Re: filmscanners: Canon Flatbed D2400UF
Eddie Cairns wrote: The 33 Mhz PCI bus also is 32-bits wide, so that's about 900-megaBITS in raw bandwidth (PCI can't really go quite this fast, but let's not go there just now). Of course, some other master might want to use the PCI bus too. :-) Mike K. P.S. - There also is a 66-Mhz PCI bus, and some PCI busses are 64-bits wide. And some are "both". :-) The speed of the PCI bus is at best 33Meg so unless the firewire socket is integrated on the motherboard there is an other possible bottleneck! Firewire is 400Mbit per sec (50MB) max , USB is 12Mbit max per sec (1.5MB).
filmscanners: Genuine Fractals
To report on my problem with Genuine Fractals: 1. Thanks to all for your responses. 2. Independently, I found an Altamira support phone line in the Nikon readme file, called, spoke to a very friendly woman that gave me the tip that I was improperly trying to save a 16 bit per channel file and that 16 bits per channel flies will not function with GF. 3. I tried GF with an 8 bit per channel file and it worked fine. 4. The Coolscan IV comes with a full version of Genuine Fractals 2.0. 5. My digital education continues - I can put away the dunce hat and rejoin the first grade class. Thanks, Doug Landrum, Digital First Grader
Re: filmscanners: Grain Aliasing at 2700pppi
What about the same thing - except using smart blur? I have had some good success with smart blur (which of course tries to preserve the edges). I generally have to use the low end of the settings, but it can be quite surprisingly nifty on some images if you take care with settings. Julian At 10:48 06/04/01, you wrote: I have been changing to LAB and splitting the channels, then applying either a Gaussian blur or Dust and Scratches, depending on the size of the grain, in the A and B channels only. Most of the sharpness remains in the L channel when you recombine. See Dan Margulis's chapter from Professional Photoshop at http://www.ledet.com/margulis/LABCorrection.pdf where he suggests this Maris - Original Message - From: "Lynn Allen" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 6:15 PM Subject: filmscanners: Grain Aliasing at 2700pppi | Grain aliasing and noise has been a regular topic on this list. It should | be--Mark, Rob, I and others have been talking at it hard enough. Without any | spectacular results, I could add. :-\ | | It's a pity that TIFFs can't be sent reasonably on the Net, because I just | ran up against one that makes the "Tiger" I wrote about into a "pussycat." | This new TIFF, done in Vuescan with 6 passes because Miraphoto couldn't | handle it, has grain aliasing in every square milimeter! True, it was | under-exposed in existing artificial light, hand-held at probably 1/15th or | 1/30th tops, with a Pentax 1.8 lens. So what? | | "There probably isn't enough 'picture there' to make a picture, there," you | might say. You've heard it before, said it before, and so have I, more than | once. But the thing is, there *is* quite a bit of picture there, and the | Scanwit "sees" it. Getting it *out of there* and making it presentable is | the difficult part. | | Most people I know would say, "Give it up, man." Well fine, but I don't | think my daughter will be graduating from highschool any time again soon. | It's been 22 years since her last go. :-) | | Every discussion we've had on this list about G-A begs the question "How to | deal with it?" We know (or do we?) what causes grain aliasing and/or noise, | what films to use in future, what scanners to buy in future, et cetera. But | how does one get those hundreds of blue-green pixels out of the dark areas | and the red-brown pixels out of the flesh-tones today, this afternoon? | | That's my question, and I'm stickin' to it. :-) | | Best regards--LRA | | PS--BTW, have you noticed that using a soft brush and Cloning smoothes out | those offending pixels? Not a lot of help unless one wants to "repaint" the | whole picture, but it might be a start. Or not. | | | --- | FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com | Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com | | | Julian Robinson in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
Re: filmscanners: Nikonscan 2.5.1
Edwin wrote: New version of Nikonscan, 2.5.1 http://www.nikon-euro.com/nikoneuro2/download/Download_107c.htm But 2.51 has been around for quite a while. :-7 Rob
Re: filmscanners: Genuine Fractals
At 18:52 05-04-01 -0700, you wrote: When I tried to use Genuine Fractal, I saved a TIFF file produced by Vuescan to GF's STN file in Photoshop. When I retrieved the file and tried to scale it, I saw a thumbnail of the photo that had a heavy pattern embedded. When I opened the scaled image, the photo had the pattern overlay (I am guessing here) that all but obliterated the image. Does anyone know what I am doing wrong? Is this a license disabling device? GF came with no instructions and no serial number. I did not even see a serial number insertion on the installation. Are you sure this isnt the criss cross pattern produced by the trial version of Vuescan which can be removed by inserting your reg no in the box in HELP/ABOUT Stuart Any reference to documentation would also be helpful. Thanks, Doug Landrum, Digital Dunce.
