dark gray and the output is just a file with all black pixels. I don't remember that ever happening before but I haven't used Vuescan for a couple of years. What glaringly obvious mistake am I making? I am clueless. -- Cary Enoch Reinstein... aka enochsvision, Enoch's Vision Inc. Photography, Poetry http://www.enochsvision.com Baha'i History: http://www.viewsofakka.com Blog: http://enochsvision.wordpress.com Videos: http://www.youtube.com/enochsvision9 Behind all these manifestations is the one radiance, which shines through all things. The function of art is to reveal this radiance through the created object. - Joseph Campbell Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: spam magnet
I believe Tony explained that everyone's address is visible. I can certainly see them. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sigh -- nobody responded directly to my original question, which is Why is my email address displayed on the filmscanners board? Most other participants are identified by name, but their email addresses are *not* displayed. Yes, I could use spam filtering, but I far prefer to live in a spam- free world. And I am successful to the extent that discussion boards do *not* display my email address. I'll leave the address intact a couple more days so I can recieve your responses. Thank you. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: spam magnet
I try to steer the Mac users I know to open source multi-platform programs like Thunderbird for email, Firefox for browsing, etc. It makes it easier to help them. Thunderbird has a simple filtering scheme (rules). There was a recent hackers event that broke into a Mac Air in two minutes using flaws in Safari. Since firefox runs on a Mac, why used closed source software that is poorly tested? At the same conference, they hacked MS Vista using a flaw in Flash, a program for the life of me I would never shove down the throats of anyone visiting my website. The only unhacked machine was running Ubuntu linux. Since I own a domain, I make email accounts on the fly. I have one strictly for an email alert service that I never use for email. Yet somehow once in a blue moon, a bit of spam comes through on it. I have one for paypal, and it gets the occasional spam. Needless to say the account used for mailing lists is full of spam. The same with my personal email account thanks to well meaning people that send me the occasional e-greeting card. Sam McCandless wrote: Thanks, Tony, for doing what you can about the spam problem. And please feel free to suggest what we might do to help make it less of a problem. It's actually only a very minor nuisance for me, but I have no idea why that is, unless it's because I've been on Mac's and done what I can to help their e-mail clients train their filters. My current Mac's client is Apple Mail, but previously Eudora did at least as well, and I suspect software more resourceful than either - MailSmith? - might do even better at some incremental expense. But my Mac consultant uses Mail himself, which I think will make it quicker and easier to get help from him if I ever need it. So far I haven't even though none of this stuff is very intuitive for me. I don't offer up this testimonial to encourage switching, but I can imagine adding a Mac Mini or MacBook to a Windows-centric setup just to try to largely isolate the rest of the system from e-mail and web browsing. -- Sam On Mar 31, 2008, at 7:48 AM, Tony Sleep wrote: On 31/03/2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: SS4000 SCSI under Vista
Often Vuescan needs the factory driver to be installed. A few devices Ed can drive directly. BTW, Vuescan under X64 is not all that stable. Expect a crash every other roll. It has to do with how X64 handles USB. In many ways, X64 is a really good operating system. Remember, it is Server 2003 kind of stripped down. But for non-server tasks, it does have it's issues. Also, X64 is a dead end. MS wants you to use Vista, but 64 bit Vista is a mess. As you probably know, there is a rumor that MS is going to replace Vista soon, i.e. it is like Windows ME (the minus edition). [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You could try Vuescan; or you could go to the Epson web site and see if the scanner software is downloadable/ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Ketcheson Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 2:19 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: SS4000 SCSI under Vista I have acquired an Epson 1200 Perfection Photo Scanner but did not get the software. Would anyone know what was originally with this scanner and have any idea where one could find the appropriate software. I also have the Epson 3200 Perfection series but the software is not interchangeable. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Jim Ketcheson Belleville, Canada James L. Sims wrote: Laurie, My plan is to keep a 32-bit machine around for the SS120 and My old Epson Stylus Photo 1200. Then upgrade my main computer to XP 64. An Epson tech told me last year that that he could send me the 64-bit drivers for my Epson 1640 scanner, however, I didn't ask him to do that and I still do not see a 64-bit driver, twain or otherwise, on Epson's website - that seems to support what you're saying about 32-bit Twain drivers working on 64-bit systems. Epson does have 64-bit drivers for my R2400. After I upgrade to a 64-bit OS, I'll try installing the Polaroid drivers on the new system. Thanks, Jim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jim, Most of the scanners up until currently used TWAIN drivers and there were no universal 64 bit TWAIN standards or specs as was the case for 32 bit twain drivers; hence, no 64 bit TWAIN drivers were ever produced at any time. The net result was that there were no scanners that would work on 64 bit operating systems as 64 bit scanners. I am not really sure; but I think that the 32 bit TWAIN drivers will work under the 64 bit Windows XP operating system. As far as I know, there will be no 64 bit Twain drivers being developed for any of the brands or types of scanners in the future. The newer flatbed scanners have gotten much better in terms of their quality and optical resolutions; but I still think they are lacking if one is scanning small format film with the intent of enlarging the images to anything beyond 8 x 10 without resorting to the use good high quality interpolation methods or of cropping out segments of the image for enlargement. Some of these scanners may in the future come out with 64 bit drivers if there is a market for 64 bit; but it will either be in the form of WMA compliant drivers for use with MICROSOFT 64 bit operating systems and not TWAIN drivers (since I do not believe that Apple has a 64 bit operating system or plans to come out with one in the near future - but I could be wrong). I have the feeling that Microsoft's WMA protocol will become the standard for scanner drivers even if Apple comes out with a 64 bit OS. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James L. Sims Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 11:48 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: SS4000 SCSI under Vista I believe none of the Polaroid scanners are being supported beyond 32-bit Windows XP or the same era Mac OS. About a year ago I contacted Polaroid, asking them if they would be providing 64-bit drivers for my SprintScan 120. I had recently upgraded to a 64-bit computer. Polaroid informed me that the SS120 had been out of production for more than three years and no driver updates would be forthcoming. Does anyone have any knowledge of the quality of today's flatbed scanners? Great to see active dialog on this list! Jim Bob Geoghegan wrote: While we're talking about SCSI scanners under current OSs, how 'bout Vista? I'm running an SS4000 on a Win XP laptop through an Adaptec 1480B. The card is supported under Vista, but I don't know what to expect for the scanner. Bob G -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 2:14 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: SCSI support on a Mac Pro --- - Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe
[filmscanners] Re: SS4000 SCSI under Vista
A bit OT, but I've been running X64 for about 3 years. Vuescan saved my arse regarding my Epson 5400II. I got a cheap Canon for document work, retiring my scsi flatbed. I understanding keeping an old scanner and playing the scsi game, but I got rid of all my scsi gear when I upgraded. Well, I still have the Artixscan 4000t because it is so flaky I won't sell it. Maybe temperamental is a better word. Anyway, the 5400II is so much better than my old Artixscan that I'm glad I didn't put the effort into getting scsi working. You should know that the back bone of scsi, aspi, is not supported in X64. There is some hacked up aspi here: http://www.gearsoftware.com/ I think the aspi is a freebia. James L. Sims wrote: Laurie, My plan is to keep a 32-bit machine around for the SS120 and My old Epson Stylus Photo 1200. Then upgrade my main computer to XP 64. An Epson tech told me last year that that he could send me the 64-bit drivers for my Epson 1640 scanner, however, I didn't ask him to do that and I still do not see a 64-bit driver, twain or otherwise, on Epson's website - that seems to support what you're saying about 32-bit Twain drivers working on 64-bit systems. Epson does have 64-bit drivers for my R2400. After I upgrade to a 64-bit OS, I'll try installing the Polaroid drivers on the new system. Thanks, Jim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jim, Most of the scanners up until currently used TWAIN drivers and there were no universal 64 bit TWAIN standards or specs as was the case for 32 bit twain drivers; hence, no 64 bit TWAIN drivers were ever produced at any time. The net result was that there were no scanners that would work on 64 bit operating systems as 64 bit scanners. I am not really sure; but I think that the 32 bit TWAIN drivers will work under the 64 bit Windows XP operating system. As far as I know, there will be no 64 bit Twain drivers being developed for any of the brands or types of scanners in the future. The newer flatbed scanners have gotten much better in terms of their quality and optical resolutions; but I still think they are lacking if one is scanning small format film with the intent of enlarging the images to anything beyond 8 x 10 without resorting to the use good high quality interpolation methods or of cropping out segments of the image for enlargement. Some of these scanners may in the future come out with 64 bit drivers if there is a market for 64 bit; but it will either be in the form of WMA compliant drivers for use with MICROSOFT 64 bit operating systems and not TWAIN drivers (since I do not believe that Apple has a 64 bit operating system or plans to come out with one in the near future - but I could be wrong). I have the feeling that Microsoft's WMA protocol will become the standard for scanner drivers even if Apple comes out with a 64 bit OS. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James L. Sims Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 11:48 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: SS4000 SCSI under Vista I believe none of the Polaroid scanners are being supported beyond 32-bit Windows XP or the same era Mac OS. About a year ago I contacted Polaroid, asking them if they would be providing 64-bit drivers for my SprintScan 120. I had recently upgraded to a 64-bit computer. Polaroid informed me that the SS120 had been out of production for more than three years and no driver updates would be forthcoming. Does anyone have any knowledge of the quality of today's flatbed scanners? Great to see active dialog on this list! Jim Bob Geoghegan wrote: While we're talking about SCSI scanners under current OSs, how 'bout Vista? I'm running an SS4000 on a Win XP laptop through an Adaptec 1480B. The card is supported under Vista, but I don't know what to expect for the scanner. Bob G -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 2:14 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: SCSI support on a Mac Pro --- - Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Now this is a scanner
http://www.richardcrouse.com/services/scanning.html As you probably read, they are scanning the old Apollo moon film. The scanner in the link above is the type of scanner used for this project. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Aztek Premier 8000 dpi scan.
I think a better comparison would be the Aztek against a dedicated film scanner, not a flat bed. It is clear to me there is a focus issue with the Epson. R. Jackson wrote: I thought some of you might enjoy seeing this. I went down to Petaluma today and Lenny Eiger introduced me to scanning with a drum scanner. http://www.eigerphoto.com/ I essentially got a crash course in the practicalities of drum scans from someone with a lot of practical experience in making them. I've been all ripped-up this week about my cat having liver failure (I buried her last night) and I'd mis-read Lenny's email about bringing something *not* too challenging for a first scan. I glanced through some boxes of 30-year-old Ektachrome quickly last night and brought along a slide taken inside a van. There's a window on the verge of being blown out and an interior that was so deeply in shadow that it was almost black. Something taken in a band vehicle a long time ago of a drummer napping. Before I left this morning I'd scanned the slide at the 6400 dpi setting on my V700. Lenny scanned it at 8000 dpi on his Aztek. I've uploaded both a lossless .jpf and a jpeg. The jpeg actually looks pretty close to the same as the jpf and it's one meg instead of seventeen, just FYI. You can see them here: http://homepage.mac.com/jackson.robert.rex/ These are 100% crops. The V700 on top, obviously. I scaled the V700 scan up to the 8000 dpi so it would be the same size as the Aztek scan. It's amazing how much more detail the Aztek pulled out of the slide. And this was a ratty old Ektachrome 400 slide. I can hardly imagine what well-exposed 6x7 or 4x5 would yield under the right circumstances. One of the most telling things to me is the etched printing on the window. You can almost read it in the Aztek scan. And see the area on the right side of the window frame? The Epson scan has some kind of strange artifact going on. The edge of the window all the way down through the curve at the bottom looks very strange. On the Aztek crop it looks very natural and smooth. It's amazing, really. Almost too much detail. Lenny is a gentleman with a genuine enthusiasm for what he does and a great wealth of knowledge and experience to guide him. You couldn't ask for a better demo of the technology. I'm really happy to know he's just down the road. -Robert Jackson Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: color bit depth and digital cameras
I can't comment on the bit depth of cameras, but scanners need more bits when processing negative film since negative film has it's dynamic range compressed. Eight bits was passable for slide film, well, properly exposed slide film. Film like Astia is slightly compressed, i.e. it doesn't have the full dynamic range after chemical processing. It probably doesn't project well, but it sure scans well. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was just playing with my new Nikon D200 and discovered something that surprised me. Unless there is some quality adjustment setting I missed, it's color bit depth apparently is only 8 bits in NEF Raw. By comparison, my Polaroid SprintScan 4000 scanner has a color bit depth of 12 bits, and other scanners have much higher color bit depths than this. While color bit depth is a commonly cited specification for scanners, I've seldom seen it cited for digital cameras. Does the lower bit depth for the D200 imply lower quality color rendition than my 12 bit scanner? ___ Dr. Paul Patton Life Sciences Building Rm 538A work: (419)-372-3858 home: (419)-352-5523 Biology Department Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, Ohio 43403 The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. -Albert Einstein ___ Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
