[filmscanners] Re: Epson Perfection V750-M Pro Scanner,
Laurie, I could be wrong calling the Epson driver a 64-bit twain driver. If memory serves me, Epson referred to it as a 64-bit driver. I did not ask for it as I was, and still am, on 32-bit machines - mainly because of the Sprintscan 120. Jim LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: I would check again on the 64-bit twain driver. Epson may have developed a proprietary driver for the scanner but I sort of doubt it was a twain driver since there were never any official standards set for the 64 bit twain driver by the twain working group consortium even though they talked about doing so and there was never any implementation of an official 64-bit twain driver although there may have been implementations of 64 bit drivers for scanners by third parties (e.g. Ed Hamrick) manufacturers as proprietary items. It is quite possible that what you got was a 64 bit WIA interface driver which allows the scanner to work with 64 bit Windows Vista machines and maybe XP. I see where there is now some discussion online about standards for a 64 bit version 2.0 twain driver set of standards (version 1 discussions were abandoned a few years ago); but the discussions do not seem to have reached a firm enough stage that there have been any fully implemented instances of such a twain driver that are working drivers issued by software developers. -Original Message- From: filmscanners_ow...@halftone.co.uk [mailto:filmscanners_ow...@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of James L. Sims Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 11:55 PM To: lau...@advancenet.net Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Epson Perfection V750-M Pro Scanner, I have an Epson 1600, that's older than my Polaroid 120 and Epson has provided 64-bit twain drivers for it. But you're right, the 120 will have to stay with a 32-bit XP machine. Jim LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: Yes; but you are talking about a relatively new USB based scanner and Vista X64. It is quite possible that this newer model scanner uses either third party drivers developed by people like Ed Hemrick or has Epson developed WMA drivers which are designed for Vista X32 and X64 bit versions. Being USB based and not SCSI based peripherals, you probably did not need to use an ASPI layer to get the OSD to recognize the hardware device as was the case with SCSI based scanners of old. There is a difference between drivers which enable software applications to work a peripheral device and such things as software code such as ASPI layers which enable the OS to recognize the existence of the physical device; the two are not the same. -Original Message- From: filmscanners_ow...@halftone.co.uk [mailto:filmscanners_ow...@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of caryeno...@enochsvision.com Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 4:03 PM To: lau...@advancenet.net Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Epson Perfection V750-M Pro Scanner, I didn't have to do anything to get my new Epson V500 scanner to work in Vista-x64. I used the installation CD and then immediately installed the 64-bit updates that I downloaded from the Epson support pages. Then I turned the scanner on. Windows made the low beep that it does when it recognizes any USB device and that was it. The scanner works perfectly in Vuescan Prof. It was recognized immediately. Environment: Vista Ultimate-x64/SP2, 8 GB RAM. I went ahead and bought Silverfast Ai Studio for it for a variety of reasons mostly related to the difficult faded originals. They're very old filmstrips of great historical value that I'm restoring. Silverfast isn't as easy to use as Vuescan but I felt the more finely tuned results justified the high price. Btw, Silverfast had no problems recognizing the scanner either. That's because Lasersoft customizes each version for a specific scanner. Vuescan should drive virtually any scanner right out of the box. It's amazing. I made sample scans on a friend's V750 and could not discern any difference in quality between those scans and the ones on the V500 -- and I am very picky. The optics are probably better on the V750 though. Don't bother with the Epson OEM software. Either Vuescan or Silverfast are greatly superior. Your choice. On 13-Jun-09 15:43:44, LAURIE SOLOMON (lau...@advancenet.net) wrote: SCSI is the hardware connection; there are no twain drivers for 64 bit OS. You need the ASPI layer with SCSI for any Windows OS (32 or 64 bit) to recognize the scanner as a hardware device ( I do not know about USB connected scanners); but this is different from getting the scanner to work which is different from getting the OS to recognize the hardware and requires device drivers. The traditional scanner and scanner drivers were and are proprietary software connected twain drivers, which are only 32 bit and will not work with 64 bit OSs. Ed Hamrick by passes the twain driver and has written his own drivers for scanners; they may be 64 bit capable. -Original Message
[filmscanners] Re: Epson Perfection V750-M Pro Scanner,
No problems at all. I learn something every time I post on this group, Laurie. Thanks to everyone! Jim LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: caryeno...@enochsvision.com, I apologize for using your post as a vehicle for posting a correction to one of my earlier posts where I referred to WMA drivers when I should have referred to WIA drivers. I am sorry if my error in reference has caused any confusion or trouble. -Original Message- From: filmscanners_ow...@halftone.co.uk [mailto:filmscanners_ow...@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of caryeno...@enochsvision.com Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 1:39 PM To: lau...@advancenet.net Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Epson Perfection V750-M Pro Scanner, Silverfast provides a 64-bit installer for the V500 (and presumably related Epson scanners). It's WIA and it installs both a standalone client and a plug-in for Photoshop. Silverfast also provides an optional TWAIN version but there's no reason to install it that I can see. In the flier packaged with the scanner, Epson tells you not to install from the CD. They point you to their website so you can install the latest 64-bit driver for it. That appears to be a WIA driver. Epson's OEM software is like most OEM software; it's mediocre and very basic. You need either Vuescan or Silverfast. I use Silverfast Studio Ai version 6.6. Additional comment below. On 14-Jun-09 12:41, LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: I would check again on the 64-bit twain driver. Epson may have developed a proprietary driver for the scanner but I sort of doubt it was a twain driver since there were never any official standards set for the 64 bit twain driver by the twain working group consortium even though they talked about doing so and there was never any implementation of an official 64-bit twain driver although there may have been implementations of 64 bit drivers for scanners by third parties (e.g. Ed Hamrick) manufacturers as proprietary items. It is quite possible that what you got was a 64 bit WIA interface driver which allows the scanner to work with 64 bit Windows Vista machines and maybe XP. LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: Yes; but you are talking about a relatively new USB based scanner and Vista There's no yes but. I explicitly stated that I installed a USB scanner so my comments applied only to that. X64. It is quite possible that this newer model scanner uses either third party drivers developed by people like Ed Hemrick or has Epson developed WMA drivers which are designed for Vista X32 and X64 bit versions. Being USB based and not SCSI based peripherals, you probably did not need to use an ASPI layer to get the OSD to recognize the hardware device as was the case with SCSI based scanners of old. Do any prosumer manufacturers even make SCSI scanners anymore? There is a difference between drivers which enable software applications to work a peripheral device and such things as software code such as ASPI layers which enable the OS to recognize the existence of the physical device; the two are not the same. I know that. I didn't say they were the same. You might be responding to someone else's post there. I didn't have to do anything to get my new Epson V500 scanner to work in Vista-x64. I used the installation CD and then immediately installed the 64-bit updates that I downloaded from the Epson support pages. Then I turned the scanner on. Windows made the low beep that it does when it recognizes any USB device and that was it. The scanner works perfectly in Vuescan Prof. It was recognized immediately. Environment: Vista Ultimate-x64/SP2, 8 GB RAM. -- Cary Enoch Reinstein, Enoch's Vision Inc. http://www.enochsvision.com Blog: http://www.enochsvision.net - Behind all these manifestations is the one radiance, which shines through all things. The function of art is to reveal this radiance through the created object. (Joseph Campbell) Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Epson Perfection V750-M Pro Scanner,