Re: filmscanners: Burning CD's
I'm just getting started in CD burning. I saw that my options in blank CD are between Rewritable and Write Once Only. Is there any preference between the two for photographic image storage? My inclination is to think that Rewritable would be preferable because of the possible need to adjustments in the image. Thanks in advance for your input. Burt
Re: filmscanners: Insight, Silverfast, VS - was What's MFT
On Fri, 6 Apr 2001 00:35:35 EDT ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: However, now I'm trying to figure out how the undocumented Insight and poorly documented Silverfast software works. No one on the list offered to help me figure it out following my last post. Insight should have a help file, and certainly did, though I don't know if that has gone AWOL with later versions supplied on CD. Silverfast is pretty hard, and I wouldn't try and engage with that unless and until you know your way round scanning. Even then, it's far from intuitive as it goes way beyond basic scanning functions. However the real problem with most scanner s/w is that you get no education about which adjustments to use for which faults, or even how to identify them correctly. I have some sympathy with this : you wouldn't expect a car handbook to tell you how the clutch works and when to use it. It's no help right now, but I am working on addressing this as part of website Mk2. My credibility WRT that must be 0 by now, as it has taken so long. But the end of the major diversion - evolution of an equitable subscription scheme*** quite unlike anything else on the net - which has delayed it, is now in sight. Maybe I need to buy Vuscan. (LOL, as they say!) You don't *need* to, and there's a good case for getting to grips with 8 bit scanning using Insight first as its controls are more intuitive. To get the best out of VS often requires a different approach, scanning to 16bit and carrying out some corrections within PS. Ultimately it is worth it, especially with negs, but it may temporarily increase vertigo for people who are clinging on to the steep and rocky learning curve by their fingernails. Take small steps, breathe deeply, rest often, don't look down :) OT *** I will post a separate msg about this soon, as we need beta testers. /OT Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: ColorSteps?
On 05 Apr 2001 11:01:44 EDT Richard Starr ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I don't know if color steps is the right term but it seems to be a display problem. In several high resolution scans, I've seen some odd areas of color that should be continuous appear to step from one tone to another as though displayed in 256 colors or fewer. Usually called 'contouring' (like a map) or 'posterisation' (like a poster printed without contones). You will be able to chack whether it is the file, or a problem with the display/graphics system, by viewing the histogram. Contouring shows up as missing bit values, leaving the histogram looking like a mangy dog's comb. What file type is this, and what processing has been done (and by what) en route to the screen? And what scanner/software? If at any stage the file has been manipulated as an 8 bit file, posterisation is easily possible. This can include adjustments within the scanner driver, at acquisition time - especially if the s/w performs adjustments after reduction to 8 bits from the scanner's native bit depth. The more severe the adjustments (eg gamma), the more likely this is to occur. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Burning CD's
ReWritable is NOT preferable... CD-R media is cheap enought that you don't need to mess with all the variables of trying to rewrite a CD file... What I and lot of other folks on this list do is to use the best CD-R (not CD-RW) discs we can get ahold of (Kodaks Optima Gold or Gold-Silver are great) to archive our images... what counts is 1. The ability of your disc to be read by multiple users (in other words your clients or lab) 2. Archival and Information quality... If you want to work on a file, you pull it up off your Master Files (the ones that include your original scans, pre-manipulation, as well as the Master manipulated files) CD, do whatever tweaks are necessary, then save it as a separate file... And burn it onto a new CD-R... costs about a buck for a new disc... Mike M. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm just getting started in CD burning. I saw that my options in blank CD are between Rewritable and Write Once Only. Is there any preference between the two for photographic image storage? My inclination is to think that Rewritable would be preferable because of the possible need to adjustments in the image. Thanks in advance for your input. Burt
Re: filmscanners: Canon Flatbed D2400UF