I simply see no advantage to have a smaller sensor. I don't see how I spent pixels. This makes no sense to me. Nikon has an option on some models where you can toss the outer area of the sensor to save space on the memory card. R. Jackson wrote: Sure, but you spend pixels of your total sensor resolution to get there. On Jul 10, 2007, at 9:37 AM, gary wrote: A cropped sensor really doesn't give you more reach. If you think about it, you could just crop a full size image to get more reach. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
I think you need to strictly define reach. Arthur Entlich wrote: Well, yes, but the resolution of the sensor is still the resolution of the sensor, so unless the FF sensor has an increased resolution equivalent to the difference in factor difference, the smaller sensor does provide a greater reach per resolution. Also, the camera is smaller and likely lighter. Art gary wrote: A cropped sensor really doesn't give you more reach. If you think about it, you could just crop a full size image to get more reach. R. Jackson wrote: On Jul 10, 2007, at 6:23 AM, Berry Ives wrote: Does anyone know what is the market share of FF digital among professional photographers working digitally today? It seems to me that most working pros are using the 1.3x crop Canons. I see those more than just about anything else. Of course, the crop factor gives their big white lenses a little more reach and the 1D series has always had much higher frame rates and burst capabilities than their full-frame 1Ds cousin. With Kodak and Contax out of the market that's left Canon's 5D and 1Ds as the only FF cameras that I'm aware of. Of course, Sony and Nikon may both have FF models waiting in the wings, if current rumors are accurate. Personally, I wouldn't mind shooting with a FF sensor, but the 1Ds is more expensive than I'm willing to go and the 5D (which I considered) is saddled with a body design and control layout from Canon's low-end cameras. If price were no object I'd own a 1Ds, but in addition to being expensive it's a real brick. It's about 3 1/2 pounds with no lens. An E-410 weighs less than a pound. -Rob Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
I'm a person that needs reach, if you define reach as getting shots of distance objects. Now generally a person who needs reach is using a telephoto lens and possibly combined with a teleconverter. Such a setup doesn't put out a lot of light, so the bigger pixels are certainly an advantage. Also, I've been told that even if noise was not an issue, you can't simply keep reducing the pixel pitch due to difficulties in lens design. If anything, a 10um pitch would be optimal. http://www.lazygranch.com/groom_lake_birds.htm Arthur Entlich wrote: Let's say you have two sensors, each 12 MP. One is FF the other smaller using 1.3X factor. To get the same multiplication factor with the FF, you have crop about 1/4th of the area out, which means you have reduced the resolution by that much. If the FF is about 1/4th higher res to the smaller sensor, then you are correct, no disadvantage. Considering cost and weight of a FF, may not be as great an advantage as it first appears. Art gary wrote: I simply see no advantage to have a smaller sensor. I don't see how I spent pixels. This makes no sense to me. Nikon has an option on some models where you can toss the outer area of the sensor to save space on the memory card. R. Jackson wrote: Sure, but you spend pixels of your total sensor resolution to get there. On Jul 10, 2007, at 9:37 AM, gary wrote: A cropped sensor really doesn't give you more reach. If you think about it, you could just crop a full size image to get more reach. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
If you are using autofocus, that will be the limiting factor in resolution. IIRC, they quit at about 50lpmm. Then there is the antialiasing filter, which reduces resolution. The EOS-1Ds Mark II has an AAF that doesn't filter much, so it is more prone to aliasing problems, but also produces a sharp image. Hanna, Mark (x9085) wrote: This makes good sense Art, however I'm curious about pixel density. (apart from the obvious larger pixel = more photons landing in it sensitivity advantage which is often the case with the larger sensor) Can the lenses being used on the cameras in question, satisfactorily resolve the number of lines per mm required for the smaller pixel density of the smaller sensor? I have read about lenses having 40LPmm (crap consumer zoom)or 100LPmm (reasonably good lens), is this figure in relation to the intended projected plane? If so, 40LPmm for a 35mm film plane or FF sensor would be 24mm by 36mm which at 40LPmm, equals 1.3824 MPixels. 100LPmm = 8.64MP. For an APSC sized sensor, 15 by 24mm I think, you're looking at 0.576MP and 3.6MP for 40LPmm and 100LPmm respectively. So in theory, you may be able to crop the FF pic to emulate a 1.3 or 1.6 sized sensor, and despite possibly having less pixel density, the sensor may be capturing the same actual sharpness or resolution, in which case you could simply upsize the resolution to match in PS, and get the same resolution, same sharpness, but lower noise photograph, due to larger pixels, but pixels that may actually match the resolution of the lenses better than the smaller sensor. I don't know much about lens resolution, however if the average L series lens is around 100 to 120LPmm, I know I'd be wanting the larger sensor if my above assumptions are correct. I have a 5D, and the size and resolution of the images never fail to amaze me, as good as my old Mamiya M6451000S. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich Sent: Wednesday, 11 July 2007 9:47 AM To: Hanna, Mark (x9085) Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography Let's say you have two sensors, each 12 MP. One is FF the other smaller using 1.3X factor. To get the same multiplication factor with the FF, you have crop about 1/4th of the area out, which means you have reduced the resolution by that much. If the FF is about 1/4th higher res to the smaller sensor, then you are correct, no disadvantage. Considering cost and weight of a FF, may not be as great an advantage as it first appears. Art gary wrote: I simply see no advantage to have a smaller sensor. I don't see how I spent pixels. This makes no sense to me. Nikon has an option on some models where you can toss the outer area of the sensor to save space on the memory card. R. Jackson wrote: Sure, but you spend pixels of your total sensor resolution to get there. On Jul 10, 2007, at 9:37 AM, gary wrote: A cropped sensor really doesn't give you more reach. If you think about it, you could just crop a full size image to get more reach. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Notice This email, and any attachments transmitted with it, is confidential and may contain sensitive or privileged information. If you are not the named recipient you may not read, use, copy, disclose, distribute or otherwise act in reliance of the message or any of the information it contains. If you have received the message in error, please inform the sender via email and destroy the message. Opinions expressed in this communication are those of the sender and do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Crown Castle Australia Pty Ltd. No responsibility is taken for any loss or damage sustained from the use of the information in this email and Crown Castle Australia Pty Ltd makes no warranty that this material is unaffected by computer virus, corruption or other defects. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
I wish they were a bit more scientific in their analysis. For instance, Canon makes more than one 300mm lens. Bob Geoghegan wrote: Hmmm, 12 MP but in different sizes. Consider the Nikon D2X(s) vs Canon 1D mkII or 5D. http://www.naturfotograf.com/D2X_rev00.html http://www.naturfotograf.com/D2X_rev06.html#top_page Results may vary, of course. Bob G Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
