Re: filmscanners: Nikonscan and dual processors
Thanks Joe, I was just about to upgrade again. I'm running dual xeon 450's with Win2k and NikonScan 3.1. It crashes and closes NikonScan 3.1 routinely during full roll prescans and batch scans, forcing me to reopen and continue scanning where it left off. I usually get about 15-20 frames scanned and saved to disk before it crashes. A bit of a nuisance, but it's the best solution I've found for batch scanning. Bob Kehl - Original Message - From: Enoch's Vision, Inc. (Cary Enoch R...) [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 4:46 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikonscan and dual processors At 20:18 05-10-01 -0700, you wrote: Just got this back from Nikon: It is known by Nikon that there are problems with Dual Processor PC's, both Windows and Mac. Although the Product Brochures do not specifically say the 2CPU machines will not work, neither do they say it does. That's a bunch of weasel-worded crap. No application states anything like that. Dual Processors are good but only for applications that are designed for them like Photoshop. Ours is not and probably will not be for the foreseeable future. Best performance with our products is achieved (currently) on single processor P4 machines running lots of RDRAM Excuse me? Nikon is implying that NS won't work properly on AMD systems or P2's. Because only high-end P3 and to-date all P4 machines have RDRAM. Perhaps Nikon development doesn't even know what that means. so the forums guesses were right, dual processors and nikonscan dont work very well. (I get one scan in four or so) funny thing is I'm not asking for NS to *utilise* dual processors, just not to crash with them. In Win2K it's simple to set an application to use just one processor by using Task Manager. Right-click on the application name in the process list and select Processor Affinity. However, I've done this with NS 3.1 and it makes no difference whatsoever. All that the message from Nikon tells me is that they're clueless or that they vaguely suspect that their application's multithreading is less than optimal. They really need to hire professional development people instead of those high school interns they're using. Perhaps they should make an offer to Ed Hamrick that he can't refuse;-) Everyone knows that NS crashes just as readily on a single CPU as it does on an SMP system. Cary Enoch Reinstein aka Enoch's Vision, Inc., Peach County, Georgia http://www.enochsvision.com/, http://www.bahaivision.com/ -- 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
Re: filmscanners: [OT] Best digital projector?
Tom, First of all, realize that you need to let your audience seating area determine the screen size, not vice-versa. Screens are relatively inexpensive, so don't make the mistake of designing your display system around your existing screen. Your screen height should be a minimum of 1/8th the distance to the farthest viewer. I prefer 1/5th. Lighting, or control of ambient light is the next thing to consider. If your viewing room can be darkened projector light output (lumens) is not as critical. If your room cannot be darkened then high light output (high lumens) is required for good contrast. There are formulas for determining contrast with any given screen size and reflectance in any given ambient light level, but today's projectors are so bright, it is not usually a concern unless you use a very large screen or are viewing in a brightly lit room. As far as projectors go, many inexpensive ($3-5,000) projectors will give you all the contrast and brightness you probably need. Look for one with a high native resolution. That is, the actual internal display device should have a high resolution (1024x768 or higher) not just have the capability to accept a high resolution signal and then downconvert it to a lower native resolution (800x600 or 640x480). If you display your images from a computer, use a good graphics board and let it do the converting. That is, set your graphics board resolution for the native resolution of the projector. This way you can use a relatively inexpensive projector that may not have very good scaling capabilities and get very good results. If you plan to display video from a tape or a slide-to-video converter, you must look for a different quality of projector, one that has good video scaling capabilities. I hope this helps. If you have further questions, please contact me off list, as I am afraid I am already boring most members. Bob Kehl Principal Kvernstoen, Kehl Associates 439 213th St. Star Prairie, WI 54026 Ph: 715-294-3157 Fx: 715-294-3167 [EMAIL PROTECTED] website: www.kvernkehl.com - Original Message - From: Tom A. Trottier [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 1:14 AM Subject: filmscanners: [OT] Best digital projector? [OT] Best digital projector? Hi, I realise it's a bit off-topic, but does anyone out there have some experience showing photos on a digital projector? My photo club is buying one. What should we look for, and why? How is it best set up (we have a 9-foot (3m) square screen.)? Any interesting tips or experiences ? Thanks, Tom Abacurial-Information-Management-Consultants http://abacurial.com Tom A. Trottier, President ICQ:57647974 415-400 Slater St. Ottawa ON Canada K1R 7S7 +1 613 291-1168 fax:594-5412 N45.418 W75.703 (after 2001 Oct 14) 758 Albert St, Ottawa ON Canada K1R 7V8 +1 613 860-6633 fax:231-6115 N45.412 W75.715
Re: filmscanners: A solution to softening using Digital ICE on LS4000
What is Nik Sharpener Pro? - Original Message - From: Barbara Martin Greene [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 7:06 AM Subject: filmscanners: A solution to softening using Digital ICE on LS4000 .. My solution is to use Nik Sharpener Pro, which does an excellent job almost automatically, providing a choice between three levels of sharpening. ...