On Thu, 5 Apr 2001 18:24:40 +0100 Steve Greenbank ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: If you consiser a full resolution scan of A4 you get approx 11(inch)*8(inch)*2400*4800*6(16 bit resolution RGB) = roughly 6GB. This will take a minimum of 67.5 minutes on USB and a minimum of 2 minutes on firewire. Except most scanners I have looked at max out at shoving 2-3Mb/sec out to whatever the bus is, because of their internal processing. USB will choke that back a bit, parallel even moreso (~750k/sec). Even SCSI2 is way faster than most scanners ever need, so Firewire is complete overkill in speed terms - but has other things going for it, ease of use etc. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Grain Aliasing at 2700pppi
Thanks, guys. I intend to spend the better part of a day (or two, if I have to) working on those two pictures (Tiger and Graduation). I've been putting this off for too long. :-) Best regards--LRA What about the same thing - except using smart blur? I have had some good success with smart blur (which of course tries to preserve the edges). I generally have to use the low end of the settings, but it can be quite surprisingly nifty on some images if you take care with settings. Julian At 10:48 06/04/01, Maris wrote: I have been changing to LAB and splitting the channels, then applying either a Gaussian blur or Dust and Scratches, depending on the size of the grain, in the A and B channels only. Most of the sharpness remains in the L channel when you recombine. See Dan Margulis's chapter from Professional Photoshop at http://www.ledet.com/margulis/LABCorrection.pdf where he suggests this Maris - Original Message - From: "Lynn Allen" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 6:15 PM Subject: filmscanners: Grain Aliasing at 2700pppi | Grain aliasing and noise has been a regular topic on this list. It should | be--Mark, Rob, I and others have been talking at it hard enough. Without any | spectacular results, I could add. :-\ | | It's a pity that TIFFs can't be sent reasonably on the Net, because I just | ran up against one that makes the "Tiger" I wrote about into a "pussycat." | This new TIFF, done in Vuescan with 6 passes because Miraphoto couldn't | handle it, has grain aliasing in every square milimeter! True, it was | under-exposed in existing artificial light, hand-held at probably 1/15th or | 1/30th tops, with a Pentax 1.8 lens. So what? | | "There probably isn't enough 'picture there' to make a picture, there," you | might say. You've heard it before, said it before, and so have I, more than | once. But the thing is, there *is* quite a bit of picture there, and the | Scanwit "sees" it. Getting it *out of there* and making it presentable is | the difficult part. | | Most people I know would say, "Give it up, man." Well fine, but I don't | think my daughter will be graduating from highschool any time again soon. | It's been 22 years since her last go. :-) | | Every discussion we've had on this list about G-A begs the question "How to | deal with it?" We know (or do we?) what causes grain aliasing and/or noise, | what films to use in future, what scanners to buy in future, et cetera. But | how does one get those hundreds of blue-green pixels out of the dark areas | and the red-brown pixels out of the flesh-tones today, this afternoon? | | That's my question, and I'm stickin' to it. :-) | | Best regards--LRA | | PS--BTW, have you noticed that using a soft brush and Cloning smoothes out | those offending pixels? Not a lot of help unless one wants to "repaint" the | whole picture, but it might be a start. Or not. | | | --- | FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com | Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com | | | Julian Robinson in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
RE: filmscanners: What's MFT
John, Are you sure it wasn't MTF which is modulation transfer function. MTF describes the resolution of an imaging system. It is the response of the system to different spatial frequencies (usually expressed in lines per millimeter) and is typically presented as a plot of some output parameter (e.g., intensity, voltage, etc.) for some element of the system (lens, film, or the whole system) as a function of a square wave input signal. If it was MTF, then my guess is that the adjustment they were referring to was probably to the electronics used to amplify the signal out of the CCD. Hope this helps. BTW, I have a SS4000 too. Fortunately, I bought it from a reputable dealer. The first unit was DOA so they replaced it out of their stock. The unit I have now has provided excellent service. Frank -- From: John Matturri[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 4:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: What's MFT I got my SS4000 back from Polaroid servicing center a couple of days ago. There was a notation that, among other things, an MFT adjustment was made. Any idea of what that is? I have to praise Polaroid for turnaround speed. They got the scanner last thursday, and estimated that they would send it back in 7 to 10 days; it was returned to me, two day delivery, on tuesday. John M,