One last point here. Film will probably never be as flat as a piece of silicon. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
But a pixel is around 6um on a side, so grain is finer than a pixel. R. Jackson wrote: On Jul 4, 2007, at 11:28 PM, Arthur Entlich wrote: snip Look here: http://www.imx.nl/photosite/technical/Filmbasics/filmbasics.html See the 400x magnification? If that level of capture detail existed in your film scans and you had no issues with aliasing I think it would be pretty significant. The files will be enormous, though, and you'd have to really enjoy the artifacts of the medium to even bother. I'd bother, though. I imagine it will be another decade before that kind of technology is accessible to people for fine arts use in any practical sense, but I'll be at the head of the line. -Rob Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
I thought the lens design has elements to compensate for field flattening. In any event, the predictably flat silicon focal plane has to be better than the lottery of film. Tony Sleep wrote: On 06/07/2007 Arthur Entlich wrote: Does anyone know if there is a chart which shows depth of focus at the film plan versus aperture of lens used? No, but the plane of focus itself is not flat, it's usually a section of a sphere that is only part corrected to flatness. This becomes an issue when focussing wideangles at wide apertures, especially. If you use a focus aid or AF at the image centre then re-frame to put it near the edge, it'll be OOF. I used to do enough of this that with a 24mm f2 that I bought a plain matte screen without any focus aids so I could focus as framed. It can be quite a handy property since edge of frame close objects can be in focus at the same time as more distant central ones, without having to stop down to provide as much DoF as expected. If you photograph a flat wall with such a w/a, you can see the problem; the edge-of-wall to lens distance can be substantially greater (nearer infinity) than the centre ditto. This would mean the lens needs to be racked in further for the edge image to be sharp, more extended for the centre. Constant subject-lens distance d implies a part-spherical plane of focus of radius equal to d. The back focus of the lens b is also a part-spherical surface of radius b. For longer lenses with narrower angle of view none of this is really noticeable, as the smaller section of a sphere is near enough flat and DoF hides the effect. We need spherical film or sensors - but the radius would be different for each focal length dammit. -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
I don't have a DSLR, but wouldn't a raw camera image need to be, shall we say, dematrixed. The output of a film scanner is RGB at every pixel location, where the DSLR is one color per pixel, with additional post processing required to get RGB at every location. R. Jackson wrote: On Jul 4, 2007, at 11:35 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Most of the DSLRs mentioned may be less than 25 megapixels but they shoot in Camera RAW formats, which can be adjusted in a number of ways if needed before converting the Camera Raw format to an interpreted value standard image format, which cannot be done when scanning film. Actually, RAW output from VueScan is pretty similar a camera RAW output in its ability to be manipulated in post. -Rob Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
I suspect the generations effect is why it takes less resolution in a DSLR to be equivalent to film. That is, the EOS-1Ds Mark II, at 16Mpixels, is considered to be as good as scanned film, which generally exceeds 30MPixels. I saw a website that compared drum to a dedicated film scanner, with the claim that you really don't get the full stated resolution with a film scanner. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To put it simply, when you capture an image with a DSLR camera, you are in effect directly scanning the image transmitted by your lens into digital electronic form; you do not need to go through a second process in order to convert the analog capture on film into an electronic digital capture. The first generation capture equivalent for film is when you transmit the image data from the lens to the film; scanning it into digital form later is a second generation capture. We are not talking about sensor size which has more to do with multiplier effects on the effective lens sizes of the lenses being used and possibly on the resolutions that are possible. Hope this helps. This whole thing about judging photographic quality by the equipment does seem to me like a snooty conservatism on the part of Getty Of course there can be some of this in play as well; but it probably has more to do with Getty knowing the demands of their clients and wanting to play it safe by insisting on equipment and processes that they are familiar with and know will produce that quality rather than taking the risk of having to spend time sorting through submissions which come from sources, equipment, and processes that they are not familiar with and cannot be sure are up to their needs. Sometimes better equipment does produce better and more reliable results on a more consistent basis. Would you readily accept a prescription from an unknown drugstore that bore an unfamiliar brand name on it and was prescribed by a doctor who had a degree from a medical school that you never heard of and whose license to practice medicine was of uncertain origins? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Berry Ives Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 12:02 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography Laurie, What does it mean that: The D200 and D2X produce a 35mm equivalent first generation capture The film sensor of the D200 is substantially smaller than a 35mm film image, so I guess that is not what it means. So what is the basis for saying this? This whole thing about judging photographic quality by the equipment does seem to me like a snooty conservatism on the part of Getty. They can do what they like, of course. Just a question, Berry On 7/1/07 7:00 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The D200 and D2X produce a 35mm equivalent first generation capture --- - Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
I was the one that brought up the topic, based on a speech I attended by Jim Sugar. He uses http://marketplace.digitalrailroad.net/Default.aspx rather than Getty, but believes you should meet the Getty standards. As I also mentioned, the EOS-1ds Mark II seems to be THE standard. Jim also has a website http://web.mac.com/jimsugar1/iWeb/Jim%20Sugar/Jim%20Sugar%20Photography.html Cantoo in Berkeley http://www.cantoo.com/ rents out time on Imacon scanners. That is, you use them on-premises. [OK, not handy for everyone on this list, but the idea is such places do exist.] I suppose someday I should spend an hour and generate a scan using one of their high end machines versus my lowly Minolta 5400 II. I don't recall if I posted this, but looking at my notes from the speech, the one thing I thought was useful advice is to shoot vertical. You need to do this for magazine cover shots, which is good money. I'll admit it is not a natural thing to do, though my EOS-1HV does have controls for use in both directions. Jim said he was making nearly as much money from stock as assignments. Since he probably doesn't work cheap, this is impressive. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One of the earlier posts in this thread mentioned that Getty Images , a major stock photography company, posted their camera/scanner requirements on their website. I went searching on their website today, and located their standards. Here are their requirements for cameras: If you are shooting on a 35mm digital camera it must an approved camera from this list: Nikon D200, Nikon D2X, Canon EOS 30D, Canon EOS 5D, Canon EOS 1D MK 11, Canon EOS 1Ds, Canon EOS 1Ds MK 11. All medium format backs (e.g. backs by Phase One and Leaf etc) produce sufficiently high quality images to be accepted by us. Here are their requirements for film scanners: We only accept digital files from scanned film if they have been drum scanned by a professional scanning house or scanned using the approved desk top film scanners from the following list: Imacon 949, 848, 646, 343; Fuji Lanovia Quattro and Finescan; Creo Eversmart Supreme 11, Eversmart Select 11, IQsmart 1,2,3 I've never heard of any of these scanners and am somewhat shocked that not even the high end Nikon scanners are included in the list. The first one on the list, the Imacon 949 is a $5000 device, which probably explains why I've ever heard of it. I didn't check the prices on the other scanners, but if they are equally ruinous, then it looks like the cheapest way to take stock quality photos is to get a digital camera like Nikon's D200 (about $1300), rather than use film plus scanning. Is it really true, as Getty's requirements would seem to suggest, that the Nikon D200 and D2X can produce better images than film plus a high end Nikon scanner like the SuperCoolscan 5000? What are the prices for having photos professionally drum scanned? ___ Dr. Paul Patton Life Sciences Building Rm 538A work: (419)-372-3858 home: (419)-352-5523 Biology Department Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, Ohio 43403 The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. -Albert Einstein ___ Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Initialization problem with Polaroid SprintScan4000
I'm not familiar with that scanner. However, it may pay to install the latest ASPI for your OS (assuming you have a PC). Check both adaptec and Microsoft websites, and use the latest software. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have been having a problem with my Polaroid SprintScan 4000 scanner. snip Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Strange light spill-over in Nikon LS-8000 scan
Could you crop a piece of the image where you see the problem? That is, a full resolution scan, but a small piece where the problem occurs. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does anyone have any thoughts or suggestions on the following issue: I just did a scan of a Fuji Astia 6x7 slide It is about 2/3'rds dark, shadow and silhouette, one thirds correctly exposed, bright image through a window (of sorts). The scan was with the Nikon LS-8000 with the glass film holder, set to 8x multi-pass scan, with a single CCD (so it took forever, but should be good quality). What I got was a scan where some of the dark areas next to the bright areas got light spill-over making them lighter. It almost looks like a faint light leak into the dark areas -- a slight fogging of the some of the dark areas. It is especially evident above the window, with the seated figures, and on the middle of the right edge of the image. It is definitely NOT in the slide. You can see it here (depending on your monitor, some of it might be hard to see): boncratious.info/CherryBlossomDining.jpg Does anyone know what causing this and how I can avoid it or stop it from happening? Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Strange light spill-over in Nikon LS-8000scan
Let's call this effect a halo. The halo appears more evident on the right of a dark object, than the left. Now this could be my monitor. However, there is one spot that is odd. Look at the man at the left in the image. There is a sliver of light right next to his neck. There doesn't seem to be a halo there. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sure. Here is a 100% crop from the upper left hand corner of the window. I adjusted the levels to make the problem more apparent boncratious.info/CherryBlossomDining-crop.jpg And for adventurous few who want to see more, here is a much larger crop preserved in the tiff format and unadjusted, just in case you want to look further. It's about a sixth of the size of the original, but since the original was a 563 MB file, this one is about 101 MB. boncratious.info/CherryBlossomDining-lrg-crop.tif gary wrote: Could you crop a piece of the image where you see the problem? That is, a full resolution scan, but a small piece where the problem occurs. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does anyone have any thoughts or suggestions on the following issue: I just did a scan of a Fuji Astia 6x7 slide It is about 2/3'rds dark, shadow and silhouette, one thirds correctly exposed, bright image through a window (of sorts). The scan was with the Nikon LS-8000 with the glass film holder, set to 8x multi-pass scan, with a single CCD (so it took forever, but should be good quality). What I got was a scan where some of the dark areas next to the bright areas got light spill-over making them lighter. It almost looks like a faint light leak into the dark areas -- a slight fogging of the some of the dark areas. It is especially evident above the window, with the seated figures, and on the middle of the right edge of the image. It is definitely NOT in the slide. You can see it here (depending on your monitor, some of it might be hard to see): boncratious.info/CherryBlossomDining.jpg Does anyone know what causing this and how I can avoid it or stop it from happening? Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: the minolta 5400II
I have this scanner. You can't put the carrier in until the software is started. It has some sort of initialization routine. Laurie wrote: I do not know for sure; but I assume that the OS is already recognizing the hardware and that the software/driver is installed, loaded and open. Thus, the fact that the feeder is not being feed into the scanner even though the motorized drive that feeds the feeder into the scanner during the scan and send the feeder back out when the scan is completed can be heard and appears to be operating, although not grabbing the slide feeder, is an indication of something else like the feeder not being inserted into the slot correctly or in a straight and level manner. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of gary Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 12:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: the minolta 5400II The trick is you need to fire up the software first before inserting the carrier. This is true both with Vuescan and the official driver. This is unique to any scanner I've used. Laurie Solomon wrote: Are you sure you are putting the slide feeder in all the way and that it is level and square with the slot. The feeder will not correctly engage with the tractor drive if it is inserted in an askew fashion or is not level in both he long and wide dimensions or is not inserted far enough in so that the drive can grab the feeder. Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 10:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: the minolta 5400II hotbuyselectronics.com still has the Konica-Minolta Dimage 5400 II scanner available for the quite reasonable price of $489.98. I just recieved one that I ordered from them yesterday. Unfortunately, I have not yet been able to scan anything, because I can't get the motorized drive to accept the slide feeder. When I insert the slide feeder, the motor makes a grinding noise, and something bumps up against the feeder, but the scanner does not accept the feeder. Has anybody experienced this problem? I'm going to call Konica-Minolta/Sony technical support again tommorrow, and if it is defective, I may have to return it to the dealer for replacement--if they still have more. ___ Dr. Paul Patton Life Sciences Building Rm 538A work: (419)-372-3858 home: (419)-352-5523 Biology Department Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, Ohio 43403 The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. -Albert Einstein ___ -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.3/374 - Release Date: 6/23/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.3/374 - Release Date: 6/23/2006 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: vuescan and the minolta 5400II
