[filmscanners] Re: Kodak 100TMX on Nikon 8000
You cannot use dICE on silver halide based films. The silver is opaque to IR light so it ends up trying to subtract your whole image, which it assumes is dirt or surface damage. Color films, of negative or positive types, chromagenic black and white, have almost all silver left in them after they are processed so that problem is resolved. Some Kodachrome dyes are slightly opaque to IR light also, and that can also could problems with certain vintages of Kodachrome slides when scanning. Art Youheng wrote: Hi List: I'm facing problems scanning the Kodak 100TMX black/white neg on the Nikon 8000, preview is somewhat o k but not good, while the scan lost every detail, just bl ack and white blotches, like severly solarized or that I can't describe clearly in English. Please someone how to cope with this? thank you! Thanks, JM Shen Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Unavailable shortly
I just wanted to inform the members of this list that I will be unable to respond to email between about March 31st and April 12th, as I will be down in Seattle/Redmond chewing the fat with the MS teams. I will attempt to get to any email in the order it was received upon my return. Art Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Understanding dpi
Laurie Solomon wrote: I think that he was asking more about if this causes an increase in the image size and not the file size; but I could be wrong. Yes I was talking about image size. All I really wanted to know was if a 4000ppi scanner was capable of producing a better outputted image quality than one at only half the ppi? All other things being equal, including image size. I have a little $300 Scan Dual III right now I don't need large images (just 400 x 600 pixels), but I would like a sharper image. Would a 4000-5000ppi ($1000-$2000) scanner be able to do that with the same 400 x 600 pixel output image size? Specs never seem to talk about image quality, only ppi. Thanks, Bill Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Unavailable shortly
Hi Art, I just wanted to inform the members of this list that I will be unable to respond to email between about March 31st and April 12th, as I will be down in Seattle/Redmond chewing the fat with the MS teams. Out of curiosity, why? Have you tried www.mail2web.com? I find it invaluable for getting email while traveling. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Understanding dpi
Image quality is a multi-faceted subjective thing that cannot be measured in quantitative terms which is why it is never refered to on spec sheets. Obviously a optical 4000spi scanner will be sharper and have higher resoution than a scanner that is capable of only optical resolutions of less than 4000 spi, all other things being kept equal and constant; but resolution and sharpness is only one aspect of quality with respect to the scanner's capture ability. However, sharpness and resolution per se are not really all that important if one is outputting to the web or to prints that are small wallet and snapshot size since the size and means of electronic presentation often will mask any lack of sharpness and resolution and provide the appearance of being sharper and having more resolution than it objectively has. Part of the reason 35mm film scanners have increased in their optical resolution capabilities is because the size of the 35mm film frame is typically enlarged in size significantly as compared to medium and large format films as well as most reflective printed materials that are scanned on flatbeds. By being able to scan at optical resolutions of 4000 spi, the capture can be resized to about 8 times its original size and still maintain an acceptible optical resolution without requiring any interpolation. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Laurie Solomon wrote: I think that he was asking more about if this causes an increase in the image size and not the file size; but I could be wrong. Yes I was talking about image size. All I really wanted to know was if a 4000ppi scanner was capable of producing a better outputted image quality than one at only half the ppi? All other things being equal, including image size. I have a little $300 Scan Dual III right now I don't need large images (just 400 x 600 pixels), but I would like a sharper image. Would a 4000-5000ppi ($1000-$2000) scanner be able to do that with the same 400 x 600 pixel output image size? Specs never seem to talk about image quality, only ppi. Thanks, Bill -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Unavailable shortly
Make sure that they pay for the fat ylu chew; they can afford it. Not a feature that I think you should ask them to creat but a suggestion that you should suggest that they might want to monitor and participate in this list if they do not already so as to facilitate communicatins between users and themselves. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just wanted to inform the members of this list that I will be unable to respond to email between about March 31st and April 12th, as I will be down in Seattle/Redmond chewing the fat with the MS teams. I will attempt to get to any email in the order it was received upon my return. Art -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Unavailable shortly
Hi Austin, Thanks for that link. It seems like a great service (I only hope they are being honest about the mechanics they are claiming, and that indeed they don't record passwords, etc). My ISP charges roaming fees on dial up outside of the calling area, so this is a nice feature. I still will not be able to respond to most requests for information and advice during much of that time, because I simply won't have the time, but mail2web appears to be a nice way to keep in touch. I wonder what would happen if my wife is logging on at home at the same time I am trying to get my mail via mail2web? Regarding your question, MS can afford much nicer fat than I can (and yes, Laurie, they are paying for the fat, and the place to chew it ;-)) and if I wasn't allergic to sulfites, I'm sure they'd be covering the liquid entertainment too. Some of that time will be spent in Vancouver visiting friends before and after the Redmond junket ;-) But MS needs an occasional write-off, I suppose, and I can't think of a nicer guy to use it on ;-) Art Austin Franklin wrote: Hi Art, I just wanted to inform the members of this list that I will be unable to respond to email between about March 31st and April 12th, as I will be down in Seattle/Redmond chewing the fat with the MS teams. Out of curiosity, why? Have you tried www.mail2web.com? I find it invaluable for getting email while traveling. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Unavailable shortly
Hi Art, Thanks for that link. It seems like a great service (I only hope they are being honest about the mechanics they are claiming, and that indeed they don't record passwords, etc). I have not had any problem what so ever with them (mail2web.com). I do suggest using the secure login, and if you can't get in using their standard login, the advanced has always worked for me. It's fantastic at airports, at clients etc., anywhere you can get a browser, you can get your email. Also, a number of people I know use it to de-spam their inbox, prior to downloading their email to their email program. I wonder what would happen if my wife is logging on at home at the same time I am trying to get my mail via mail2web? If you have a different email account, not a thing. Regarding your question, MS can afford much nicer fat than I can... Actually, I was curious what the gist of the visit to MS was (as in, what technical area). Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