I have an Epson 1600, that's older than my Polaroid 120 and Epson has provided 64-bit twain drivers for it. But you're right, the 120 will have to stay with a 32-bit XP machine. Jim LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: Yes; but you are talking about a relatively new USB based scanner and Vista X64. It is quite possible that this newer model scanner uses either third party drivers developed by people like Ed Hemrick or has Epson developed WMA drivers which are designed for Vista X32 and X64 bit versions. Being USB based and not SCSI based peripherals, you probably did not need to use an ASPI layer to get the OSD to recognize the hardware device as was the case with SCSI based scanners of old. There is a difference between drivers which enable software applications to work a peripheral device and such things as software code such as ASPI layers which enable the OS to recognize the existence of the physical device; the two are not the same. -Original Message- From: filmscanners_ow...@halftone.co.uk [mailto:filmscanners_ow...@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of caryeno...@enochsvision.com Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 4:03 PM To: lau...@advancenet.net Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Epson Perfection V750-M Pro Scanner, I didn't have to do anything to get my new Epson V500 scanner to work in Vista-x64. I used the installation CD and then immediately installed the 64-bit updates that I downloaded from the Epson support pages. Then I turned the scanner on. Windows made the low beep that it does when it recognizes any USB device and that was it. The scanner works perfectly in Vuescan Prof. It was recognized immediately. Environment: Vista Ultimate-x64/SP2, 8 GB RAM. I went ahead and bought Silverfast Ai Studio for it for a variety of reasons mostly related to the difficult faded originals. They're very old filmstrips of great historical value that I'm restoring. Silverfast isn't as easy to use as Vuescan but I felt the more finely tuned results justified the high price. Btw, Silverfast had no problems recognizing the scanner either. That's because Lasersoft customizes each version for a specific scanner. Vuescan should drive virtually any scanner right out of the box. It's amazing. I made sample scans on a friend's V750 and could not discern any difference in quality between those scans and the ones on the V500 -- and I am very picky. The optics are probably better on the V750 though. Don't bother with the Epson OEM software. Either Vuescan or Silverfast are greatly superior. Your choice. On 13-Jun-09 15:43:44, LAURIE SOLOMON (lau...@advancenet.net) wrote: SCSI is the hardware connection; there are no twain drivers for 64 bit OS. You need the ASPI layer with SCSI for any Windows OS (32 or 64 bit) to recognize the scanner as a hardware device ( I do not know about USB connected scanners); but this is different from getting the scanner to work which is different from getting the OS to recognize the hardware and requires device drivers. The traditional scanner and scanner drivers were and are proprietary software connected twain drivers, which are only 32 bit and will not work with 64 bit OSs. Ed Hamrick by passes the twain driver and has written his own drivers for scanners; they may be 64 bit capable. -Original Message- On Behalf Of li...@lazygranch.com Ed Hamrick.would know the OS/software issues. -- Cary Enoch Reinstein, Enoch's Vision Inc. http://www.enochsvision.com Blog: http://www.enochsvision.net - Behind all these manifestations is the one radiance, which shines through all things. The function of art is to reveal this radiance through the created object. (Joseph Campbell) Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Epson Perfection V750-M Pro Scanner,
With the support for my Polaroid Sprintscan 120 now unavailable, I am looking for a replacement. Has anyone had any experience with Epson's V750M? The specs. look impressive if they hold up. Jim http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/consumer/consDetail.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yesinfoType=Specsoid=63056500category=Products Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: spam magnet
Please, keep it the way it's been, Tony. As I stated earlier, I value that dialog with the friends I've made on this list and future acquaintances that I'm sure will join. Jim Tony Sleep wrote: On 03/04/2008 David J. Littleboy wrote: Agreed. Take it off list. I'm done with it. It stayed on because of the question of whether or not list members want their email addresses exposed to other list members, risking spam. If anyone has a view either way I would prefer it gets expressed on list so there's some sort of vote. I'll do whichever, it's trivially easy to change the list operation. -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Trying to track down a problem
Art, I have not received anything like this from the filmscanners list, or from you. I have, however received at least one message, recently, from a local individual that was several years old - similar, I think, to what you described. I called the individual to help troubleshoot the problem and the first thing I found was that his antivirus had not been working for quite some time. He was getting a message from McAfee stating that he needed to verify his account and decided it was just another attempt by CA to sell him something. I hear this a lot (verify your account) from McAfee subscribers, lately. Most of these individuals are in their eighties and did not warm up to the computer age until the mid to late nineties, or later. About the only time they call me is when they encounter a Blue Screen or something else that stops their computer from functioning. I have started recommending that they cancel their McAfee account and download one of the free antivirus application, such as AVG. I don't know what is causing these strange e-mailings, unless it's a worm. I do not believe this is occurrence is unique. Jim Arthur Entlich wrote: I just received a rather unusual email, and am asking anyone who might have been similarly involved to please email me. On March 31st I sent a posting to this list under the thread [filmscanners] Re: spam magnet, which was posted to the group at 2:41 AM. I recently received an email from someone who I was in correspondence with over 4 years ago (one time) who sent me a copy of that posting which he indicated he had just received as a personal email from the email address I sent the posting from. I have emailed him to ask him if he was ever a member of the filmscanner list, and for the message source header information, which I am waiting to see, but in the meantime, if anyone else on this list has received an unsolicited email from me coming from my email account, rather than this list (that would be from artistik(at)shaw(dot)com), please email me, if possible, with the full header., so I can try to determine what is going on. Some very strange things are happening of late, and I need to try to resolve this. Thank you. Art Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Trying to track down a problem
Art, I can't answer your last question but the pranks around here seem to have lost their appeal over the past few years (Huntsville, AL). I've heard of the virus that you mentioned and it is worrisome. I do not store personal information on my computers and I'm working toward storing my files on a firewalled server and that backed up on external drives that are not always connected. Archiving digital images ain't as cheap as it once was! Jim Arthur Entlich wrote: Hi Jim, I use AVG on all my systems now, and it seems to be working well. I also do Spybot and Adaware scans every week or two, and use a double firewall (hardware and software) and I have disabled my email client address books from the beginning, all in an attempt to keep thing clean as I can, but I do understand there is no such thing as 100% security these days, as there are now trojans and viruses out there that are stealth. There is one apparently that has been out there for a year or more that has not successfully been detected because it has some method of mutation that they has not been able to stop or keep on top of, and it is stealth and sends off information like account numbers and credit card info to Russia and elsewhere. I received this information on a computer program on CBC radio, which is usually a pretty accurate source. They interviewed a number of security experts about it, who were quite concerned at the infection rate they have encountered and no, this is not an April Fools day prank. (Is April Fools Day Pranking something done outside of the US and Canada, BTW?) Art Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Dust brush for Polaroid 4000
Didn't Microtek make these scanners for Polaroid? If that's the case, might try them. Jim Tony Sleep wrote: On 18/02/2008 Arthur Entlich wrote: A scanner question... does anyone know if there is still a source for the little dust brush Polaroid designed for their 4000 series scanners, or is there somewhere I can see what it looked like so I might be able to fashion one? I don't know, but I need one too I think. The 4000 seems to mistake the neg holder for the slide holder rather more often than it used to - about half the time now. Is that a symptom? -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: SS4000 SCSI under Vista
Laurie, My plan is to keep a 32-bit machine around for the SS120 and My old Epson Stylus Photo 1200. Then upgrade my main computer to XP 64. An Epson tech told me last year that that he could send me the 64-bit drivers for my Epson 1640 scanner, however, I didn't ask him to do that and I still do not see a 64-bit driver, twain or otherwise, on Epson's website - that seems to support what you're saying about 32-bit Twain drivers working on 64-bit systems. Epson does have 64-bit drivers for my R2400. After I upgrade to a 64-bit OS, I'll try installing the Polaroid drivers on the new system. Thanks, Jim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jim, Most of the scanners up until currently used TWAIN drivers and there were no universal 64 bit TWAIN standards or specs as was the case for 32 bit twain drivers; hence, no 64 bit TWAIN drivers were ever produced at any time. The net result was that there were no scanners that would work on 64 bit operating systems as 64 bit scanners. I am not really sure; but I think that the 32 bit TWAIN drivers will work under the 64 bit Windows XP operating system. As far as I know, there will be no 64 bit Twain drivers being developed for any of the brands or types of scanners in the future. The newer flatbed scanners have gotten much better in terms of their quality and optical resolutions; but I still think they are lacking if one is scanning small format film with the intent of enlarging the images to anything beyond 8 x 10 without resorting to the use good high quality interpolation methods or of cropping out segments of the image for enlargement. Some of these scanners may in the future come out with 64 bit drivers if there is a market for 64 bit; but it will either be in the form of WMA compliant drivers for use with MICROSOFT 64 bit operating systems and not TWAIN drivers (since I do not believe that Apple has a 64 bit operating system or plans to come out with one in the near future - but I could be wrong). I have the feeling that Microsoft's WMA protocol will become the standard for scanner drivers even if Apple comes out with a 64 bit OS. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James L. Sims Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 11:48 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: SS4000 SCSI under Vista I believe none of the Polaroid scanners are being supported beyond 32-bit Windows XP or the same era Mac OS. About a year ago I contacted Polaroid, asking them if they would be providing 64-bit drivers for my SprintScan 120. I had recently upgraded to a 64-bit computer. Polaroid informed me that the SS120 had been out of production for more than three years and no driver updates would be forthcoming. Does anyone have any knowledge of the quality of today's flatbed scanners? Great to see active dialog on this list! Jim Bob Geoghegan wrote: While we're talking about SCSI scanners under current OSs, how 'bout Vista? I'm running an SS4000 on a Win XP laptop through an Adaptec 1480B. The card is supported under Vista, but I don't know what to expect for the scanner. Bob G -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 2:14 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: SCSI support on a Mac Pro --- - Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: SS4000 SCSI under Vista