Re: filmscanners: Nikon Super coolscan 4000 Problems
I'm confused. On my Nikon LS-4000 Ice at the Normal setting just barely softens the images. Ice at the Fine setting seems to add noticeable softening, but at Normal the effects are barely noticeable at 400% in Photoshop. I leave Ice on all the time. Any softening effects are not noticeable at all in an 8x10 print. I've not yet tried in a 13x19. When I heard all the talk about Ice softening images I thought perhaps my photos are just not sharp enough for me to see the difference, especially since I seldom use a tripod. But my latest test photos are images taken with my new Canon L lens with optical image stabilization. What do you think? - Original Message - From: Barbara Martin Greene [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 12:24 PM Subject: filmscanners: Nikon Super coolscan 4000 Problems Have my new scanner less than a week and have a couple of serious problems that I'd like help with. Up until now, I've scanned all of my slides using Photo Cds and had anticipated a vast improvement in quality. I keep my slides as clean as possible. When I scan using Digital Ice, I get clean scans, but I feel they are on the soft side, particularly when compared to the amount of detail present when Digital Ice is turned off. But, the dilemma is, that when Digital Ice is off, the amount of junk covering every part of the scan is horrendous. I checked with Nikon tech support, and the recommendation was to clean it out with canned air. I did this and the result was some reduction in junk, but still lots left over. They recommended I return it for cleaning. Strange, that there should have been so much dirt in it. I bought it from Ritz camera, and, so far as I could tell, it was freshly boxed. I can still return it to them. But I am distressed that Digital Ice so softens the scan, forcing me to do without it and have to deal with dust through Photoshop, however little there may if I get a new machine. Also, I've found that getting a sharp scan, even when I auto-focus on the sharpest part of an image, does not occur with consistency. Without making a few scans of an image, it can be difficult to know when you get the best results. I'm wondering whether or not I got a lemon? Feeling that maybe I'd do better with the new Canonscan 4000, whose sharpness has been praised and the Fast software is supposed to have little or no softening effect. Also, at this point, the main difference I see between the Photo CD and the Nikon scan is that the Photo CD color is way off, requiring lots of correction in Photoshop and the Nikon scan is color-perfect. I'd appreciate assistance from those who are using the above scanners. Martin
Re: filmscanners: MF scanner for 120 strips
- Original Message - From: Laurie Solomon [EMAIL PROTECTED] When you play with the big boys; you often have to play by the established rules of their game not by the rules of some other group of player's game or some other game. :-) Laurie, You are absolutely right about this. However, the big boys can change the rules, and the game for that matter, whenever they want because it's their game. That's what's happening here. My processor sends my 120 roll film back uncut because that's what I TELL him do do. When I purchase a medium format scanner it will have to handle roll film or at least film strips. Tomasz, I agree with you. Why cut roll film up into individual frames? I wouldn't. Bob Kehl
Re: filmscanners: film scratched by APS adaptor for CanoScan FS2710?