Re: filmscanners: Grain Aliasing at 2700pppi
"There probably isn't enough 'picture there' to make a picture, there," you might say. You've heard it before, said it before, and so have I, more than once. But the thing is, there *is* quite a bit of picture there, and the Scanwit "sees" it. Getting it *out of there* and making it presentable is the difficult part. ... Every discussion we've had on this list about G-A begs the question "How to deal with it?" We know (or do we?) what causes grain aliasing and/or noise, what films to use in future, what scanners to buy in future, et cetera. But how does one get those hundreds of blue-green pixels out of the dark areas and the red-brown pixels out of the flesh-tones today, this afternoon? I get into this sometimes with theatre photos where a combination of tungsten stage lighting and very high contrast from brightest area to dark background almost guarantee underexposure in some dark areas like background and in shadows on faces, arms and legs. When these are background I select the background areas, sometimes clip off black end using levels then apply median filter. When in skin shadows I use a soft edge blur brush (which I found to be more successful than trying to select these areas and filter). Resamplng down helps when I have more pixels to work with than I'll need for output. -- Bob Shomler http://www.shomler.com/gallery.htm
filmscanners: Burning CD's
Appologies if this arrives twice.Internet providerhas been down - I did try using an alternative account but this appears to have got filtered out by the mailing list server. Re-writables are a very poor choice for anything you want to keep long-term as they have relatively very poor archival properties and in general are just not anywhere as reliable as writables. They are also much more prone to damage. Re-writeables are also a poor choice for anything where you give the disc away as writables are cheaper and someearly computer CD-ROMs and many non-computer CD readers will not read these discs at all. Re-writables are useful for : short term temporay storage (particulary if used with packet writing software [DirectCD,InCD etc]) moving some data from one machine to another where there is no decent network or internet connection possibly a rotatational backup system of critical files (eg use 4 discs in rotation - a different one every week) some sort of test CD (eg one with auto-loading software that you want to test before making the real disc) Steve - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 12:41 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Burning CD's I'm just getting started in CD burning. I saw that my options in blank CD are between Rewritable and Write Once Only. Is there any preference between the two for photographic image storage? My inclination is to think that Rewritable would be preferable because of the possible need to adjustments in the image. Thanks in advance for your input. Burt
filmscanners: Fuji CD Rs
Does anyone use Fujifilm CD Rs (700MB, recording speed up to 16x) for archiving their pix? any comments? Cheers darrin Darrin Zammit LupiPhotojournalistWebsite http://maltamedia.com/dzammitlupi
Re: filmscanners: Fuji CD Rs
I wouldn't use 700Mb disks for archival as they are bit like E240 video tapes - the extra storage is provided by pushing the format to extremes. I would say however I used to use almost exclusively 700MB discs in my 10 stack CD player in my previous car. I experienced no problems over a 2 year period despite extreme temperatures inherrent in this environment. Hardly scientific but temps probably ranged from just under 0C to over 40C. 13+ hours CD personal choice music in the boot is great. Steve - Original Message - From: Darrin Zammit Lupi To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 5:05 PM Subject: filmscanners: Fuji CD Rs Does anyone use Fujifilm CD Rs (700MB, recording speed up to 16x) for archiving their pix? any comments? Cheers darrin Darrin Zammit LupiPhotojournalistWebsite http://maltamedia.com/dzammitlupi
Re: filmscanners: Burning CD's