I believe none of the Polaroid scanners are being supported beyond 32-bit Windows XP or the same era Mac OS. About a year ago I contacted Polaroid, asking them if they would be providing 64-bit drivers for my SprintScan 120. I had recently upgraded to a 64-bit computer. Polaroid informed me that the SS120 had been out of production for more than three years and no driver updates would be forthcoming. Does anyone have any knowledge of the quality of today's flatbed scanners? Great to see active dialog on this list! Jim Bob Geoghegan wrote: While we're talking about SCSI scanners under current OSs, how 'bout Vista? I'm running an SS4000 on a Win XP laptop through an Adaptec 1480B. The card is supported under Vista, but I don't know what to expect for the scanner. Bob G -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 2:14 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: SCSI support on a Mac Pro Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
Most UV filters are just glass, with IR coatings - glass will filter some UV, I seem to recall less than 20%. Singh Ray did make a real UV filter but it wasn't cheap and I don't know if he is still in business. Jim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The focal length is a bit over 600mm. I use a barlow, so the focal length is around 3000mm effective. The images are from Astia 100f (35mm), scanned on the Minolta 5400 II, but reduced by two. Obviously, the image is tweaked quite a bit in photoshop. The raw image is very blue. I use a long pass filter (optical) to reduce some of the haze. A bit more OT, but I've discovered that so called UV filters don't really remove much UV. I have a flashlight made of 380nm UV leds, which I use as a test source. If you aim the UV at a phosphor screen (such as an oscilloscope), the screen will glow. This allows me to make a crude UV filter test. The run of the mill camera lens UV filters are a joke. My glass is from Andover, and it really kills UV. [Haze is inversely proportional to the fourth power of the wavelength, so a little filtering helps a lot.] Schott Glass makes two UV filters in camera rather than astronomical sizes. I plan on getting one of these for use in high altitudes, where UV is really strong. James L. Sims wrote: Ah, but you're redefined the scope of reach! Just how long is the lens you used for this project? Or, just how small is your sensor? I can see that you don't need high spatial frequency, scintillation pretty much wipes out resolution at that distance. Great job though! I am surprised and impressed at the detail you captured at that distance. Jim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a Tak FS78 and quite a few accessories for such antics, but you can't use them on the fly. This is a panorama I just finished last week, with the distance varying from 15 to 20 miles. http://www.lazygranch.com/images/ttr/june2007/ttr_pano_1.jp2 You will need a jpeg2000 viewer such as irfranview. I didn't bring up the term reach, so I wanted everyone on the same page. I'd like it to be the case that less is more when it comes to sensors. Arthur Entlich wrote: Based upon what you are shooting, you don't need reach you need a spy satellite ;-) It all comes down to how much you want to pay, how much weight yo want to lug, and how long the lenses are you wish to carry. Have you considered a Telescope? Art gary wrote: I'm a person that needs reach, if you define reach as getting shots of distance objects. Now generally a person who needs reach is using a telephoto lens and possibly combined with a teleconverter. Such a setup doesn't put out a lot of light, so the bigger pixels are certainly an advantage. Also, I've been told that even if noise was not an issue, you can't simply keep reducing the pixel pitch due to difficulties in lens design. If anything, a 10um pitch would be optimal. http://www.lazygranch.com/groom_lake_birds.htm Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
Ah, but you're redefined the scope of reach! Just how long is the lens you used for this project? Or, just how small is your sensor? I can see that you don't need high spatial frequency, scintillation pretty much wipes out resolution at that distance. Great job though! I am surprised and impressed at the detail you captured at that distance. Jim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a Tak FS78 and quite a few accessories for such antics, but you can't use them on the fly. This is a panorama I just finished last week, with the distance varying from 15 to 20 miles. http://www.lazygranch.com/images/ttr/june2007/ttr_pano_1.jp2 You will need a jpeg2000 viewer such as irfranview. I didn't bring up the term reach, so I wanted everyone on the same page. I'd like it to be the case that less is more when it comes to sensors. Arthur Entlich wrote: Based upon what you are shooting, you don't need reach you need a spy satellite ;-) It all comes down to how much you want to pay, how much weight yo want to lug, and how long the lenses are you wish to carry. Have you considered a Telescope? Art gary wrote: I'm a person that needs reach, if you define reach as getting shots of distance objects. Now generally a person who needs reach is using a telephoto lens and possibly combined with a teleconverter. Such a setup doesn't put out a lot of light, so the bigger pixels are certainly an advantage. Also, I've been told that even if noise was not an issue, you can't simply keep reducing the pixel pitch due to difficulties in lens design. If anything, a 10um pitch would be optimal. http://www.lazygranch.com/groom_lake_birds.htm Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
I have been trying to follow this thread, with some difficulty - probably my old age. But to keep perspective and depth of field equal, when comparing Full Frame with smaller formats, lens focal length, circle of confusion, or blur circle, size must be adjusted proportionately. Control of chromatic aberrations become proportionately more restrictive. Then there's Lord Rayleigh's Criteria regarding Diffraction Limit is just as true today as it was when he published it. Therefore, with today's APO lenses, we can achieve very high quality images, with smaller formats. BUT, to achieve sharp images, the minimum acceptable lens aperture size will increase (f:# will decrease) because of diffraction. Having said this, I'm very pleased with my Canon 20D, The two lenses I have are incredibly sharp, and zoom lenses at that (I did think that no zoom lens could equal a prime lens but that may be changing) but I try to stay within its limitations - shoot at the lowest ISO that I can get away with and control exposure time to stay within a range of f:4 to f:11. Jim David J. Littleboy wrote: From: R. Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] So a birder, for example, will have a two-stop DOF advantage over a FF guy right out of the gate just because of his format of choice. Add in the faster Zuiko f/2.0 lens at ISO 100 and he can use a higher shutter speed at a lower aperture all day long. It don't work that wayg. The 5D user shoots at ISO 400 with the same image quality (photon shot noise) and same shutter speed and sees the same DOF (and same background blurring effects) at f/4.0 as the 4/3 user does at f/2.0. It is seriously cool how digital cameras with the same pixel count scale across formats. (At ISO 100, the 5D should have a two stop dynamic range advantage, except that the A/D converters don't have enough bits.) Note, of course, that you have to use a larger lens on the 5D to get the low-light high-ISO advantage. The 100/2.0 is a bigger lens than the Oly 50/2.0 (I'd guess, anyway.) The bottom line is that if you think a smaller format buys you anything other than lighter weight/smaller size/lower price, you've done your math, physics, and/or optics wrong. You're right, though, when you get to the end of the day and the light starts to fall the extra speed of the lens becomes a crutch that attempts to overcome the limits of the sensor. Still, the high- end Oly glass tends to be very sharp wide open and you don't have to stop them down much at all to hit their sweet spot. You are already shooting two stops smaller with the 5D for the same DOF. And for portrait work, you don't shoot at f/4.0 with FF, you shoot at f/2.0 and wider. For a DOF effect that simply isn't available from the 4/3 format. (Although I wish Canon had an 75 or 85/1.4. The f/1.2 is overmuch.) Note that to actually be equivalent, the 4/3 lens has to provide _twice_ the resolution (twice the lp/mm at any given MTF, or an MTF curve shifted up by a factor of two due to the finer pixel pitch) at f/2.0 than the FF 28-70mm lens does at f/4.0. (Interestingly, MTF performance does scale up with decreasing format sizes, so this point may not be a problem; but the need for twice the resolution at a much wider f stop may be problematic.) This is the biggest problem with the format, IMO. You're always going to be fighting that battle. It's the same thing with shooting 16mm instead of 35mm cine stuff. The 16mm gear is lighter, has greater DOF for run-and-gun work and is obviously a lot less expensive to work with. But the frame is roughly a quarter the size of the 35mm frame, so the glass always has to be much better than glass would have to be on a comparable 35mm rig and obviously the grain is going to be magnified on top of that. A grain pattern that looks subtle and wonderful in 35mm may look really bad in 16mm, so you can't even use the same standards of judging what stock to use because 5263 is not the same at the end of the day as 7263 when you take the format into consideration. That's the difference with digital: you can get a reasonable 10MP image from the 4/3 camera at ISO 100. You really can't get a reasonable film image from 1/4 the area of 35mm. So that's the rub when you have to decide on buying glass from Olympus now. The 35-100mm f/2 is a really nice lens. Effectively a 70-200mm f/2 lens, but it carries a price tag of $2200. Is it equal to a Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 on APS? Or a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 on a FF camera? Again, if you are using a 10MP 4/3 camera, then the comparison is with the 70-200/4.0 (IS). Without IS, it's half the price, with about 3/4 the price. And those are phenomenally good lenses that you are putting in front of very widely spaced pixels. There's no need to stop down with the 70-200/4.0. Hard to say. More than the MTF numbers of the lens play into it, of course. Those Canon FF cameras have a sensor with a diagonal nearly as wide as their lens