Alan, It may be that the APS cartridge is at fault. My Nikon APS adapter includes instructions that advise as little film loading and rewinding as possible due to the nature of APS cartridges. They are designed to be loaded and unloaded only a few times in their life. Bob Kehl - Original Message - From: Alan Rew [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: filmscanners mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2001 12:07 PM Subject: filmscanners: film scratched by APS adaptor for CanoScan FS2710? Has anyone on the list had problems using the APS film adaptor for a CanoScan FS2710 (or similar scanners)? Normally I scan 35mm negatives for myself with no problems whatsoever, but while scanning an APS film for a friend I noticed that horizontal scratches were appearing on the neg. These scratches seemed to be accentuated, strangely, by my using a pressurised air blower to remove dust from the film while in the adaptor. I am pretty sure that the scratches weren't there originally. My fear is that the APS adapter is at fault. Does anyone know if APS film emulsion is particularly fragile, or if the CanoScan APS adaptor is problematical in this respect? I really don't know where to go from here - I suppose could get a replacement adaptor from Canon, but I'd still be reluctant to scan these films if there was a generic problem. Any help would be welcome. TIA Alan Rew
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
- Original Message - From: Thys [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2001 12:33 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans? - Original Message - From: Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] It seems crazy to pay $900 for a 2800dpi (Nikon IV) scanner when there are 4000dpi units available for the same or less that compares favourably with Nikon's expensive LS4000. There is much more to a scanner than just a dpi figure. True; but tests I've seen so far indicates that the Polaroid SS4000 and Canon 4000 are on par with the Nikon LS4000 (some rate them actually better than the Nikon in some respects) IMO the Nikon is overpriced and people buy the name more than anything else. Regards Thys I bought my Nikon LS-4000 because of it's superior film handling capabilities. I fail to understand how this feature can be continually overlooked in a day and age where everyone in the world (at least on this forum) seems to be pressed for time. I don't care who made them or what brand name is on them, the Nikon strip and roll film adapters are hassle-free time savers. What is your time worth to you? to your loved ones? Bob Kehl (who only had time to write this message because he is using a hassle-free film scanner)
Re: filmscanners: Mr. Impatient - Me! G
Neil, Perhaps it works much differently in the UK, but here in the colonies I sought out a small, but reputable, professional camera dealer who had a list for people waiting to receive the LS-4000. I gave him no money until the day I picked up my scanner. He only receives a few each month, but, because he was a small dealer, his waiting list wasn't very long either. Right now his list has five people on it and he receives 3 units per month, regularly. Perhaps you should check with some other Nikon dealers to see how many they are allotted every month and how long their waiting list is. I would get on other waiting lists, perhaps in other countries if the problem is Nikon UK. But then you may have warranty issues. (Although with Nikon we all have warranty issues). I would definitely get my money back, but then I'm one of those rude and arrogant US citizens who can't even remember that there is more than country in America. (I'm an American is such an offensive phrase to Canadians and Mexicans, isn't it ?). You may be more of a gentleman. As far as other scanners go, the Polaroid SS4000 is great, if you don't need Digital Ice or hassle free film handling. If you do, then wait for the Nikon. I've had both. I ordered my LS-4000 in January. I was second on the list. it arrived in March but the roll film adapter wasn't available until June so I waited until June to take delivery. It was worth the wait. On the other hand, I think Nikon customer/warranty service is an outrageous joke which leaves a golden opportunity to any other company that is willing or able to stand up to the plate (US baseball term) with the same performance and features.but no one has. So we tolerate Nikon's attitude while we enjoy their products and we hope for something better. Best Regards, Bob Kehl - Original Message - From: Neil Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 12:58 PM Subject: filmscanners: Mr. Impatient - Me! G Hi all, What do I do? I've been waiting over 2 months now for my LS4000 only to be told each week, it will be here next week. *sigh* I rang Nikon UK today to be told that 'oh yes we won't have any more of those for another month or so'. They certainly don't seem to care much about their customers! Hmm I wonder if the purchaser be should be told before he hands over 1300 GBP that it's going to take 3 months to deliver. Naahhh.. ;) OK rant over G. So what do I do, do I cancel my order and take a look at the competition - BTW what competition should I look at? is there any that match or exceed for similar money? - or is it worth the wait, ie stick it out no matter how bad the customer service is. Grr. ;) I am looking to go medium format shortly so maybe this is a good chance to consider another alternative, unfortunately price might prevent me there. Opinions please! :) Cheers, Neil Portsmouth, UK