On Fri, 6 Apr 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm just getting started in CD burning. I saw that my options in blank CD are between Rewritable and Write Once Only. Is there any preference between the two for photographic image storage? My inclination is to think that Rewritable would be preferable because of the possible need to adjustments in the image. I think everyone who starts out in CD burning initially leans toward CD-RW, and then moves to CD-R after some experience with CR-RW. I used to use CD-RW, using Adaptec's feature (I think it's called DirectCD) that lets you write to it as though it were one big floppy. I've stopped doing that for a couple of reasons. First, I've had unsatisfactory results with DirectCD, inclusing lost data, and some system hangs. I'm not willing to blame this on the Adaptec software, though, because my system's a little squirrelly; but in any event, I've abandoned the use of DirectCD. So, the sole advantage of CD-RW over CD-R is that you can reburn the media over and over. But what you have to do is copy the CD-RW to disk, make your changes, erase the CD-RW, and then reburn the CD-RW. It's just as easy to copy a CD-R to disk, make your changes, put in a new CD-R and reburn the CD-R. True, you're using a new balnk media, but: 1) CD-R media is a lot less expensive than CD-RW; 2) I think CD-R is more reliable and has a longer life; 3) CD-R will be readable in more drives than CD-RW; and 4) the prior CD-R is still around as a backup for the one you just pressed, whereas if you reuse a CD-RW, its prior contents are lost and gone forever. From discussions with friends who also have CD-RW access, most have gone through a similar process -- initially using CD-RW, and then eventually moving to just CD-R. -- Terry Carroll | No representations, warranties or characterizations Santa Clara, CA | regarding any actual university, including any named [EMAIL PROTECTED] | "UC Sunnydale" or "University of California at Modell delendus est | Sunnydale" are intended and none should be inferred.
Re: filmscanners: Fuji CD Rs
I use the Fujifilm CD-R 700MB (up to 12x) for archiving and passing out to clients... Have worked great... I am going to switch to Kodak Optima Gold or Gold silver this week... mainly for archival purposes... I also record at 2x (even tho I have a 10x machine) and only put 550 MB on a disc, cuz I read somewhere that is the best way to ensure the disc is properly recorded both for max compatibility with other CD readers as well as quality of data transfer M.Moore Darrin Zammit Lupi wrote: Does anyone use Fujifilm CD Rs (700MB, recording speed up to 16x) for archiving their pix? any comments?Cheersdarrin Darrin Zammit Lupi Photojournalist Website http://maltamedia.com/dzammitlupi
RE: filmscanners: Burning CD's
As Tony mentioned, Kodak represents on its website that the silver+gold Ultima lasts up to 6 times longer than silver-only discs they've been selling. I note that the text for gold ones say "up to 12 times longer than silver-only discs." Unsurprisingly, the silver+gold text does not say "lasts only half as long as the gold discs we are discontinuing." -- Terry Carroll | No representations, warranties or characterizations Santa Clara, CA | regarding any actual university, including any named [EMAIL PROTECTED] | "UC Sunnydale" or "University of California at Modell delendus est | Sunnydale" are intended and none should be inferred.
Re: filmscanners: Grain Aliasing at 2700pppi
Bob wrote: I get into this sometimes with theatre photos where a combination of tungsten stage lighting and very high contrast from brightest area to dark background almost guarantee underexposure in some dark areas like background and in shadows on faces, arms and legs. When these are background I select the background areas, sometimes clip off black end using levels then apply median filter. When in skin shadows I use a soft edge blur brush (which I found to be more successful than trying to select these areas and filter). Resamplng down helps when I have more pixels to work with than I'll need for output. Good thought, Bob, and very valid. Unfortunately, the high-Kelvin theater lights weren't what I had to work with (I've actually been there). In this case, there wasn't much "clip" for black, and the sampling-down wasn't enough. But I *do* know what you're talking about, and thanks for bringing it to my attention. It's another tool in the box. :-) Best regards--LRA --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
Re: filmscanners: Burning CD's
Just wondering if you have heard anything that makes CD-RW less archival than CD-R, if one is using it as an internal media (not for supplying to others). I suspect it might be more stable than CD-R dyes, but haven't read anything definitive. Have you? Art Michael Moore wrote: ReWritable is NOT preferable... CD-R media is cheap enought that you don't need to mess with all the variables of trying to rewrite a CD file... What I and lot of other folks on this list do is to use the best CD-R (not CD-RW) discs we can get ahold of (Kodaks Optima Gold or Gold-Silver are great) to archive our images... what counts is 1. The ability of your disc to be read by multiple users (in other words your clients or lab) 2. Archival and Information quality... If you want to work on a file, you pull it up off your Master Files (the ones that include your original scans, pre-manipulation, as well as the Master manipulated files) CD, do whatever tweaks are necessary, then save it as a separate file... And burn it onto a new CD-R... costs about a buck for a new disc... Mike M.
