Re: filmscanners: analog gain
Jules wrote: i think you misunderstood. vuescan does not show the RGB analog gain in the preview *scan*. what guy was saying is that he has to check the full scan to see the effects of analog gain. i concur with guy, it would be great to see the effect in the preview scan. Unless Ed has disabled the feature, Vuescan certainly used to, but you *must* run the preview scan again (ie. scan from the scanner not memory) before you'll see the difference. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
I have no strong feelings about this, but I don't see how it could hurt, and it might help. It doesn't sound hard to do. Hersch At 04:28 PM 03/14/2001 +1000, you wrote: At 09:17 AM 14/03/01 +1000, Rob wrote: why would you want to seperate these? to allow the option of grain removal WITHOUT clean? Yes, or to allow varying intensities of clean without grain removal. They should be two separate drop down options, and with the interface changes in 7.0 there's plenty of space. I for one would like to be able to see the effect of grain removal on its own without having to combine it with cleaning. Then also, a frame might need only mild cleaning but heavy grain removal. At the moment, I don't have that as an option. Rob Are Rob and I alone in wanting this change from Ed? If anyone else on the list also thinks this is a good idea, please say so now! Mark T.
Re: filmscanners: Re: GeForce2 MX Graphics Card
I wrote: A friend here also suggested looking at a Riva TNT2-M64 32MB, but I believe they are "last year's" technology? ;-) Rob replied: I think that is the chipset on my video card. Whether it's too old depends on whether you want to play next year's computer games. Which I don't. I'm certain that different cards will give a different quality of display at a given resolution - especially at really high resolutions. I don't have the means to do a side-by-side comparison, but I'm sure that it's true. Sadly, none of the reviews I've ever seen in magazines make much point of the clarity of display when comparing different cards connected to the same monitor. The only comment I have seen regarding that was on Tom's Hardware site, when the Matrox G450 was referred to as having "razor sharp signal quality", but no comparisons were made. Colin Maddock
Re: filmscanners: analog gain
You might compromise by setting the full scan for a lower-resolution image for sample purposes, and then when satisfied set the scan for the full resolution setting. Maris - Original Message - From: "Mark T." [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 12:22 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: analog gain | At 09:08 AM 14/03/01 +1000, Rob wrote: | If you change the brightness, the best thing to do is rerun the preview | scan. It's not horribly slow. Otherwise you're not seeing the result of | the longer integration time. I imagine Ed could code Vuescan to estimate | the change produced by the brightness control, but people would probably | complain that it wasn't accurate. | | That's what my old scanner, an Olympus ES10, did, and that feature sucked. | The difference between its estimation and the real result was so great that | it made what would have been a really useful ability close to worthless. | | | PS Do I get an award for worst grammar for that sentence? ;) | | Mark T. | | == | Mark Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.adelaide.net.au/~markthom
RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
From: "Mark T." [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 16:28:11 +1000 At 09:17 AM 14/03/01 +1000, Rob wrote: why would you want to seperate these? to allow the option of grain removal WITHOUT clean? Yes, or to allow varying intensities of clean without grain removal. They should be two separate drop down options, and with the interface changes in 7.0 there's plenty of space. I for one would like to be able to see the effect of grain removal on its own without having to combine it with cleaning. Then also, a frame might need only mild cleaning but heavy grain removal. At the moment, I don't have that as an option. Rob Are Rob and I alone in wanting this change from Ed? If anyone else on the list also thinks this is a good idea, please say so now! Mark T. Yes, I would like it very much. In fact, I was the first one to ask for it the same day that Ed released the first Vuescan with it a month or more ago. _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: filmscanners: Re: GeForce2 MX Graphics Card
There is a review of 3 dual-monitor video cards at http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1423 I have just barely started reading it so I don't know how valuable it is. Maris - Original Message - From: "Colin Maddock" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 2:09 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Re: GeForce2 MX Graphics Card | I wrote: | A friend here also suggested looking at a Riva TNT2-M64 32MB, | but I believe they are "last year's" technology? ;-) | | Rob replied: | I think that is the chipset on my video card. Whether it's too old depends | on whether you want to play next year's computer games. | | Which I don't. | | I'm certain that different cards will give a different | quality of display at a given resolution - especially at really high resolutions. | I don't have the means to do a side-by-side comparison, but I'm sure that | it's true. Sadly, none of the reviews I've ever seen in magazines make | much point of the clarity of display when comparing different cards connected | to the same monitor. | | The only comment I have seen regarding that was on Tom's Hardware site, when the Matrox G450 was referred to as having "razor sharp signal quality", but no comparisons were made. | | Colin Maddock | | | |
RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
Yes, or to allow varying intensities of clean without grain removal. They should be two separate drop down options, and with the interface changes in 7.0 there's plenty of space. I for one would like to be able to see the effect of grain removal on its own without having to combine it with cleaning. Then also, a frame might need only mild cleaning but heavy grain removal. At the moment, I don't have that as an option. ... Are Rob and I alone in wanting this change from Ed? No. If anyone else on the list also thinks this is a good idea, please say so now! I'm not a fan of sending "I agree" or "me to" to lists, but I'll write it here if it will help. -- Bob Shomler http://www.shomler.com/gallery.htm
filmscanners: First look at Nikon Super Coolscan 4000
Test Nikon Coolscan 4000 + NikonScan 3.0 beta +Colors= excellent. +Density= excellent +Sharpness= Excellent Software Nikon Scan 3.0 beta. Will be a very good software when its ready, lots of new features . God work Nikon Mikael Risedal Photographer Lund Sweden _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
I had understood that grain removal was a by-product of the ICE-type cleaning and therefore could not be separated. If it can, certainly I agree that should be an independent option. Not sure about VueScan, but ASF's GEM and ROC do not depend on ICE. Two separate sources for this statement: 1) Minolta's medium format scanner has GEM and ROC but not ICE and 2) the patent that appears to be the basis for ROC (#5,673,336). The patent states that an IR channel is not necessary for the removal of color crosstalk but that the process of removing crosstalk improves the IR detection of defects.
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
If I remember correctly, about a week or two ago, someone on the list had a post that also said that ICE or its equivalent needed the IR channel but that GEM ad ROC or their equivalent operated independently and did not need the IR Channel. Gordon Not sure about VueScan, but ASF's GEM and ROC do not depend on ICE. The patent states that an IR channel is not necessary for the removal of color crosstalk but that the process of removing crosstalk improves the IR detection of defects.
filmscanners: Virus ALERT - W32/Magistr
For those that are interested. Dale - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 3:15 PM Subject: NORMAN CUSTOMERS - Norman Customer Alert - W32/Magistr NORMAN CUSTOMER ALERT Date: March 14, 2001 Please be aware that a new mass mailing virus, W32/magistr@mm, alias PE_Magistr.A, W32/Magistr.24876@mm, has been reported to be in the wild. The virus payload is very destructive, as it erases the hard disks(s) and flashes the computer?s BIOS, rendering the computer unable to start. At the moment it seems to be spreading relatively slowly, but it may develop into a major risk within the next couple of days. This virus infects Win32 executables and will mass mail itself over email by direct SMTP. It will pick up email addresses from Microsoft Address book and other files containing email addresses. Because this virus is polymorphic, the subject, body and name of the attachment appear to be randomly created by the virus. It will usually arrive in email as an EXE file with a random filename. Until full detection is in place, we advise strongly NOT to open .exe email attachments with unknown content, even from a known sender. If you execute an infected file, it will infect your system and the virus will start its mass mailing routine to propagate itself. It enumerates all network resources looking for folders with the following names: WIN 98 WIN 95 WINNT WINDOWS If a folder with these names is found, it copies itself to these folders and adds an entry to Win.ini to load itself at the next system startup. The virus contains the following encrypted text: ARF! ARF! I GOT YOU!@ v1rus: Judges Disemboweler. By: The Judges Disemboweler, written in Malmo (Sweden). New signature files for version 4.8 are under development at this time. An update that detects W32/Magistr will soon be published at our website, www.norman.com, under the definition file entitled W32/Magistr. Information and details on other worms, viruses and computer security threats can be found on our web site as well. Thank you for using Norman Virus Control! Why not the best! Norman Data Defense Systems, Inc. 9302 Lee Highway, Suite 950A Fairfax, VA 22031 (888)GO-NORMAN
Re: filmscanners: analog gain