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
Art, Well, we've sort of done that with digital cameras. They have also put my old Pentax cameras out of service, and after all the work I did fabricating a pressure plate that kept the film reasonably flat. At my age, I'm also an advocate of image stabilization - I'm taking sharp pictures, again - hand-held! Jim Arthur Entlich wrote: Hi James, Thanks for the formula. I guess we need to go back to glass plates ;-) Art James L. Sims wrote: Art, There was a depth of focus formula in the American Cinematographer Handbook that was gospel until proven wrong. The depth of focus, given a specific blur circle size, is a trig function of the cone angle Tan ½Angle = .5 x f# ÷ Lens Focal Length. Without special pressure plates or vacuum plates, the film bow in 35mm cameras is typically .003. 2¼ square format cameras have film sag that ranges from about .006 to .010. At large apertures, these dimensions can make a significant difference in image sharpness. The flatbed scanners that I'm familiar with have great depth of field, suggesting the lenses have very small apertures. However, image sharpness degrades as the lens aperture is reduced. I'm not sure what this effect is with flatbed scanners, because each lens is recording one element of the image per increment. Jim Arthur Entlich wrote: There seems to be two main issues with depth of focus with film. One, when the image is captured within the camera, and two, when it is then reproduced, either as a print, or made into a digital file. With 35mm frames, in my experience, the second one is not that significant as long as the digital scanner has a decent depth of focus, which is determined by the aperture of the lens within the scanner. On standard optical CCD film scanners, at least with 35mm frames, if the light source is sufficient, it isn't a great issue, and is easy to test for... either the grain (dye clouds) are evenly in focus or they aren't. The places I have seen a real problem are with larger format films, which may require special mounting, glass carriers, or some other method of maintaining flatness and with film scanners that have inadequate light sources which lead to needing to use a rather wide open lens to capture the image, causing limited depth of focus. The CCD flat bed scanners I have used seem to have substantial depth of focus. I have scanned 3d objects with very reasonable resolution and sharpness. The in camera issue is another matter. I don't know the actual depth of focus at film plane different apertures allow for in camera. Perhaps someone has a chart that indicates the depth of focus relative to aperture. It would be interesting to know. 35mm film is physically small enough that I expect the deviation is of less significance, but I can see how larger roll films or sheet film could end up problematical. Does anyone know if there is a chart which shows depth of focus at the film plan versus aperture of lens used? That could be valuable to know. Art James L. Sims wrote: All other arguments aside, flatness is much more important that some realize. Back in the eighties, I had a lengthy dialog with a well known research lab about depth of focus - it ain't exactly what the American Cinematographer's Handbook says it is. Film bows and sags. That's hard to control. Jim gary wrote: One last point here. Film will probably never be as flat as a piece of silicon. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
Art, There was a depth of focus formula in the American Cinematographer Handbook that was gospel until proven wrong. The depth of focus, given a specific blur circle size, is a trig function of the cone angle Tan ½Angle = .5 x f# ÷ Lens Focal Length. Without special pressure plates or vacuum plates, the film bow in 35mm cameras is typically .003. 2¼ square format cameras have film sag that ranges from about .006 to .010. At large apertures, these dimensions can make a significant difference in image sharpness. The flatbed scanners that I'm familiar with have great depth of field, suggesting the lenses have very small apertures. However, image sharpness degrades as the lens aperture is reduced. I'm not sure what this effect is with flatbed scanners, because each lens is recording one element of the image per increment. Jim Arthur Entlich wrote: There seems to be two main issues with depth of focus with film. One, when the image is captured within the camera, and two, when it is then reproduced, either as a print, or made into a digital file. With 35mm frames, in my experience, the second one is not that significant as long as the digital scanner has a decent depth of focus, which is determined by the aperture of the lens within the scanner. On standard optical CCD film scanners, at least with 35mm frames, if the light source is sufficient, it isn't a great issue, and is easy to test for... either the grain (dye clouds) are evenly in focus or they aren't. The places I have seen a real problem are with larger format films, which may require special mounting, glass carriers, or some other method of maintaining flatness and with film scanners that have inadequate light sources which lead to needing to use a rather wide open lens to capture the image, causing limited depth of focus. The CCD flat bed scanners I have used seem to have substantial depth of focus. I have scanned 3d objects with very reasonable resolution and sharpness. The in camera issue is another matter. I don't know the actual depth of focus at film plane different apertures allow for in camera. Perhaps someone has a chart that indicates the depth of focus relative to aperture. It would be interesting to know. 35mm film is physically small enough that I expect the deviation is of less significance, but I can see how larger roll films or sheet film could end up problematical. Does anyone know if there is a chart which shows depth of focus at the film plan versus aperture of lens used? That could be valuable to know. Art James L. Sims wrote: All other arguments aside, flatness is much more important that some realize. Back in the eighties, I had a lengthy dialog with a well known research lab about depth of focus - it ain't exactly what the American Cinematographer's Handbook says it is. Film bows and sags. That's hard to control. Jim gary wrote: One last point here. Film will probably never be as flat as a piece of silicon. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
Tony, I, for one am delighted to see the response to this question. While this list was created for those with advanced interest in film scanning, a group has assembled within it that is keenly interested in photo imaging - be it a scanned image or a digital image. Once scanned the image is always a digital image anyway. Although I shoot exclusively with a digital camera today, I still scan negatives from years past and I'm still learning how to get the most out of my SprintScan 120, as well as my Canon 20D, and I value this list. I agree with you, Tony, Digital cameras, for all practical purposes, has surpassed the quality of 35mm format film and I believe that happened with the arrival of the six megapixel camera, a few years ago, significant cropping, not withstanding - grain being much more forgiving than pixelization. I think that digital imaging definitely has a place in this list, Tony. I have confidence in and great respect for the core group of this list. Digital imaging, film scanning and digicams are still evolving. Just some of the issues are RAW file converters, practical limits of pixel density - have we reached it? How much do we really need? And the digital archiving issues, just to name a few. I think you have a blue ribbon group contained in this list, Tony. Please keep it going, Jim Tony Sleep wrote: On 08/06/2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are there still any major advantages to sticking with film plus scanning over going fully digital? The reason this list is almost dead is, I suspect, that we have all switched to DSLR's. I have shot 2 rolls of film in the past 4 years, and those only because I wanted to match images to an old project shot on film. For me the advantages of dig are utterly overwhelming. I was never a fan of grain anyway and generally did what I could to avoid it, so the tonal smoothness of dig came as a relief rather than a repellent. Nor did I like slide, it was too temperamental and restrictive for the uncontrolled lighting I usually shoot in. With a decent DSLR and shooting RAW you get most of the latitude of colour neg with a whole lot more ability to control results. Just don't blow the highlights - dig is like slide in that respect, but you can dig into the shadows far deeper. CCD noise just isn't an issue most of the time, and where it is, s/w like NeatImage can be startlingly effective. Yes, I spend a lot of time at the PC doing post-prod, but less than I did with scanning. Film and dig are such different media it is hard to make direct comparisons, but for most purposes, and taste or religious attachment aside, dig far surpasses film now. Images from full-frame sensor cameras such as the Canon 1DS, 1DS-2 and 5D (the relative bargain here) are much closer to MF quality than 35mm. If you need convincing, download and print at 16x12 some of the sample full res images at http://www.steves-digicams.com/cameras_digpro.html -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Vuescan and 64bit Windows - Ed's reply