Slide film can be tricky to scan. I'm not sure I'd like to let it fly on auto, which I assume is the only reason for having a slide feeder. I haven't been following Nikon scanners, but in the past, they have had depth of field issues, i.e. difficulty with curved film. You have a different goal than I do, i.e. you want to scan old images, which I assume are mounted slides. Since I got the 5400 II, I don't mount my slides. This is a modest saving (though it adds up). Slide mounting is where the lab can scratch the film. I had enough scratches that I mounted my own slides in Gepe. [The Microtek film strip holder was a piece of crap. You really needed to mount slides with that scanner.] Now a Gepe mount does a good job flattening the film. However, most labs use Pakon mounts. You may find you scanned quality to be less than optimal if you combine a Pakon mount and the Nikon. I noticed a lack of sharpness at the corners with my Microtek 4000t at times due to curvature of the film in Pakon mounts. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My only regret is I don't see this now obsolete scanner being blown out for pennies on the dollar. I like it enough that I'd get a spare since repairs may be hard to come by. This is where I got mine a few months ago: http://www.hotbuyselectronics.com/item_detail.php?item_id=110129 Gary- hotbuyselectronics.com is still advertising the Dimage 5400 II as available, and I ordered one last sunday. At $489.00 the price is very reasonable for a scanner of this quality. However, it remains to be seen whether this company can actually come through with the scanner. When I called them they said they were back ordered and that the scanner was out of stock. They expected more within about 10 days. Perhaps they are simply unaware that the scanner is no longer in production. I'm hoping that somehow, they have a supplier with a few of them still left, but I'm not overly optimistic. I guess I'll find out by the end of next week. Does anybody know of any other sources where this scanner might still be available? On another issue, I found an offer on Amazon.com where the Coolscan V ED is bundled with the SF-210 slide feeder for about $900. The SF-210 is officially intended by Nikon to work with the Super Coolscan 5000, a much more expensive scanner. I called Amazon about this, and although the sales representative knew nothing about scanners, she said that they get their information from their suppliers, or from the manufacturer. According to Nikon's website, the standard single slide feeder for both these scanners is the same device, the MA-21. This makes me wonder whether the SF-210 would work with the Coolscan V ED, and that Amazon's suppliers know something that Nikon isn't telling us. Does anybody on the list know anything about the compatibility, or otherwise, of the SF-210 50 slide feeder and the Nikon Coolscan V ED? I recieved a reply from Carlisle about this while the list was down, and here it is: I'm not sure if it they will work together. For sure the SF-210 feeder probably fits, since it plugs into the hole left when you pull out the MA-21 single-slide holder. The thing you need to worry about is whether the V can talk to the slide feeder. When I look at my SF-210, there is a 24-pin plug that hooks up to the scanner-- there isn't any such electronic connection for the MA-21 feeder. I sort of suspect that the V doesn't have this connection, but of course I am only speculating. But I sure am intrigued by the idea. Anybody know the real answer? Carlisle -Paul P. ___ Dr. Paul Patton Life Sciences Building Rm 538A work: (419)-372-3858 home: (419)-352-5523 Biology Department Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, Ohio 43403 The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. -Albert Einstein ___ Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Vuescan and 64bit Windows - Ed's reply
This particular Gigabyte has 8 sata ports with two FRAIDs. I figure once the horsepower of the machine is not enough, it will be at the very least a good server. I lost count of the USB portsl but I believe it has 12. Also two 1394B (yes, the 800mbps) firewire. Also two lans. Dual bios, so you can save the old one before you upgrade. This is an amazing amount of hardware for something shy of $150. With the Silent PC case, a heat piped graphics card, an on-demand fan in the PS, the PC is less annoying than many notebook computers in terms of noise. I'm using Asus DVD roms, and am only somewhat happy with them. The drawers are kind of flimsy. The drives are fast, but not as quite as my Sony DVD burner. I guess I want a Mac (no fan) with PC performance. James L. Sims wrote: My previous machine had a Gigabyte MB and I really liked it. So far, I'm not impressed. It's also my first experience with Nvidia chipset drivers - I was ready for anything else, given my experience with VIA. I may go back to Gigabyte, sooner than later. Jim gary wrote: I guess I should say Asus mobos anymore. It used to be my mobo of choice. http://www.iometer.org/ To some degree you can measure disk i/o with the program, though it really flogs your whole system. gary wrote: FWIW, I don't build PCs using Asus mobos. I find I get a better bang for you buck with Gigabyte. I've built two systems using the GA-k8n Ultra-9 (x64 and Suse 10.0) Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Vuescan and 64bit Windows - Ed's reply
FWIW, I don't build PCs using Asus mobos. I find I get a better bang for you buck with Gigabyte. I've built two systems using the GA-k8n Ultra-9 (x64 and Suse 10.0) If you are using onboard raid (often known as FRAID for fake raid), it won't be blazing. I use the onboard raid myself as I really can't justify the price of a 3ware card. You can tell a fake raid b the necessity of OS specific drivers. These drivers are doing the busy work (XOR) of a real raid card. I'm using RAID 10 with 4 drives, which might have some speed advantage, but I doubt it with FRAID. Perhaps the dual core helps. I haven't benchmarked it. James L. Sims wrote: Charles, After I went through a miserable seven hours fighting a blue screen error on startup after the first attempt at installing new chipset drivers, I finally managed to get the new drivers installed and the reader seems to be functioning properly. I have responded to your questions below. Incidentally, here is a description of the machine I'm running. OS: Windows XP with SP 2 (32-bit) Power Supply: Thermaltake (480 watt) Mainboard: ASUS Model A8N-E; with Socket 939 (AMD-64 Dual core CPU) RAM: 2gig 800mh FSB IDE devices: 2 Raid devices: 2 (Raid0, mirrored- SLOW!) Used USB resources: card reader (2 USB2 ports); printer (USB2 port); scanner (USB port); trackball (USB port); scanner (1394 port); UPS monitor (serial port). Thanks for all the help. Updating the drivers was good advice although I am not impressed with ASUS web support. After all the great reviews about ASUS, that was a letdown. Thanks again - just one of the may aspects I like about this group. Jim Charles Knox wrote: The 7-in-1 card reader may be marginal in its power requirement, and some motherboards are less robust than others in this department (some can comfortably handle up to 800mA, some struggle with 500, some even vary from one port to another) -- I suppose you've tried it in other ports? The reader has its own power connection from the power supply - I have a very good power supply. I only have four internal USB terminals on the MB and I have tried those four - that's in addition to the six ports on the back of the machine which I haven't tried.. How does it perform with a flash drive? Any virtual drive will work when plugged into one of the spare USB ports on the back of the machine. When the computer can't see the reader, nothing will wake it up. For best results with USB you do need to be running XP SP1 or SP2 -- there's a patch on M$ updates somewhere for the original verion of XP. I have SP2 installed on the machine. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Vuescan and 64bit Windows - Ed's reply