I don't know about the 'analog gain', but I previewed 3 times last night, on the same image, and none of them picked up the 'clean' function. I was getting discouraged, but the final scan came out beautifully clean. It would be nice if the 'clean' functions worked on the preview, so one could best select which version to scan. I suppose it would slow the process of bringing up the preview, but the idea of keeping the quick-and-dirty lo-res preview for 'crop-only' weakens its use too much for my taste. I think a second preview ought to pick up the scanning instructions, so the hi-res scan will have the right options. Ignoring them on the first round would avoid slowing things down, and picking them up on the second would satisfy someone who was not in too much of a hurry to worry about the options. Hersch At 04:59 PM 03/14/2001 +1000, you wrote: Jules wrote: i think you misunderstood. vuescan does not show the RGB analog gain in the preview *scan*. what guy was saying is that he has to check the full scan to see the effects of analog gain. i concur with guy, it would be great to see the effect in the preview scan. Unless Ed has disabled the feature, Vuescan certainly used to, but you *must* run the preview scan again (ie. scan from the scanner not memory) before you'll see the difference. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: Vuescan grain dust removal function (was: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements)
I had understood that grain removal was a by-product of the ICE-type cleaning and therefore could not be separated. ... Not sure about VueScan, but ASF's GEM and ROC do not depend on ICE. Two separate sources for this statement: 1) Minolta's medium format scanner has GEM and ROC but not ICE and 2) the patent that appears to be the basis for ROC (#5,673,336). The patent states that an IR channel is not necessary for the removal of color crosstalk but that the process of removing crosstalk improves the IR detection of defects. From what is written in the help file it would appear that vuescan does not depend on an IR channel. The following is from the vuescan 7.0 help file: -- Clean Use this option to remove dust spots and reduce visible film grain. If the scan has an infrared channel, the Light option will remove dust spots, the Medium option will remove dust spots and reduce film grain, and the Heavy option will remove dust spots and reduce more film grain. If the scan doesn't have an infrared channel, the Light option will reduce film grain, the Medium option will remove more film grain and some smaller dust spots, and the Heavy option will remove more film grain and larger dust spots. -- -- Bob Shomler http://www.shomler.com/gallery.htm
Re: filmscanners: First look at Nikon Super Coolscan 4000
Too subjective by far so exactly what does all that actually mean... Richard Corbett - Original Message - From: "Mikael Risedal" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 4:25 PM Subject: filmscanners: First look at Nikon Super Coolscan 4000 Test Nikon Coolscan 4000 + NikonScan 3.0 beta +Colors= excellent. +Density= excellent +Sharpness= Excellent Software Nikon Scan 3.0 beta. Will be a very good software when its ready, lots of new features . God work Nikon Mikael Risedal Photographer Lund Sweden _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Re: filmscanners: analog gain
You could do this now, though somewhat slower, by decreasing Scan resolution on the Device tab to a minimal number, and leaving the "Viewer" line on the Prefs tab empty so that the image does not open your graphics program but merely shows on the Scan tab of Vuescan. The image will scan at low resolution much like a 2nd prescan but the cleaning and coloring filters will show up. When you're satisfied, change the resolution back and reinsert the "Viewer" line instructions for the real scan. Maris - Original Message - From: Hersch Nitikman To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 2:46 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: analog gain I don't know about the 'analog gain', but I previewed 3 times last night, on the same image, and none of them picked up the 'clean' function. I was getting discouraged, but the final scan came out beautifully clean. It would be nice if the 'clean' functions worked on the preview, so one could best select which version to scan. I suppose it would slow the process of bringing up the preview, but the idea of keeping the quick-and-dirty lo-res preview for 'crop-only' weakens its use too much for my taste. I think a second preview ought to pick up the scanning instructions, so the hi-res scan will have the right options. Ignoring them on the first round would avoid slowing things down, and picking them up on the second would satisfy someone who was not in too much of a hurry to worry about the options. Hersch At 04:59 PM 03/14/2001 +1000, you wrote: Jules wrote: i think you misunderstood. vuescan does not show the RGB analog gain in the preview *scan*. what guy was saying is that he has to check the full scan to see the effects of analog gain. i concur with guy, it would be great to see the effect in the preview scan. Unless Ed has disabled the feature, Vuescan certainly used to, but you *must* run the preview scan again (ie. scan from the scanner not memory) before you'll see the difference. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