Sorry I have been out of this loop for a while. On taking advice to update the BIOS and chipset drivers, I checked the Asus site for updates. There is an auto update for the BIOS and a list of chipset drivers on their website. Asus may make a great motherboard but their web support leaves much to be desired. The BIOS update indicated No appropriate image files on this server, what ever that means. Therefore, I did not attempt to update the BIOS. I did download the chipset, display, and audio drivers. The chipset drivers and the PCI Express video adapter are Nvidia products. When completed the installation of these drivers, everything looked OK until I restarted the computer. But just as the restart was completing, I encountered the much feared blue screen. I wont bore anyone with the details but I finally was up and running some seven hours later, with the updated drivers. So far, fingers crossed, the reader is seeing memory cards. Before the updated drivers were installed, the system would usually not see anything coming out of this card reader until I restarted with some device plugged into the reader. Flash drives that plug directly into a USB port would be instantly recognized at any of the USB ports I've tried, other than the one on the reader. Thanks for suggesting to update the BIOS and drivers. I usually do that at the first sign of any trouble. I guess I got a little lazy. Jim Laurie Solomon wrote: My 2c cents here: USB printers, scanners and other peripherals that plug into the wall or are battery-powered typically don't draw power from the USB port so are not affected by the 500mA limit. Unfortunately, this is not true. The power that is drawn from the USB connection has nothing to do with the power drawn from the wall to power or run the device per se. Power drawn from the USB port is used to overcome resistance in the cabling and power the transmission of data down the cable - not to power the device. Powered hubs are active hubs that get power from a transformer source that plugs into the wall but uses this power to replenishing the USB cable line power that is lost to resistance or too many devices making power demands on the hub for their cabling and data transmission. The 7-in-1 card reader may be marginal in its power requirement, and some motherboards are less robust than others in this department (some can comfortably handle up to 800mA, some struggle with 500, some even vary from one port to another) On these points, I concur. Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Knox Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 8:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Vuescan and 64bit Windows - Ed's reply My 2c cents here: USB printers, scanners and other peripherals that plug into the wall or are battery-powered typically don't draw power from the USB port so are not affected by the 500mA limit. The 7-in-1 card reader may be marginal in its power requirement, and some motherboards are less robust than others in this department (some can comfortably handle up to 800mA, some struggle with 500, some even vary from one port to another) -- I suppose you've tried it in other ports? How does it perform with a flash drive? For best results with USB you do need to be running XP SP1 or SP2 -- there's a patch on M$ updates somewhere for the original verion of XP. Charles Jim wrote: I have three devices plus a seven-and-one card reader, all connected to onboard USB ports. My trackball, an Epson 1640 scanner and R2400 printer work fine but the card reader fails to se the Compact Flash card when it's inserted and a reboot is required - much like my older machine, running win 2K did when I turned on my scanner. Jim Laurie Solomon wrote: If you have connected the devices to an unpowered hub, this can create problems - especially if you have several devices that have power requirements connected to the same hub directly or daisy chained to it. Furthermore, despite the claims, two many devices and/or hubs daisy chained of the same USB port as well as very long cable runs can cause problems as well. The motherboard bus can only supply so much power to each of the USB ports. The 120 plus devices that they say can be connected typically are either low power or non-power consuming devices (like mice and keyboards); or they need to have an external power source such as an active powered hub or a directly powered transformer source. Like SCSI devices, sometimes USB devices do not get along with other USB devices and do not share ports or daisy chains nicely. This can cause the OS to fail to recognize the device on a plug and play basis, requiring one to have to either reboot or to disconnect and reconnect the device or to turn off the power to the device and then turn it back on for the system to recognize it. Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James L. Sims
[filmscanners] Re: Vuescan and 64bit Windows - Ed's reply
Tony Sleep wrote: On 04/06/2006 James L. Sims wrote: But just as the restart was completing, I encountered the much feared blue screen. I wont bore anyone with the details but I finally was up and running some seven hours later, with the updated drivers. Oh I hate weekends like that :-} Too often, by half. Glad you got it sorted eventually. ME TOO! Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Vuescan and 64bit Windows - Ed's reply
Charles, After I went through a miserable seven hours fighting a blue screen error on startup after the first attempt at installing new chipset drivers, I finally managed to get the new drivers installed and the reader seems to be functioning properly. I have responded to your questions below. Incidentally, here is a description of the machine I'm running. OS: Windows XP with SP 2 (32-bit) Power Supply: Thermaltake (480 watt) Mainboard: ASUS Model A8N-E; with Socket 939 (AMD-64 Dual core CPU) RAM: 2gig 800mh FSB IDE devices: 2 Raid devices: 2 (Raid0, mirrored- SLOW!) Used USB resources: card reader (2 USB2 ports); printer (USB2 port); scanner (USB port); trackball (USB port); scanner (1394 port); UPS monitor (serial port). Thanks for all the help. Updating the drivers was good advice although I am not impressed with ASUS web support. After all the great reviews about ASUS, that was a letdown. Thanks again - just one of the may aspects I like about this group. Jim Charles Knox wrote: The 7-in-1 card reader may be marginal in its power requirement, and some motherboards are less robust than others in this department (some can comfortably handle up to 800mA, some struggle with 500, some even vary from one port to another) -- I suppose you've tried it in other ports? The reader has its own power connection from the power supply - I have a very good power supply. I only have four internal USB terminals on the MB and I have tried those four - that's in addition to the six ports on the back of the machine which I haven't tried.. How does it perform with a flash drive? Any virtual drive will work when plugged into one of the spare USB ports on the back of the machine. When the computer can't see the reader, nothing will wake it up. For best results with USB you do need to be running XP SP1 or SP2 -- there's a patch on M$ updates somewhere for the original verion of XP. I have SP2 installed on the machine. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Vuescan and 64bit Windows - Ed's reply
My previous machine had a Gigabyte MB and I really liked it. So far, I'm not impressed. It's also my first experience with Nvidia chipset drivers - I was ready for anything else, given my experience with VIA. I may go back to Gigabyte, sooner than later. Jim gary wrote: I guess I should say Asus mobos anymore. It used to be my mobo of choice. http://www.iometer.org/ To some degree you can measure disk i/o with the program, though it really flogs your whole system. gary wrote: FWIW, I don't build PCs using Asus mobos. I find I get a better bang for you buck with Gigabyte. I've built two systems using the GA-k8n Ultra-9 (x64 and Suse 10.0) Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Vuescan and 64bit Windows - Ed's reply
These are USB devices, Tony. I was told by a so-called computer guru that this problem was corrected in XP. It could be that the device is incorrectly installed - it's a USB 2 device but its speed, or slowness, indicated that Win XP thinks it an early USB device. I've tried uninstalling the USB controllers reinstalling them but to no avail. Jim Tony Sleep wrote: On 02/06/2006 James L. Sims wrote: I have a 32-bit device on a computer running Windows XP 32-bit that regularly fails to see one device unless it's activated and the computer restarted - much like the behavior that I experienced with Win 2K. That's normal and correct behaviour for SCSI. You can go into device manager and refresh the view instead, and it should be seen. Once seen, you can turn the device off and on at will, and won't have that problem again - until you reboot with the device powered off. Tony Sleep Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Vuescan and 64bit Windows - Ed's reply
That's and Idea. Thanks! I usually check for updates but I haven't checked the Asus website for the new board. Jim Tony Sleep wrote: On 03/06/2006 James L. Sims wrote: These are USB devices, Tony. Ah, OK. That is weird, then. I've used USB USB2 a lot and not had any problems like that. Is the controller on the motherboard? If so, it might be worth looking for updated motherboard drivers, or trying a PCI card USB adaptor instead. Tony Sleep Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Vuescan and 64bit Windows - Ed's reply