I guess I should say Asus mobos anymore. It used to be my mobo of choice. http://www.iometer.org/ To some degree you can measure disk i/o with the program, though it really flogs your whole system. gary wrote: FWIW, I don't build PCs using Asus mobos. I find I get a better bang for you buck with Gigabyte. I've built two systems using the GA-k8n Ultra-9 (x64 and Suse 10.0) Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Vuescan and 64bit Windows - Ed's reply
http://www.sysinternals.com/utilities/bluescreen.html I have no first had knowledge of this program, but I can vouch for sysinternals.com in general. See if it capture your BSOD. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for this. I downloaded the expanded scanners.inf file and used it to load the Nikon LS-8000. I read scanners.inf file in Notepad and saw the LS-8000 listed so it looked promising. The scanner, again, loads fine. But even with the Nikon LS-8000 loaded using this new file, Vuescan still crashes the system immediately upon starting. I wish the blue screen of death didn't pass so quickly so I could read what the issue was. Loading the KM 5400 II and my Epson 3200 with this file seem to work fine and Vuescan operates normally with them. I also downloaded the very latest version of Vuescan (8.3.50, I was using 8.3.47 before) just to make sure that wasn't an issue. Oh well, I guess I just have to wait for Nikon to get their act together and issue a x64 driver. According to a tech support e-mail from them yesterday, they are now considering it (which seems to be progress). They wrote, Compatibility and support for Nikon products with Windows XP 64-bit is under review by the Nikon Quality department. At this time we do not have any time table on when we will or if we will issue drivers and software support for this new system. But, of course, that could still mean it might take them a couple more years. ;-) Tony Sleep wrote: On 02/06/2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, the technique works for the KM Scan Elite 5400 II, but doesn't work for the Nikon LS-8000. Maybe Ed could find a fix for that. Ed's reply:- On 03/06/2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here's a more complete scanners.inf file. I thought the extra entries wouldn't be needed - the GenScanner entry is supposed to pick up most SCSI and Firewire scanners. Regards, Ed Hamrick You can download this file from http://tonysleep.co.uk/scanners.inf (embarassed note : the above is a development website I wouldn't be using at all except for the ongoing screw-up over the halftone.co.uk domain. Almost nothing is visible, it is all locked down. So if you go looking around be prepared to be puzzled and disappointed. The only photo on the site which is presently visible to guests is on the home page). Tony Sleep Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: large scanning project
Just a note. Vuescan doesn't work well with the Dimage 5400 II. IIRC, it looked banded. Fortunately, the KM software is excellent. Now perhaps if the internal commands were put in the public domain, Ed H. could do a good job with it. Tony Sleep wrote: On 31/05/2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All the scanners he supports in 32 bit must use their manufacturer-supplied device drivers in order to work with or without Vuescan. That's what I question. Ed implements some scanner functionality and quite often extends it, in ways which are not implemented in the OE software. EG multiscanning in scanners that were not designed for it; elimination of banding by intriducing wait delays to calm mech resonance that Nikon never fixed; using the IR channel for his own noise elimination routines instead of DICE or routines that are proprietary and unavailable to him; supporting scanners under Linux for which OE drivers were never available. It would be surprising if OE drivers were prescient enough to support all this creativity. It's my belief VS is 'driverless', it provides its own interface to the scanner firmware. Though as Laurie says, if there's not an OS-compatible ASPI layer between VS and the data bus, it ain't gonna work, and if the VS code is unable to communicate with the 64bit OS, it ain't gonna work. Regards Tony Sleep Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: large scanning project
http://konicaminolta.com/releases/2006/0119_03_01.html It is not clear if they have abandoned the scanner business from reading this press release. I see a real problem here in that Windows will be going to Vista in a year and there will be no drivers for Minolta scanners. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Any reason you left the Dimage 5400 II off the list? I just did a bit of investigation of this scanner and discovered that although it has some impressive features, Konica-Minolta is going out of business. It is only still available in a few places, but is available at a very good price. If I do get it, I will probably need to act quickly, rather than do careful research. Any opinions on this scanner? Should I snap one up quickly, before they are gone, or let it pass? Like the Nikon Coolscan V ED, the reviews seem to be very mixed with some people loving it, and others having lots of problems. The reviews on Nikon's 50 slide feeder seem fairly uniformly negative. Another question. Is anyone familiar with the film scanning service http://www.digmypics.com/ or with other such scanning services? Do they do a good job of producing professional quality scans at 4000+ dpi of 35 mm slides? How safe is it to mail away my very best irreplaceble slides to a service like this for scanning? ___ Dr. Paul Patton Life Sciences Building Rm 538A work: (419)-372-3858 home: (419)-352-5523 Biology Department Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, Ohio 43403 The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. -Albert Einstein ___ Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: large scanning project
To be completely clear, the Minolta drivers do not work on X64. I need to boot do XP. Thus I am stuck with a dual boot system. Microsoft has supplied a shockingly complete set of 64 bit drivers for old hardware, right on the X64 media (I guess it's a DVD, but I don't recall). However, this takes cooperation (I assume) from the manufacturer. I called Sony today and they are looking into X64 drivers. There are going to get back to me. ;-) Laurie wrote: A couple of points need to be made. First, there are differences between native drivers for 64 bit operating systems and 32 bit operating systems. If you are running X64, then it is probably downgrading or reverting to 32 bit in order to use the 32 bit scanner drivers (I do not think that Minolta or any other scanner manufacturer has 64 bit drivers for their scanners) in order to use the existing drivers. Second, Vista when it is released will come in both 32 bit and 64 bit versions. The X64 will only be a forerunner to the 64 bit version of Vista and not to the 32 bit version. Thirdly, it is entirely possible that Vista in all its versions may switch from the current types of drivers for cameras and scanners used by the older peripherals to a new type of driver, which was first introduced in Windows XP and exists in XP side by side with the traditional type of driver but will not coexist with the traditional type of driver in Vista. Microsoft may not supply new drivers for old peripherals so as to make them compatible but may rely on the hardware manufacturers to supply the new drivers for their peripherals which will be compatible with those used in Vista. In this case, users will be out of luck if the manufacturer does not furnish the new type of driver for their hardware or if the manufacturer goes out of business. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of gary Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 11:28 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: large scanning project I run X64 (a precursor to Vista) and have to boot to XP to use my 5400 II. Dual booting is never a good solution. Math processing really moves on an AMD64 when in 64 bit mode, so the software will really benefit from going to Vista. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It may not be clear, but they are certainly no longer making or selling scanners. The Dimage Scan Elite 5400 II are now exceptionally rare and if you can get one for a very good price, buy it. Also I am looking for one, so if you could tell me where you found some, I would much appreciate it. The Scan Elite 5400 II is really a very good scanner for 35mm film. It provides better and faster results than my Nikon 8000. I didn't think about the driver issue with Vista. But then again, everyone isn't going to be rushing out to get Vista as soon as it appears. XP will still be a viable OS for several years to come, giving the scanner a long enough life span. -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: large scanning project