Re: filmscanners: Burning CD's
There seem to be two camps on this matter. I come from the rewritable camp, simply because there is no way to recycle those darn CD-R disks. You should know that the two methods of storage are very different in their mechanisms. The CD-R disk uses a laser to permanently change a dye layer making it either dark or clear. This dye is light sensitive (obviously, since lasers are a type of light source). There are dozens of different mixes of dye materials, and experimentation is still going on in how to make these more permanent. You will hear that certain dyes and reflective background materials are better than others. Some dyes have faded in as little as 3 months under some conditions. All of the dyes are vulnerable to bright lighting, so you should never store them outside of their cases, or leave them where heat or sunlight falls on them. Some dyes fail from repeated reading by laser. Some dyes are claimed to last up to 100 years. CD-R disks are more likely to be readable by most modern CD-ROM players, and also most audio CD and DVD players. Also, CD-R disks are not speed determined, meaning they can be written to any speed that you CD writer can write at. However, some disks will have errors when they are written too fast for the quality, and nit is best not to exceed the manufacturer's recommendations for those particular disks. Now, CD-RW, or rewritable disks, use a different method to record the data. They use a concept called "phase change". This method uses the laser to heat a layer of metalized material which can be either made into an opaque non-refective crystal, or a transparent non-crystaline form. These are less vulnerable to light, but might be more so to heat. CD-RW disks are rated for their speed. You cannot write them faster than the rating the manufacture gives them, although they can be written more slowly. There are disks which are rated 1x, 2x, 4x, 6X, 8x and 10X. The 4X can be written at 2X and 1X. All the rewritable disks which are rated 6X or more cannot be written below 4X, as they use a special formatting and materials which do not work properly if recorded slower than 4X. The phase change process is repeatable many times, although the suggestion of 1000 times, is based upon not all points on the disk being re-written each time. It is probably safe to write 100 times, however. The original phase change disks, which have laser etched markers on the disk were called PD and came in a cartridge. They originally cost about $100 each, but they were rewritable up to .5 million times. Like all writable materials, brand name CD-RWs should be used for best reliability. As I see it, the main considerations in terms of which media to use, are: Speed: Usually, CD-Rs can be written to more quickly (up to 16X-20X) versus CD-RW which currently tops out at 10X-12X Cost: CD-RW disks cost more initially, but quickly pay for themselves if you rewrite them Permanence: Jury is still out is one is better than the other. PD disks, which have been around for 10 years or more claim at least a 30 year shelf life. Utility: Both CD-R and CD-RW can be formatted to be used with "Direct CD" software, which allows them to be written to like a hard drive, little by little. Obviously, the CD-R disks can only be filled once, and then that's it. The CD-RWs can be erased and reused. However, Direct CD cannot be read by many CD-ROM drives, and the formatting takes a long time per disk. The formatting is complex and is probably more likely to fail, and there are stories of people having disks become unreadable after one particular write session. I would not recommend it for archiving. With both CD-R and CD-RW you can write multi-session, but besides losing some of the space due to the formatting necessary, you also take a higher risk of failure or non-readability in the future. Under normal formatting, CD-RW disks cannot be written to and erased in segments; to erase, you have to wipe the full disk clean. There are two methods of erasing, one takes longer and is more