"Maris V. Lidaka, Sr." [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I had understood that grain removal was a by-product of the ICE-type cleaning and therefore could not be separated. If it can, certainly I agree that should be an independent option. No, grain removal and dust/scratch removal are different filters in both Nikonscan 3 and Vuescan. At the moment however, Vuescan forces you to combine them at higher "cleaning" settings. I don't know if Nikonscan lets you apply them separately. There's a slight softening of the image caused by ICE or Vuescan's dust/scratch filter, but this isn't a specific grain reduction feature. Rob
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan grain dust removal function (was: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements)
That's what I was thinking of also, as the Help file implies that the dust removal process will "reduce film grain" and "reduce more film grain". I was also referring a previous post by Ed, to wit: "When there's no infrared channel, VueScan 6.6 does a nice job reducing film grain, but the Scrub and Scour settings soften the image a bit when trying to remove dust spots. Regards, Ed Hamrick" If grain removal is in fact a separable feature, I too would like it to be a separately selectable option. Maris - Original Message - From: "Bob Shomler" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 3:47 PM Subject: filmscanners: Vuescan grain dust removal function (was: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements) | I had understood that grain removal was a by-product of the ICE-type | cleaning and therefore could not be separated. ... | | Not sure about VueScan, but ASF's GEM and ROC do not depend on ICE. Two | separate sources for this statement: 1) Minolta's medium format scanner has | GEM and ROC but not ICE and 2) the patent that appears to be the basis for | ROC (#5,673,336). The patent states that an IR channel is not necessary for | the removal of color crosstalk but that the process of removing crosstalk | improves the IR detection of defects. | | From what is written in the help file it would appear that vuescan does not depend on an IR channel. The following is from the vuescan 7.0 help file: | | -- | Clean Use this option to remove dust spots and reduce visible film grain. | | If the scan has an infrared channel, the Light option will remove dust spots, the Medium option will remove dust spots and reduce film grain, and the Heavy option will remove dust spots and reduce more film grain. | | If the scan doesn't have an infrared channel, the Light option will reduce film grain, the Medium option will remove more film grain and some smaller dust spots, and the Heavy option will remove more film grain and larger dust spots. | -- | | -- | Bob Shomler | http://www.shomler.com/gallery.htm
Re: filmscanners: analog gain
Hersch Nitikman wrote: I don't know about the 'analog gain', but I previewed 3 times last night, on the same image, and none of them picked up the 'clean' function. AFAICR Ed mentioned a while back that he stopped showing the results of the filters (including clean, sharpen, restore colours) in the preview to speed up the preview. This is IMO a problem since you can't see the difference between the different filters until you do a full scan. I'd have to try some filters to be sure - I'm only using the "light" setting. Rob
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001 09:08:20 +0100 Henk de Jong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I'm sure we're all using at least 1280X1024... No, don't be too shure about that: I am working at 1024x768 on a 17" monitor ;-) Huh. I'm currently working with Vuescan at 640x480 on a 10" monitor, since my NEC died explosively, shortly after the motorbike alternator, and (this week) the toilet pan self-destructed. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
filmscanners: What appears in Vuescan preview (was: analog gain)
I don't know about the 'analog gain', but I previewed 3 times last night, on the same image, and none of them picked up the 'clean' function. I was getting discouraged, but the final scan came out beautifully clean. It would be nice if the 'clean' functions worked on the preview, ... It used to. The Restore colors, Clean and Sharpen functions were changed in Vuescan 6.6.1 to only change (show result in) the scan, not show in the preview display. There was a good bit of discussion near that time on the utility of the preview. I recall that Ed wrote that its only purpose was for cropping, not to evaluate the effects of color or filter functions on the scan. I think some of this may have been that filter functions performed on a full (or half) res scan would not produce the same result as they would on a low-res preview image. In contemporaneous discussions Ed also wrote that some (if not all) of these functions were 3x3 pixel transforms; so seems reasonable that these might operate differently on low res image vs same image at higher res. One can "preview" with almost full color and filter function now by performing a scan to vuescan scan window only (turn off scan to files). Not clear that it saves much if any time (may be system configuration dependent); if you also scan to file and results are satisfactory then you have the data file whereas if preview only then you have still to perform the real scan. An intermediate scan-view-test function that 1) only scanned to vuescan scan tab window, 2) applied all color adjust and filters, and 3) [possibly?] negated multiple passes (single pass) could get close to a color and clean-grain-sharpen evaluation preview (close in that there has been some discussion about color spaces and how color appears on monitor re device, output file color, and monitor profiles and selected color spaces. There may be some windows vs mac differences too. -- Bob Shomler http://www.shomler.com/gallery.htm