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Karl, Your words are well taken. I would say that your solution may be the best for a no touch archive. My personal preference is to be have an actively maintained archive. I am content to be the computer technician (or at least have an archive compatible machine maintained for use) and to take an active stance in maintaining my archives. With this position being accepted, I like IDE removable drives best, because I can put them on line and refresh them much more quickly. Yes, they are more fragile. Therefore redundancy may be quite worthwhile. The question I would put forth (no answers required) is this: If our archives are valuable and a little annual effort can keep them secure, or more secure, why opt for a hands off archive? Best Regards Bob Kehl PS. I have two of two original 80486 PC's originally running windows 3.1 (yuck) and upgraded to Windows 95. They have been out of use for about two years and moved from house to house. I fired one up the other day. It booted and logged onto the network with no problem. - Original Message - From: Karl Schulmeisters [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 11:31 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans? Respectfully, I agree with much of the below but there are some things I disagree with. I work for a company that was involved in a major lawsuit. At the time of discovery I worked for the IT department and watched the furious scramble to comply with the subpoenas issued for the backed up data. They had been using stuff that was 'industry standard', but within less than 10 years, they had difficulty finding a combination of a) reader b) computer c) operating system d) device driver that would let them extract the data, AND communicate it to a printer or other digital data system Recently I resurrected (or tried to ) an old Win 95 machine (5-8yrs old). Even though nothing had been done to it, other than move the boxes from one house to the other, it would not boot. I got it to boot using Linux, but that of course meant reformatting the boot drive, and since it no longer is the original OS, the other device drivers may or maynot work (one hard drive just would not spin up and the floppy drive was so out of alignment it would not read any floppies). So unless you want to become an electronics repair technician this isn't a viable alternative. And this is the problem with MOD CDROMs are susceptible to 'bit rot' - what happens is that exposure to any sort of light results in degradation of the plastic protective coating. The more use, the more the damage. So even if there are no scratches, that coating can, and does, become optically opaque (I suspect that atmospheric oxidation does this as well). Some studies have shown that as little as 5 years of sitting in an optical jukebox can cause enough bit-rot that stored source code will not compile without errors. I haven't seen studies on CDRs and CDRWs but I suspect they are more vulnerable to this. The same 'fogging' applies to DVDs of all forms (though perhaps the plastic formulations have improved). Removable IDEs have the problem that they are fragile, and the docking bays may or may not be supported by the OS flavour (yes in theory IDE is IDE, but it doesn't always work out that way). So for a 20 year archive, I would print to 2 CDRs and keep the original negs in a cool-dry place (in essence that is what Corbis is doing with the Betteman archive). - Original Message - From: Bob Kehl - Kvernstoen, Kehl Assoc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 5:39 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans? My long and detailed comments are below. BK Removable IDE hard drive storage is a higher speed solution for high volume storage. It is much less time consuming but requires more maintenance and attention. It is about as expensive as DVD, but much faster. 60GB IDE hard drives are now selling for about $150. That's about $2.50 per MB. Removable hard drive frames are about $15 each and the cartridges that holds the hard drives are about $10 each. Hard drive storage is, at least, as reliable as any other magnetic medium as long as it is removed from the host machine and stored properly. One solution would be to archive to a removable IDE hard drive and copy to a second removable hard drive for redundancy. Remove both and keep them properly stored. Refresh them every couple of years to ensure data integrity by running scandisk (PC) or some similar utility. Another solution would be to set up an inexpensive mirror raid array to automatically keep a redundant copy of your data on line. This is the most hassle free but involves a slight risk, should lighting strike or some other catastrophy take out your entire machine. As hard drive costs are dropping as quickly