thorough. CD-RW are less likely to be universally readable. If you need this (for printing, clients, etc,) CD-RWs are probably not a good idea. However,if you are working internally, and your drives read them, it is not an issue. Conclusion (mine at least): When I have finalized a project, I sometimes write to CD-R, and sometimes to CD-RW. If it is for someone else, I write to CD-R, because it is more compatible and cheaper, since they probably won't be returning the disk. Anything in transition I write to CD-RW. I almost always write a full disk at a time, using my hard drive to store materials until I get around 650 megs of info together. However, my graphics are large and it doesn't take long to fill up a 650 meg disk. Art [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm just getting started in CD burning. I saw that my options in blank CD are between Rewritable and Write Once Only. Is there any preference
Re: filmscanners: Burning CD's
Hi Terry, I will certainly agree that the Direct CD formatting is problematic, however, it appears to be regardless of if you use CD-R or CD-RW media, so that's not a good way to "test" CD-RW media. I'm going to wait for someone to point to me where CD-RW media has been shown to be suspect in terms of longevity or errors. It doesn't cost much more than CD-R, and that certainly is saved soon after it is recorded to more than about 3-5 times. I could get into a long discussion about the '3 Rs' being that we are heading into Earthday in a few weeks, but I'll be nice and won't soap box (yet). I do agree that the workflow of CD-RW requires the disks to be rewritten as a unit, but depending on your system, you can re-write to another CD-RW and just not include the older files that you've altered and add the new ones off the hard drive, and then erase the original disk once the new copy is made. Art Terry Carroll wrote: I think everyone who starts out in CD burning initially leans toward CD-RW, and then moves to CD-R after some experience with CR-RW. I used to use CD-RW, using Adaptec's feature (I think it's called DirectCD) that lets you write to it as though it were one big floppy. I've stopped doing that for a couple of reasons. First, I've had unsatisfactory results with DirectCD, inclusing lost data, and some system hangs. I'm not willing to blame this on the Adaptec software, though, because my system's a little squirrelly; but in any event, I've abandoned the use of DirectCD. So, the sole advantage of CD-RW over CD-R is that you can reburn the media over and over. But what you have to do is copy the CD-RW to disk, make your changes, erase the CD-RW, and then reburn the CD-RW. It's just as easy to copy a CD-R to disk, make your changes, put in a new CD-R and reburn the CD-R. True, you're using a new balnk media, but: 1) CD-R media is a lot less expensive than CD-RW; 2) I think CD-R is more reliable and has a longer life; 3) CD-R will be readable in more drives than CD-RW; and 4) the prior CD-R is still around as a backup for the one you just pressed, whereas if you reuse a CD-RW, its prior contents are lost and gone forever. From discussions with friends who also have CD-RW access, most have gone through a similar process -- initially using CD-RW, and then eventually moving to just CD-R.
filmscanners: Review of the Nikon CoolScan 4000
Review of the new Nikon CoolScan 4000 at the Imaging Resource Newsletter: http://www.imaging-resource.com/IRNEWS/ *** Larry Berman http://BermanGraphics.com http://IRDreams.com http://ImageCompress.com ***
Re: filmscanners: Burning CD's
Funny about that! LOL! The gold disks do have some other problems, according to the Media Testing people. Art Terry Carroll wrote: As Tony mentioned, Kodak represents on its website that the silver+gold Ultima lasts up to 6 times longer than silver-only discs they've been selling. I note that the text for gold ones say "up to 12 times longer than silver-only discs." Unsurprisingly, the silver+gold text does not say "lasts only half as long as the gold discs we are discontinuing."