I have three devices plus a seven-and-one card reader, all connected to onboard USB ports. My trackball, an Epson 1640 scanner and R2400 printer work fine but the card reader fails to se the Compact Flash card when it's inserted and a reboot is required - much like my older machine, running win 2K did when I turned on my scanner. Jim Laurie Solomon wrote: If you have connected the devices to an unpowered hub, this can create problems - especially if you have several devices that have power requirements connected to the same hub directly or daisy chained to it. Furthermore, despite the claims, two many devices and/or hubs daisy chained of the same USB port as well as very long cable runs can cause problems as well. The motherboard bus can only supply so much power to each of the USB ports. The 120 plus devices that they say can be connected typically are either low power or non-power consuming devices (like mice and keyboards); or they need to have an external power source such as an active powered hub or a directly powered transformer source. Like SCSI devices, sometimes USB devices do not get along with other USB devices and do not share ports or daisy chains nicely. This can cause the OS to fail to recognize the device on a plug and play basis, requiring one to have to either reboot or to disconnect and reconnect the device or to turn off the power to the device and then turn it back on for the system to recognize it. Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James L. Sims Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 11:31 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Vuescan and 64bit Windows - Ed's reply These are USB devices, Tony. I was told by a so-called computer guru that this problem was corrected in XP. It could be that the device is incorrectly installed - it's a USB 2 device but its speed, or slowness, indicated that Win XP thinks it an early USB device. I've tried uninstalling the USB controllers reinstalling them but to no avail. Jim Tony Sleep wrote: On 02/06/2006 James L. Sims wrote: I have a 32-bit device on a computer running Windows XP 32-bit that regularly fails to see one device unless it's activated and the computer restarted - much like the behavior that I experienced with Win 2K. That's normal and correct behaviour for SCSI. You can go into device manager and refresh the view instead, and it should be seen. Once seen, you can turn the device off and on at will, and won't have that problem again - until you reboot with the device powered off. Tony Sleep -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Vuescan and 64bit Windows - Ed's reply
What OS are you using? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I tried this and it doesn't work. I right-clicked the scanner.inf file and installed it. Vuescan and the OS still can't see or use the scanner (that goes for both the KM Scan Elite 5400 II and the Nikon LS-8000). I've tried it a few different ways, and rebooted the system to see if that helps. Either the scanner does not show up in the Windows Device Manager or it does and says, This device is not configured correctly. In either case, Vuescan (as I understand it) will not be able to access the scanner. Is there a step to this process that I am missing? Tony Sleep wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You are able to use your 5400 II on x64? I have Vuescan running on x64 but can't load/install the scanner on the system. How did you use Ed's .inf file to install the scanner? This is great if you were able to do this. Thanks! I'll jump in as the list is likely to disappear within an hour or so thanks to the domain move. The usual method is Right Mousebutton click on the .inf file and select 'install'. This will load the necessary guff into the registry. Tony Sleep. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Vuescan and 64bit Windows - Ed's reply
Windows XP 64 should see it, however, I have a 32-bit device on a computer running Windows XP 32-bit that regularly fails to see one device unless it's activated and the computer restarted - much like the behavior that I experienced with Win 2K. Jim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Windows XP Professional x64 James L. Sims wrote: What OS are you using? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I tried this and it doesn't work. I right-clicked the scanner.inf file and installed it. Vuescan and the OS still can't see or use the scanner (that goes for both the KM Scan Elite 5400 II and the Nikon LS-8000). I've tried it a few different ways, and rebooted the system to see if that helps. Either the scanner does not show up in the Windows Device Manager or it does and says, This device is not configured correctly. In either case, Vuescan (as I understand it) will not be able to access the scanner. Is there a step to this process that I am missing? Tony Sleep wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You are able to use your 5400 II on x64? I have Vuescan running on x64 but can't load/install the scanner on the system. How did you use Ed's .inf file to install the scanner? This is great if you were able to do this. Thanks! I'll jump in as the list is likely to disappear within an hour or so thanks to the domain move. The usual method is Right Mousebutton click on the .inf file and select 'install'. This will load the necessary guff into the registry. Tony Sleep. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Vuescan and 64bit Windows - Ed's reply
Tony, Thanks for looking into the 64-bit capability of vuescan. It was nice to hear from Ed once again on this list. This discussion has brought about a kind of old home week, hasn't it, and it's been nice to hear from a few others, as well. By the way, Tony, please check your clock, this message was time stamped 3/31/06 1:05 PM. Jim Tony Sleep wrote: On 31/05/2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Tony, It's nice to hear from you. It's been a few years. Yes, VueScan should work well with Windows Vista. I produced a scanners.inf file and have been distributing it with VueScan for at least a week now. Another bonus is that it will let VueScan work with Windows XP x64 also (most vendor scanner software won't). Have you tried the latest version (8.3.48)? It's a lot faster than old versions, and works pretty well. The last time we met I was supporting only 2 or 3 scanners, and now it's above 500 scanners. Time flies when you're having fun (smile). Regards, Ed Regards Tony Sleep Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: large scanning project
Tony wrote: Maybe they'll finally fix the utterly broken 1200 colour management then? I had a 1200 for a long while and it never produced a single satisfactory print. I downloaded a profile from Ian Lyons' Computer Darkroom website ( http://www.computer-darkroom.com/home.htm )several years ago that seems to work much better than the OEM profile. Polaroid effectively went bust. I get a mail a month at least from Nikon users asking how to get their ancient LS1000 working under XP, since Nikon have never produced XP software that supports it. Sadly there isn't a mfr anywhere who is exempt from the vicissitudes of the technology market. I can understand companies writing off a model some years after production has ceased but three years is a bit soon. Sadly, you're right. The industry standard now is epitomised by Dell, whose attitude is that once a machine is out of warranty it is obsolete and none of their concern; you should buy a new model if you want support. Yes, I have a Dell Latitude, now on its 3rd keyboard and 2nd motherboard. I learned my lesson with the purchase of a new Gateway computer in 1996. I custom built my first machine in 1997 to replace it. The answer, as I suspect it is with your Polaroid 120 and with many obsolete scanners from companies like Agfa who have fled the market, is to use Ed Hamrick's Vuescan, which works fine with the LS1000 - better than the OE ever did, too. I still use a Polaroid 4000, it's a fine machine, with Vuescan. We aren't all made of the money the mfr's think we owe them every 2yrs or so. The thing is : next time buy with your eyes open, or, perhaps more sensibly, not at all. It is only consumer pressure that will change these policies. Again, sadly, Ed's software won't cure my 64-bit driver problem. I purchased the 120 with Silverfast software and in all cases, I'm stuck with using a 32-bit XP operating system. And your last two sentences sum it up: Buyer beware and we all should make our sentiments known to to the companies. Jim Sims Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: ADMIN: domain transfer issues
I still shoot medium format occasionally and that's added to the archives of negatives and transparencies that I scan when needed. I do, however, do most my photography today with a Canon 20D, storing in RAW format. I use Capture One, a great Raw image converter from Phase One. I like it much better than Photoshop's converter feature. Jim Berry Ives wrote: I went with Oly 4/3 system recently. A burglar took all my film cameras last weekend, so my transition is even more certain now. Plus, I compared several 12x16 prints on w/c paper shot on film versus digital, and I can't tell the difference. Although I do have to be careful about white point setting in this very high contrast environment. Negative film gave me a lot of latitude. So the Coolscan V ED will be mostly for scans of old photos now. Berry On 5/25/06 6:29 AM, Tony Sleep [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 25/05/2006 gary wrote: The trouble is it takes a really good digital camera to equal a film camera plus scanner. Well, yes, but the time and hassle saving is colossal. I still scan film, and will be doing so for many years, but it's all archive. I've shot 2 rolls in the past 3.5years, which I had to, to match older projects. I need an MF scanner for some 6x6, but am waiting for prices to fall on eBay:) Tony Sleep -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: ADMIN: domain transfer issues