Re: filmscanners: flatbed for contact-sheets
Tomasz, Thank you for your clarification. I am not surprised by your findings. Do you have any experience with the Umax PowerlookIII? It has a specified dmax of 3.4 and a full 8x10 transparency hood is available. Bob Kehl - Original Message - From: Tomasz Zakrzewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 7:52 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: flatbed for contact-sheets Bob Kehl - Kvernstoen, Kehl Assoc wrote: Are you saying your Agfa Arcus seems better worse than the Epson scanners??? The Epson 1640SU also has a dmax of 3.2 and higher resolution than the Agfa. You shouldn't look at specs only. Take a look at scan from those both scanners. My conclusion is that Agfa Arcus 1200 has much more dynamic range, less noise in shadows and is significantly sharper. My Epson 1200U also doesn't keep proportions of the image - when you scan a circle with Epson you get a very slightly oval shape. It shows, especially in direct comparison. But I have also observed that neither Epson nor Agfa are good enough for scanning negatives. The denser parts of the emulsion are too big a barrier for the CCD elements of the scanners. It results in lack of details in white areas. Regards Tomasz Zakrzewski
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
So getting an archival medium is only a third of the problem. What happens in 10 years when no one uses TIFF files anymore. Very good point! One possible solution would be to keep a version of Photoshop 6, or whatever application you created your archived images with, on your computer. Or to keep your old computer and software next time you upgrade to something faster. Bob Kehl
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
My long and detailed comments are below. BK - Original Message - From: Mark Edmonds [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 1:01 PM Subject: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans? Basically, I am looking for a long term (20 years+) storage medium to archive my scans on. I don't have faith in CDR and tapes are also prone to long term problems so the only solution I can see is a magneto optical disk. I'm curious, why do you trust MOD more than CDR? MOD will probably never become standard nor inexpensive. Another problem is that it is all well and good to have a bomb proof medium but it is no good if no one makes the hardware to read it in a few years time. It really doesn't matter if anyone else has the hardware, as long as you do. As an example, although perhaps a poor one. I have some programs and data on 5.25 floppy disks from 17 years ago. During one of many computer upgrades about 8 years ago 5.25 disks were no longer a standard. I kept an old machine with a 5.25 drive (although I could have installed a 5.25 drive in a new machine) . The point is: if I want the data I can transfer it to 3.5 floppy disks or transfer it through my home office network to a new machine and put it on whatever medium is currently popular. The only inportant issue is that I must keep these disks refreshed because they are magnetic and I must transfer them to some other medium prior to disposing of, or failure of, the 5.25 drives. So is there a clear cut winner out there? The two affordable options I am looking at are either the Iomega Optical drive or the Panasonic DVD-RAM. The Iomega seems to support a format which has some penetration in the market but the DVD-RAM looks like it might not have got very far. I am running NT4.0 by the way. CD-ROM has been around for a very long time. It took along time to catch on. CD-R and CD-RW caught on quickly only because CR-ROM had been with us for so long. DVD-Video and DVD-Ram are both new in comparison to CD formats. As the cost of drives and media continue to drop DVD-RAM in some format or the other will no doubt be the standard to replace CD-ROM and CD-R. Iomege will probably gain a foothold in specialized markets as they have with their Zip and Jaz formats, but because their formats are proprietary they will probably never replace DVD formats. I've done a bit of research on storage media. Here are my thoughts: CD-R is currently the cheapest format for long term storage. If your storage needs can be met with CD-R it is probably your best low maintenance choice, as long as you can afford the time involved with burning CD's. And you be sure to keep a CD drive or two available when their popularity ceases, if ever. DVD-RAM, although currenty more expensive, provides more storage per disk. If you need vast quantities of storage (for 4000dpi 8/16 bit TIF files perhaps) this is a very viable low maintenance choice. This is also somewhat time consuming, as writing DVD-RAM is painfully slow. You will also want to be sure to keep your particular format drives available should they ever be discontinued in the future. Removable IDE hard drive storage is a higher speed solution for high volume storage. It is much less time consuming but requires more maintenance and attention. It is about as expensive as DVD, but much faster. 