Re: filmscanners: Burning CD's
Hi Arthur http://www.tdk-europe.com/products/uk/datastr/recordablecd/cdrwmoreinfo.html "operational lifetime of more than 1,000 overwrite or 1 million read cycles, with an expected archival lifespan of well over 30 years" http://www.tdk-europe.com/products/uk/datastr/recordablecd/cdrmoreinfo.html "Based on accelerated ageing tests, the lifetime of TDK's CD-R REFLEX has been computed to be well over 100 years. " I am sure have seen in various places that RW is more delicate and has shorter expected lifespan. If you want to catch up some CD meda information try: http://www.cdmediaworld.com Of course if the 30 years is accurate you need not worry as no doubt at some time in the next 10-20 years you will be able to transfer several hundred CD's onto the latest mass archival storage media. Steve - Original Message - From: "Arthur Entlich" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2001 2:46 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Burning CD's Hi Steve, I'll ask the same question I just did of Michael. Do you have any test reports or other sources I could go to that suggest CD-RW is not stable for archival storage, versus the stability of CD-R. I have yet to see this, and was wondering what studies are showing. I am aware that CD-RW media is not as universally readable on CD-ROM units, but I haven't seen the info on loss of info on these disks. Since they come from the family of the PD, which claim a good shelf life, I'm rather surprised that they are not considered trustworthy. Art Steve Greenbank wrote: Appologies if this arrives twice. Internet provider has been down - I did try using an alternative account but this appears to have got filtered out by the mailing list server. Re-writables are a very poor choice for anything you want to keep long-term as they have relatively very poor archival properties and in general are just not anywhere as reliable as writables. They are also much more prone to damage. Re-writeables are also a poor choice for anything where you give the disc away as writables are cheaper and some early computer CD-ROMs and many non-computer CD readers will not read these discs at all. Re-writables are useful for : short term temporay storage (particulary if used with packet writing software [DirectCD,InCD etc]) moving some data from one machine to another where there is no decent network or internet connection possibly a rotatational backup system of critical files (eg use 4 discs in rotation - a different one every week) some sort of test CD (eg one with auto-loading software that you want to test before making the real disc) Steve - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 12:41 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Burning CD's I'm just getting started in CD burning. I saw that my options in blank CD are between Rewritable and Write Once Only. Is there any preference between the two for photographic image storage? My inclination is to think that Rewritable would be preferable because of the possible need to adjustments in the image. Thanks in advance for your input. Burt
Re: filmscanners: SS4000 problems - again
Same thing happened to me. You could try compressed air into the left side of the scanner. There was a report that that worked, but it did for me only very temporarily. Maybe I was too timid. I had no problem with Polaroid. They asked only for month of purchase and serial number, gave me a return number and that was it; not sure if it would have been as simple if I hadn't registered. They got it back to me extremely quickly: they received it on thursday and it was delivered back to me the next tuesday (NY to Mass and back). Their estimate initially was 7 to 10 days so such quick service may not be invariable. John M.
Re: filmscanners: SS4000 problems - again
That's good news. I'm pretty sure I registered it. I'll call them on Monday... Tom Same thing happened to me. You could try compressed air into the left side of the scanner. There was a report that that worked, but it did for me only very temporarily. Maybe I was too timid. I had no problem with Polaroid. They asked only for month of purchase and serial number, gave me a return number and that was it; not sure if it would have been as simple if I hadn't registered. They got it back to me extremely quickly: they received it on thursday and it was delivered back to me the next tuesday (NY to Mass and back). Their estimate initially was 7 to 10 days so such quick service may not be invariable. John M.
Re: filmscanners: Burning CD's
"Arthur Entlich" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just wondering if you have heard anything that makes CD-RW less archival than CD-R, if one is using it as an internal media (not for supplying to others). I suspect it might be more stable than CD-R dyes, but haven't read anything definitive. Have you? I haven't heard anything definitive either, but logically CDRW disks would be *less* stable than CDR as the dyes are designed to be reset. Rob
Re: filmscanners: Review of the Nikon CoolScan 4000
"Larry Berman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Review of the new Nikon CoolScan 4000 at the Imaging Resource Newsletter: http://www.imaging-resource.com/IRNEWS/ It reads more like a promotion than a review. The fact that they've never looked at the Polaroid 4000 or the Artix 4000 amazes me. To claim that Firewire is "essential" to produce a 67MB file in 100 seconds is silly. SCSI II can manage that in a few seconds, and I suspect USB would come close to getting under the 100 second mark. Hopefully someone will produce a more balanced review - hopefully comparing the Nikon 4000 with another 4000dpi scanner. Rob PS I have no doubt the Nikon 4000 is a nice scanner. :)