Good luck, Tony. I, for one, still scan images and value filmscanners. Jim Tony Sleep wrote: As posted today at www.halftone.co.uk - please see below. This may have implications for the filmscanners list, as if I cannot get the domain released I shall have to change the list address. More later on that. Regards Tony Sleep == www.halftone.co.uk - the home of Tony Sleep Photography and the filmscanners mailing list - is presently unavailable due to Pipex failing to release the domain for transfer as instructed 14 May 2006. Sorry, but rather than have it vanish without trace at some time that suits them, I thought it best to pull the site and tell everyone what was going on. I apologise for any inconvenience this causes. However the site was horrendously overdue for an update, but had become an unmanageable sprawl of ancient static HTML. It was simply not worth attempting given the negligible facilities (no scripts, no database) available with this ISP. If you are looking for subscribe/unsubscribe instructions for the filmscanners list, please see below. The filmscanners reviews are now outdated and I no longer review them due to the excessive amounts of time and lost income it involved. I do not intend reinstating them. Try the Wayback Machine archive of the web at http://www.archive.org/web/web.php if you are looking for an old review. The photography and much more (folios, exhibits, stories, tech stuff, blog and whatever else I feel like chucking in) will reappear shortly at the all-new CMS-based www.tonysleep.co.uk. However that site is still in development, and access to content is variable at present, depending on what I am working on. I had hoped to manage the transition rather more smoothly but reckoned without Pipex. So Halftone.co.uk is now in limbo for the time being. If you have any inquiries or concerns please contact me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] My current email address [EMAIL PROTECTED] still works, and will remain my main address as it is so well known - but there are bound to be a few days disruption whenever I eventually manage to move the halftone.co.uk domain. Alternatively, phone me on +44 208 840 3463 (0208 840 3463 within UK). The filmscanners list The list is still active but quiet, with few postings. Everyone has bought digital cameras, or now knows what they are doing :-) The archive is at http://www.mail-archive.com/filmscanners@halftone.co.uk To subscribe : send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with subscribe filmscanners, or subscribe filmscanners_digest, in the msg subject or body if you prefer digest delivery rather than individual mails. To unsubcribe: send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe filmscanners, or unsubscribe filmscanners_digest, in the msg subject or body, depending on which you are subscribed to. The address for postings to the list remains [EMAIL PROTECTED] See you at www.tonysleep.co.uk I hope... - Tony Sleep 25 May 2005 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: HP PhotsSmart - questions
When I was in the camera repair business I used denatured alcohol cut 5-% with ether. The ether dispersed water droplets and promoted faster drying. Other recommendations from factory repair houses included MEK and distilled water with a drop or so of mild dish washing detergent. Jim lists wrote: Windex contains amonia which can etch coatings. Never use it on optics. Electronics grade alcohol is generally accepted as best for optics. I use cottonballs rather than cloth. Laurie Solomon wrote: I do not have answers to the question of cleaning the internal optics, mirror, or sensors; nor do I have an answer to why 150 dpi appears sharper than 300 dpi when scanning a 3 x 5 color print. I take it that this is a flatbed scanner. I would suggest the obvious with respect to cleaning. You should start by cleaning the glass bed with a soft lintless cloth and a little Windex, being careful not to let any of the liquid run off the glass and into the internal areas of the scanner. As for the other parts, you need to be careful not to scratch or leave lint on the surfaces of the optics and mirror. I suspect that one would also need to be careful about what solutions one uses to make sure that they do not leave their own film residue over the optics and mirror, don't contain anything that will deteriorate the internal parts, and do not damage the electronic components and elements. As for the question of why 150 dpi appears sharper than 300 dpi when scanning a 3 x 5 color print, you did not tell us if the result you speak of was on the monitor or on a hard copy print ( and if the latter, what type of print laser, inkjet, etc.) The answer to this could furnish some indications of the reasons for this. Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 8:37 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] HP PhotsSmart - questions Hi, Been reading the posts here for quite some time. Just got into scanning. In fact the recent thread on Cheap Film Scanners woke me up :-) I have one that's at the bottom of that heap. It's HP PhotoSmart vintage 1997. SCSI interface, which makes it S10 I guess. I'm using the current version of HP software from their Support site. Did a calibrate with a white piece of paper (the card is gone). The scanner was donated by a friend. Now the question. I started with a simple color print (3x5) scan and noticed that setting it to 150dpi gives a sharper result than 300dpi. Can that be explained in any way? Saved as bmp and jpg, same results. Secondly, should I take the scanner apart and attempt to clean any optical components? I'm quite handy with small tools :-) After sitting for so many years and some usage by the previous owner, it must have some film whatever the optical pickup is. Regards, Rich Koziol -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: HP PhotsSmart - questions
The denatured alcohol I use is an industrial grade that does not have the additives found in rubbing alcohol. besides staying away from substances that will damage coatings (and magnesium fluoride is slightly water soluble) the cleaner must not leave residue and should evaporate quickly. Jim. lists wrote: Denatured alcohol often has gunk in it to prevent your skin from drying. Wintergreen oil is common. They also denature it with wood alcohol, which I don't think is a problem for glass (though quite toxic for humans). The electronics grade alcohol I use is PureTronics Techincal Grade isopropyl. The claim is it is 99.9 percent pure. $7 for 32 oz. http://www.puretronics.com It's not on their website. Stock number 3125. I sppose if you have access to it, reagent grade isopropal would be the best. What you want to avoid is the 70% pure junk. For the car windows, I use the cheaper stuff. You should be able to find 99% pure alcohol [anhydrous] About $1 for 16oz. Brite-Life is a common brand. The use of cotton balls is mostly from the cleaning instructions of filters. I'm not sure why they prefer cotton balls to lens cleaning tissue. However, when on the road, you can get cotton balls and the nearly pure 99% alcohol at any drug store, rather than having to track down a photo store. http://www.lumicon.com/faq-c.htm I find the cushioning of cotton balls tends to be gentler on the glass. While we are at it, some say canned air can damage glass. I do know that if you don't hold the can perfectly level, refrigerant comes out. There is also talk of thermal shock. I use a scuba tank for my canned air, so I don't know if current genneration canned air products have this problem. I have a Leland CO2 duster as well, but don't use it much as it surely puts out cold air. Laurie Solomon wrote: Windex contains ammonia which can etch coatings. Never use it on optics. I assumed as much but was not sure, which is why I made a point of articulating my suggestions the way I did and restricting my suggestion of Windex's to the plate glass bed of the scanner if it were a flatbed scanner, saying to be careful not to let any of it run off the glass into the innards of the scanner, and following it with the statement: As for the other parts, you need to be careful not to scratch or leave lint on the surfaces of the optics and mirror. I suspect that one would also need to be careful about what solutions one uses to make sure that they do not leave their own film residue over the optics and mirror, don't contain anything that will deteriorate the internal parts, and do not damage the electronic components and elements. Electronics grade alcohol is generally accepted as best for optics. I am unfamiliar with electronics grade alcohol; how does it differ from denatured alcohol? I understand why one might not want to use rubbing alcohol' but is denatured alcohol the same as electronic grade? I use cottonballs rather than cloth. I suppose they could work just as well as long as they do not leave behind any form of lint or cotton strings or dust. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of lists Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 12:43 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: HP PhotsSmart - questions Windex contains amonia which can etch coatings. Never use it on optics. Electronics grade alcohol is generally accepted as best for optics. I use cottonballs rather than cloth. Laurie Solomon wrote: I do not have answers to the question of cleaning the internal optics, mirror, or sensors; nor do I have an answer to why 150 dpi appears sharper than 300 dpi when scanning a 3 x 5 color print. I take it that this is a flatbed scanner. I would suggest the obvious with respect to cleaning. You should start by cleaning the glass bed with a soft lintless cloth and a little Windex, being careful not to let any of the liquid run off the glass and into the internal areas of the scanner. As for the other parts, you need to be careful not to scratch or leave lint on the surfaces of the optics and mirror. I suspect that one would also need to be careful about what solutions one uses to make sure that they do not leave their own film residue over the optics and mirror, don't contain anything that will deteriorate the internal parts, and do not damage the electronic components and elements. As for the question of why 150 dpi appears sharper than 300 dpi when scanning a 3 x 5 color print, you did not tell us if the result you speak of was on the monitor or on a hard copy print ( and if the latter, what type of print laser, inkjet, etc.) The answer to this could furnish some indications of the reasons for this. Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 8:37 AM To: [EMAIL
[filmscanners] Re: 'Cheap' film scanner recommendations