Re: filmscanners: What appears in Vuescan preview (was: analog gain)
Bob writes ... I don't know about the 'analog gain', but I previewed 3 times last night, on the same image, and none of them picked up the 'clean' function. ..., but the final scan came out beautifully clean. It would be nice if the 'clean' functions worked on the preview, ... It used to. The Restore colors, Clean and Sharpen functions were changed in Vuescan 6.6.1 to only change (show result in) the scan, not show in the preview display. There was a good bit of discussion near that time on the utility of the preview. I recall that Ed wrote that its only purpose was for cropping, not to evaluate ... How can you expect the clean function to work correctly and predictably, unless VS scanned at high res for the preview. I don't believe anyone wants this ... the preview scan should be quick and dirty (... so to speak ...*smile*...) Here is what you can do however. Crop the preview as necessary ... and do a "scan device" and write no files ... subsequent "scan memory" commands will show you how effective the "clean" (and other parameters) are affecting the scan. If you are scanning into a color space much different from your monitor, the next thing to do is write a 1/4 res JPEG with ICM embedded and view it in Photoshop (or some other ICM savvy software). If the color is finally perfect ... NOW you can "scan memory" to a full res TIFF with the ICM embedded. shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: Re: GeForce2 MX Graphics Card
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 6:28 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Re: GeForce2 MX Graphics Card There is a review of 3 dual-monitor video cards at http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1423 I have just barely started reading it so I don't know how valuable it is. Maris Here is a false statement in that review: "The final limitation deals with the operating system Windows 2000 itself and not the dual display technology. Windows 2000 has a limitation that prevents two separate monitors running off the same card from running at different resolutions." My friend has dual monitors with different resolutions going under Windows 2000 on the Matrox 450. Also there is this statement: "The one problem that did arise from Matrox's lack of inclusion of a resolution selection utility was that we could not set individual displays to different resolutions. This could prove to be a problem in setups where the screen sizes are different. This problem plauges all other dual display solutions while in Windows 2000." That also is false. There is indeed an interface for setting a separate display resolution. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684
filmscanners: Vuescan 7.0: Crop box not appearing
Ed: With VS 7.0 (final, Mac OS), the crop box sometimes is not there. Is this a bug? Joel Nisson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: filmscanners: Independent Resolution on Dual Monitor Win2K
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Larry Berman Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 7:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: Independent Resolution on Dual Monitor Win2K Hi Frank, They've only got independent resolution working with the latest Matrox drivers. I posted about it the other day. I'm currently running my 21 inch monitor at 1152x864 and an old 13 inch monitor (until my new 19 inch arrives) at 800x600 on my new Win2K system. Here's a link to the page with the latest Matrox drivers: http://www.matrox.com/mga/support/drivers/latest/home.cfm The drivers were released about a week after the review was written. That's why the conclusion is incorrect. Larry I also made a couple posts about the new drivers. You probably missed them. In any case, the review was wrong in claiming that the problem was with W2K. The problem was with the drivers. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684
RE: filmscanners: Re: GeForce2 MX Graphics Card
My friend has dual monitors with different resolutions going under Windows 2000 on the Matrox 450. Frank have you actually checked out your friends system to see if your friend actually is running the two monitors under different resolutions as opposed to thinking he is. I think you ought to before making the strong statements that you have about the statements in the review being "false." Since what the review claims as been experienced by other Win2k as well as Win98 users with respect to not only Matrox cards but other cards as well, it just might be the case that the statements are true and your friend is mistaken in what they thought they actually were able to do with their dual monitors - even with he Matrox 450 card. That the manufacturer's specs may say that a card can do such and such does not necessarily mean that it will do it with all systems, OS. or platforms. Indeed, the Matrox web site, as a footnote to its specifications the 450 dualhead display capabilities, says, "* The level of DualHead capability is determined by the operating system." I cannot say that the review statements are mistaken or that you are since I do not own a Matrox 450 dual head card or use win2K in any flavor. I use Matrox 400 dualhead card under Win 98. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Frank Paris Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 8:36 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Re: GeForce2 MX Graphics Card -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 6:28 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Re: GeForce2 MX Graphics Card There is a review of 3 dual-monitor video cards at http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1423 I have just barely started reading it so I don't know how valuable it is. Maris Here is a false statement in that review: "The final limitation deals with the operating system Windows 2000 itself and not the dual display technology. Windows 2000 has a limitation that prevents two separate monitors running off the same card from running at different resolutions." My friend has dual monitors with different resolutions going under Windows 2000 on the Matrox 450. Also there is this statement: "The one problem that did arise from Matrox's lack of inclusion of a resolution selection utility was that we could not set individual displays to different resolutions. This could prove to be a problem in setups where the screen sizes are different. This problem plauges all other dual display solutions while in Windows 2000." That also is false. There is indeed an interface for setting a separate display resolution. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684
Re: filmscanners: Yo Tokyo
On Mon, 12 Mar 2001 14:56:03 -0500 Harlee Little ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: This is the second set of very nice Tony Sleep photographs that I have noticed in the Volvomagazine. What part did your desktop scanning and subsequent photoshop work play in the worklflow of the stories on Icleand and Tokyo. :-) Absolutely none for the Tokyo BW's - I printed them all on bromide, using one of those quaint enlarger things. I haven't seen what they published yet. The Iceand set was shot on colour neg (Fuji Superia 100 and 400) and I provided scans done on a Polaroid 4000 using Vuescan. There's a big 'however', however. The Art Ed also had the negs for a while, and I wouldn't put it past him to have had expensive hand prints done and then sent them to a repro house, because he is nervous of photographer-supplied scans. I have only seen the feature briefly and they certainly looked like my scans, but I don't know for sure. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: ADMIN: List Insanity
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001 15:26:47 -0500 Richard N. Moyer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Tony - the consensus of some other list managers is that it is the Naked Wife virus, which has taken a variety of servers down to their knees, and hobbled others. Bringing them back up has resulted in doubling, or more. I really don't know, just what I hear. PC only. TVM, but this list is running on Majordomo on a Unix-based server nowadays as a bought-in service. However it is true that Mrs Halftone is not best pleased with this list at times ;-) Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
RE: filmscanners: Re: GeForce2 MX Graphics Card
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Laurie Solomon Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 8:44 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Re: GeForce2 MX Graphics Card My friend has dual monitors with different resolutions going under Windows 2000 on the Matrox 450. Frank have you actually checked out your friends system to see if your friend actually is running the two monitors under different resolutions as opposed to thinking he is. I think you ought to before making the strong statements that you have about the statements in the review being "false." Since what the review claims as been experienced by other Win2k as well as Win98 users with respect to not only Matrox cards but other cards as well, it just might be the case that the statements are true and your friend is mistaken in what they thought they actually were able to do with their dual monitors - even with he Matrox 450 card. That the manufacturer's specs may say that a card can do such and such does not necessarily mean that it will do it with all systems, OS. or platforms. Indeed, the Matrox web site, as a footnote to its specifications the 450 dualhead display capabilities, says, "* The level of DualHead capability is determined by the operating system." This guy has been a top flight software engineer for 25 years and a PC geek since 1984. I trust him implicitly to know what he's talking about. I mean, this is a no-brainer kind of thing. The other false statement in the review is that the Matrox interface doesn't provide a place for specifying the resolution of the second monitor independent of the primary. Even the version of the software that had the bugs in it has this. I know that for a fact because I have those drivers on my system. But why should you think I know what I'm talking about anymore than my friend and co-worker? You're whistlin' Dixie. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684