If a driver were just taking bytes from a piece of hardware and feeding them to a hard drive, I'd agree with you. However, the Dimage 5400 has ICE, GEM, ROC, and SHO, all of which are CPU intensive. I believe I gave the gent who started this thread some incorrect info regarding all these processing features. Only SHO forces you to do 8 bit per color scans. The other features work in 16 bits, though to be honest, I only use ICE. One solution for KM (now Sony) would be to put what they could of the drivers in public domain. Then either the new drivers would come from open source hackers, or some enterprising programmers would start a company to support 64 bit drivers. This can mean a lot of money for a one or two person software company. Tony Sleep wrote: On 30/05/2006 gary wrote: I run X64 (a precursor to Vista) and have to boot to XP to use my 5400 II. Dual booting is never a good solution. Math processing really moves on an AMD64 when in 64 bit mode, so the software will really benefit from going to Vista. I'd be surprised if it made any significant difference to scanning. It is always the device itself that is the bottleneck - even SCSI2 was faster than the 2-3MB/sec most scanners could achieve, and not much speed gain accompanied the switch to Firewire, just convenience and user friendliness. Tony Sleep Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: large scanning project
Pec pads and fluid are pretty much the standard for film cleaning. This is some random (as in I never used that mail order company) link: http://www.slidescribe.com/pcld.shtml You shouldn't have to mail order the Pec pads and fluid. It is generally a bit cheaper to get a Pec kit that has both the fluid and the pads. To really clean your slides, you need the ability to remove them from the mount. [You just can't clean the edges otherwise.] If your mounts are not resealable, you will need some Gepe slide mounts. You can just compress the mount by hand if you don't want to buy the mounter. You will need a source of clean compressed air. I use a scuba tank with a nozzle attachment. If you don't want to buy a tank, you can rent one, but the nozzle, hose and such probably can't be rented. I bought my whole set up with a used tank for $80. [You can tank hits off the tank if the Pec-12 fluid gets to you!] If you are an ebayer, that would be the last place to get a tank as they are mighty heavy. Just go to a dive shop and probably someone local will have a tank for sale. Any reason you left the Dimage 5400 II off the list? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I recently decided to try submitting some of my photography to a stock photography company. snip Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: ADMIN: domain transfer issues
One idea might be to host in the US, which I assume is cheaper. I use www.lizardhill.com I will say about ever 4 months they get a DOS attack. I don't know how typical that is. Paul Roberts wrote: On 5/25/06, Tony Sleep [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: www.halftone.co.uk - the home of Tony Sleep Photography and the filmscanners mailing list - is presently unavailable due to Pipex failing to release the domain for transfer as instructed 14 May 2006. Sorry, but rather than have it vanish without trace at some time that suits them, I thought it best to pull the site and tell everyone what was going on. I've had this happen twice, follow the instruction at http://www.nic.uk/registrants/maintain/changeagent/ pay the £15 and it should be sorted fairly quickly. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: ADMIN: domain transfer issues
I think the lack of activity in the list is due to the lack of new hardware coming on the scene. The writing is on the wall I guess. [If that phrase doesn't work in the UK, maybe the fix is in will do.] The trouble is it takes a really good digital camera to equal a film camera plus scanner. Tony Sleep wrote: As posted today at www.halftone.co.uk - please see below. snip Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: financing an Imacon (was RE: slide scanner-Plustek OpticFilm 7200i)
BTW, list is Gary. I got off my arse and hopefully changed the username field. My gut feeling is scanning or even film developing is the low profit part of the business since many companies can provide scanning services. [Custom Labs in Berkeley being the only one to bite the dust as far as I know.] Lightjet (Fuji) or the other version that uses Kodak paper seem to be the high profit item. Besides Cantoo, Lightwaves in Berkeley provides such prints, as does one in Emeryville that slips my memory. [I never used the Emeryville shop, but a friend has made some very large digital prints there.] Since you are in the North Bay, maybe this scene will look familiar: http://www.lazygranch.com/images/marin/barney.jpg It's a part of Mt. Tam that faces the ocean, though we were a bit beneath grade. Whenever you try to do those shaft of light shots, they almost never look as dramatic as real life. In this particular case, the fog was slipping over the hill, so the fog made the shaft of light actually show up. [Fuji Astia 100F pushed one stop, Minolta 5400 II scanner.] Sam McCandless wrote: Sam, 1) where do you live? In Northern California, Brad, north of San Francisco - in the North Bay - whereas Lists and CanToo.com are in the East Bay. I'm guessing there's a quite small film-scanner market much more local to me. And how much would you charge per 6X7 transparency or neg? I don't know - nor, and what's worse, even how to decide. But for a little speculation, see my response to Lists and also the CanToo web site Lists referenced. It sounds like an interesting idea. Brad I'm glad you think so too. I think I'll explore it at least a little. -- Sam Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] focus/sharpness on Nikon Super Coolscan 4000ED
Hi all, I just joined the list so I apologize if my question has been posted in the past (are there archives anyplace for this list?) I've had a Nikon Super Coolscan 4000ED now for a few months. I love the scanner but find that my scans (35mm slides) aren't that sharp or in focus. The documentation isn't as thorough, or in my case maybe idiot proof :-), as I'd like it to be. I think my old cheapo HP photo scanner gave me sharper, more in focus scans. I'm sure the Nikon can do better than what I'm getting but I'm not sure what I need to do/change. I've set the focus point the the area I'd especially want in focus but it still comes out a bit fuzzy. Sure, I can sharpen it up in Photoshop but that's not how I'd like to do it. I'd prefer to have the scanner give me a nice sharp scan. Anyone have any ideas? Is this a known problem with the Nikon or am I just doing something really dumb? Oh, one other thing that has happened to me... I've scanned a few color negatives in and the scanned output is VERY grainy. I doubt it's the negative since the printed photo (from the photo lab) was very nice. Again, I've only done 2-3 negatives, but they all came out this way. Yet another mystery for me to solve about this scanner. Thanks for any help! -Gary Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