60GB IDE hard drives are now selling for about $150. That's about $2.50 per MB. Removable hard drive frames are about $15 each and the cartridges that holds the hard drives are about $10 each. Hard drive storage is, at least, as reliable as any other magnetic medium as long as it is removed from the host machine and stored properly. One solution would be to archive to a removable IDE hard drive and copy to a second removable hard drive for redundancy. Remove both and keep them properly stored. Refresh them every couple of years to ensure data integrity by running scandisk (PC) or some similar utility. Another solution would be to set up an inexpensive mirror raid array to automatically keep a redundant copy of your data on line. This is the most hassle free but involves a slight risk, should lighting strike or some other catastrophy take out your entire machine. As hard drive costs are dropping as quickly, or more quickly, than other media, I feel this is the best solution for those who want hassle free, high speed, high volume storage. Like DVD it is getting less and less expensive but is not for the faint of wallet. : ) For me paying $150 for 60 GB of storage is pretty painless since I remember not that long ago (for some of us) paying $1000 for a 10 MB hard disk. Yes I said 10 MEGA bytes. It was new technology in 1984. Most people only had 2-5 MB hard drives. Way more than my US $0.02 worth! Bob Kehl Principal Kvernstoen, Kehl Associates Star Prairie, WI 54026 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Check out our website: www.kvernkehl.com
Re: filmscanners: Re: Vuescan gripes
on 7/24/01 5:54 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I recommend people keep their eye on the ball - i.e. the quality of the images that VueScan produces. I personally would be quite happy using an MS-DOS user interface if this produced better looking images. Very Good Point! and thank you for not making us use a DOS interface in order to obtain Vuescan quality images. ; ) Actually, I use DOS engineering tools all the time in my Audio-Video consulting business. I'd buy the DOS version if it had mouse support, multi-image preview, dual head display, and Vuescan's current level of functionality. Personally though, I don't care about GUI or Windows/Mac look alikes because I DO keep my eye on the image quality. But I also keep my eye on the clock. Like many on this list, this is not a hobby to me (although my bookkeeper may argue that point). Time, my time, is money. I don't care about Vuescan looking or feeling like Windows/Mac, but I DO care about possible features that decrease my time invested in each scan, especially when these features are available in other scanning products. Besides the image quality, one of the great things about Vuescan is it's speed. (once you get it started scanning) I'm merely suggesting things that will help me (and others) get that scan started faster. I want to shoot photography all day, not scan pictures all day. But don't get me wrong Ed, I'm not complaining. I'm just voicing an opinion of desired possible next steps. Whether they are feasible is your decision. You ARE the programmer. Best Regards, Bob Kehl
Re: filmscanners: Re: Vuescan gripes
- Original Message - From: Jawed Ashraf [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 7:44 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Re: Vuescan gripes I think the dialog that Nikon Scan uses is quite effective. It allows the user to specify prefix and suffix, plus the number of digits and the starting number. Why stick to the concept of a + sign to indicate the counting part of a filename, instead of using a checkbox for autoincrement? I suspect you might have coded for a file-naming scenario that I haven't worked out yet. Jawed I agree. Nikon's file naming method is really good. I used to really like Vuescan's method.then I got NikonScan 3.1. It's pretty comprehensive. BK -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 24 July 2001 22:53 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Re: Vuescan gripes In a message dated 7/24/2001 2:46:23 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It would be nice to be able to use standard file dialog boxes to specify both the directory and filename, but not at the expense of giving up auto increment. Now that I think of it, I could always count how many digits are after the plus (if there are any) and put the plus back in after the standard dialog box is used (if there was a plus). I've added this to my list of things to look into. Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: Re: Vuescan gripes
As long as we're using up your programming time here Ed, why not a dual monitor approach as well? Why not have a setup menu to give the user the option of single pane, dual pane, or dual monitors? Bob Kehl - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2001 4:02 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Re: Vuescan gripes I keep going back and forth on this myself. Most other scanner software uses a 2-pane approach with the options and buttons in one area and an image that's never obscured in another area.
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Vuescan:two small requests
- Original Message - From: Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 12:31 AM Subject: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Vuescan:two small requests Bob Kehl wrote: 2.)A multi-image preview screen for thumbnails. I wouldn't use this as I don't generally batch scan and if I did, it would be set and forget - so multiple thumbnails wouldn't be useful. This is very scanner specific and wouldn't work on scanners without a batch scanning capability or on the nikons with certain film holders eg. the slide holder or film strip holder with the slide holder. If you've ever scanned two images from the same strip, this feature might make a batch scanner out of you. With Nikonscan you click on your image thumbnail set it's rotation, crop, and image adjustments, then click on the next image and do the same. When you've got all the parameters set you click scan and walk away or work on something else. When you come back all your images are scanned and you haven't had to sit and wait for the scanner. Sure beats scanner babysitting! I'm doing 4000dpi scans, usually with ice, on the LS-4000 with the SA-30 35mm roll adapter, so I may have 10-20 images per roll that I want to capture, each with slightly different settings. Setting up these scans can take20-30 minutes. Scanning that many at 4000dpi with ice takes about 30-60 minutes. But even with just 4-6 images on a filmstrip this feature would be a real workflow benefit. If it wasn't for the fact that I can't think of a use for it, I'd love to buy an APS camera just for the convenience of batch scanning an entire roll. I've done this with the LS30, APS adapter, Vuescan and someone else's APS films. It's wonderful - set up vuescan for the film type, type in 1-25 or whatever is appropriate for the number of frames on the film, click scan and walk away. But I already have an SLR and a 35mm compact camera so what use would an APS camera be? The 35mm roll film adapter on the LS-4000 gives you the same functinality. Believe me it IS wonderful! Bob Kehl
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan:two small requests
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 8:50 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Vuescan:two small requests In a message dated 7/23/2001 0:03:25 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There's just two small items that really seem lacking to me and really slow me down and frustrate me every time I use it. 1.) A browse for folder button to locate the folder to save files in. You can already do this with the commands in the Folder menu. I checked it out. Yes I missed that earlier. I now stand corrected. Still it would be nice to see this on the files tab. then there'd be one less place to go to adjust settings for a scan. But I'm glad for the function no matter where it is. Thank you. 2.)A multi-image preview screen for thumbnails. Yes, this would be nice. It's not simple to add this, given that VueScan has to work with a wide range of scanners, many of which can't even move the film holder under VueScan's control. There are other complications too - the special mode that the Nikon scanners use to quickly acquire thumbnails has many subtle problems that are hard to work around. Hard? or impossible. If it was easy anyone could do it. : ) Do you feel the challenge? ON a more serious note, maybe this is an item to incorporate into Vuescan Pro, the $400 version. Some of us would pay for this versiion. It's either that or buy Silverfast, which is really expensive since you have to pay for each scanner you want to use, or else we just do without (that is, use NikonScan). To some of us our time is worth a lot of money. If we can get the gorgeous output we get from Vuescan and all the features and stuff we've come accustomed to in other Windows software, we'd pay the price. I realize others can't afford or justify the cost of $400 software (although many of them managed to aquire Adobe Photshop somehow) but a basic version of Vuescan could still be available to those who just want the basic functionality. Best Regards, Bob Kehl
filmscanners: Vuescan:two small requests
Like many on this list I've found Vuescan to be a marvelous tool. And although I'm sometimes frustrated when any piece of software doesn't have things where I've come to expect them to be, (due to my work routines being controlled by Microsoft for most of my adult life) I do like the new Vuescan layout. There's just two small items that really seem lacking to me and really slow me down and frustrate me every time I use it. 1.) A browse for folder button to locate the folder to save files in. 2.)A multi-image preview screen for thumbnails. NikonScan, for all it's lack of speed and finesse, actually does a pretty good job of these two items. Anyone else wich they had these items or is it just me? Bob Kehl
Re: filmscanners: image samples of digital artifacts
- Original Message - From: rafeb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 7:00 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: image samples of digital artifacts Hold everything! Do you mean, Prairie, Northern Tibet? If you're seeing topo map effects in the sky, it's almost certainly because you have your video set to 256 colors. There's no way you want to attempt ANY image editing or capture with your screen set that way. The sky in the Prarie photo looks smooth as silk on my PC, with 24 bit video. With the screen set to 256 colors I get topo maps in the sky. Thanks Rafe. Mine looked smooth as silk too. I couldn't figure out what I was suppose to be seeing and wasn't. Now I get it. Actually, no-one COULD edit photos at 256 colors but they might try at 16 bit. At 16 bit the topo map effect is clearly visible too. I think you found the problem. BK