Jack, Thanks for the input. It's great to have folks from industry participating again in this forum. Jim Sims Jack Phipps wrote: Actually, Digital ICE works quite well with most Kodachrome film. There are certain images that are troublesome. Certain batches of film with a lot of cyan are the most serious cuprites. For example I scanned an image of a man wearing a dark navy colored cap. Of course there was a high density of cyan in the cap. Unfortunately the cap had yellow lettering on it. The yellow lettering was the only part of the image that was affected when correcting the image using the infrared defect map. It was also unfortunate that the image was covered with many fine scratches and other very visible surface defects. The fastest way to solve the problem was to scan the image twice and bring back the lettering on the cap with a layer mask in an image editor. The lettering on the cap was an important part of the image otherwise I would have left it alone. My workflow is to scan Kodachrome with Digital ICE on. If I notice artifacts around high densities of cyan, rescan with Digital ICE off. If there are a lot of defects, I combine the two (or I go down the hall and use a Nikon 9000). If there is any fading or color imbalance, then I apply Digital ROC. The other choice is to purchase a new Nikon 9000 that does scan Kodachrome quite effectively. However, I don't think that the Nikon 9000 meets the requirement of inexpensive. The Nikon 5000 and the Nikon V also perform better with Kodachrome than the older models but not as well at the 9000. Jack Phipps Kodak's Austin Development Center Formerly, Applied Science Fiction On 7/22/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My only suggestion is that whatever you do, you should do it with Digital ICE enabled. You will want to use the scans as is and not screw around trying to remove dust from the images (other than a couple blasts from your Dust Off before you scan). Except that theoretically Digital ICE doesn't work with Kodachrome (although some have reported it working ). Image apparently not fully transparent in the IR channel. Polaroid Dust Scratch Removal. http://www.polaroid.com/service/software/poladsr/poladsr.html -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Polaroid 120 opinions
Maybe someone at Polaroid would know where he is. Usually, companies are hesitant to provide that information but maybe Polaroid would make an exception in this case. I sent a note to Larry Berman but he hasn't talked with him since the interview. Jim Arthur Entlich wrote: I tend to agree. I had hoped to be able to find him on some other type of list, even if it was just something like gardening, just to send an occasional hello, how are you doing, not to engage him in Polaroid or technical discussion. We had developed a rapport beyond the business matters over the period we were in communication. Art Laurie Solomon wrote: Art, I would also be interested in locating and re-establishing contact with David - especially concerning the Polaroid Film Recorder that I have and how one might get or create new lookup files for it that are dedicated to handling today's batch of films. However, I think that he dropped out of sight deliberately after leaving Polaroid. My impression was that he was getting sort of feed up with Polaroid's policies and practices vis-à-vis its customers and employees. I got the impression that, unlike you and I, David's involvement with online lists and forums was primarily a work related obligation and responsibility as opposed to a personal one or an advocational one. Thus, if he has left the industry, I doubt if he would still be involved with online lists. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Epson scanner drivers will not stay installed
Bernie Kubiak wrote: All this might not be necessary if MS learned to play well with others! grin Bernie And when might that be? :) Jim Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Epson scanner drivers will not stay installed
Bernie and Laurie, I have updated the ASPI files from the links Bernie provided. After reboot I turned on the Epson scanner and the computer recognized it immediately - no reinstallation of the drivers. I will try it again tomorrow, after I use the SprintScan 120 and the card reader. If it still sees it, it'll be the first time. Thanks, I'll keep you posted. Jim Bernie Kubiak wrote: Jim, To test the USB scanner as SCSI device theory, you may want to install an ASPI driver and see if that helps, then follow the same startup sequence those of us using SCSI cards do (in my case a Polaroid 4000). Ed Hamrick has a driver posted on his web site: www.hamrick.com/vuescan/vuescan.htm#windows (same driver for Win2K XP) Or look at www.ncf.carleton.ca/~aa571/aspi.htm or http://aspi.radified.com/ both have notes on sorting out the ASPI driver mess and links to Adaptec drivers. The last two websites mention the Adaptec/Microsoft struggle Laurie refers to. Startup sequence is turn on the scanner, then turn on or reboot the computer, scanner gets recognized. Bernie LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: Yes. That doesn't seem to do any good, Laurie. However, In trying this again to be sure, I decided to turn off the scanner and then turn it back on. On the third try it recognized it. One other thing I should point out. When I first turn on the scanner, this is after the computer has been turned on for the day, the scanner drivers are reinstalled - Windows has found new hardware routine. Almost every time there is an indication of an error in the installation at the Finish applet. Yes, this is what happens when you attempt to install some SCSI scanners that are connected to a SCSI card. Tou often wind up needing to install up to 8 instances of the scanner before the OS will recognize it. The installation of each instance presents a Windows has found New Hardware and there is an indication of an error at the end with the a repeat of the Windows has Found New Hardware until the magic number of instances has been installed. I think I refer to this in my second paragraph. What I did not mention is that Microsoft at one point with XP was having an argument with Adaptec and refused to license their SCSI layer files and developed their own. The Microsoft layer software frequently would not work well or reliably with some SCSI devices whose manufactures used the Adaptec standards. I believe the two companies have now reconciled their differences; but I believe that XP installs the Microsoft developed SCSI layer by default and not the Adaptec one, which is one of the resons why some scanners are not recognized under the Scanners Cameras menu item in the Control Panel but appear as a separate menue item such as Unknown or Imaging Devices. This sort of thing may be at the base of your problem; but I am just speculating. I'm not sure how to do that. Epson packages all the drivers for a specific machine into one compressed file. Install the scanner as a SCSI device rather than a USB device, this should enable you to install the Epson SCSI drivers. They should remain installed in XP until you manually remove them, which you will not be doing. Then install the Epson scanner as a USB scanner which should cause Epson to install the appropriate Epson drivers in XP, resulting in your having both sets of drivers installed. I wouuld not use the Microsoft recommended Let Windows find the driver option or install the drivers from the Epson CD (if you can avoid it); but I would select to manually instal the drivers by selecting the non-automatic option that Windows offers which will allow you to search the CD for drivers to be installed manually. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Epson scanner drivers will not stay installed
Laurie, I almost always have only one scanner turned on. I have each USB device in its own port - Epson scanner, Epson printer, trackball, and multi-card reader (that takes up two ports). I have tried switching ports (a suggestion made by Epson). What's strange is that the only device drivers that go away are the Epson scanner drivers. Even stranger is that occasionally I have to install/uninstall the scanner drivers several times before the scanner is recognized. Another anomaly is that the computer will often not power down after I use the Epson Scanner. The shutdown sequence seems to go normally but it will not power down - screen goes dark, hard drives spool down, but the fans and power light stay on. Jim LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: I have had problems trying to run two scanners off a SCSI card wherein one of the scanners insisted that it be loaded first or else it would not load. Others have said that they have run into a similar thing with a SCI card where one of the scanners insisted on being given a specific ID assignment on the SCSI card or on the card being put into a specifc slot on the motherboard. Maybe a similar thing is taking place where the two scanner drivers are in conflict due to the way they load. If one keeps the Polaroid turned off, doe the Epson continue to lose its driver recognition? It might also be a conflict between the other USB devices and the scanner. I assume that all the USB devices are plugged into their own ports on the motherboard or they are all plugged into a powered hub. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of James L. Sims Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 7:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Epson scanner drivers will not stay installed I am having a problem with my computer dropping a driver. I have a Polaroid SprintScan 120 film scanner (firewire interface) and an Epson 1650 scanner (USB interface. In addition, I have a multi-card reader and a trackball that also have USB interfaces. My problem is that I have to reinstall the drivers for the Epson scanner almost every time I use it. My operating system is Windows 2000. Has anyone experienced this problem? The Epson scanner also has a SCSI interface. Maybe using it would help. I haven't done that because the scanner has a 50-pin connector and my Adaptec SCSI card has a 25-pin connector - I guess there's such a thing as an adapter. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Jim Sims Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Epson scanner drivers will not stay installed
John, I have SP4 installed along with all the Critical updates. Also, I've installed a suggested fix for failures to mount a drive. Jim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Which service pack? I've occasionaly had this happen on my XP machine and after a while I just kept the driver in a known spot on the c-drive so that I could have it find it when it asked. No need to pull out the CD again and again. - John James L. Sims wrote: I am having a problem with my computer dropping a driver. I have a Polaroid SprintScan 120 film scanner (firewire interface) and an Epson 1650 scanner (USB interface. In addition, I have a multi-card reader and a trackball that also have USB interfaces. My problem is that I have to reinstall the drivers for the Epson scanner almost every time I use it. My operating system is Windows 2000. Has anyone experienced this problem? The Epson scanner also has a SCSI interface. Maybe using it would help. I haven't done that because the scanner has a 50-pin connector and my Adaptec SCSI card has a 25-pin connector - I guess there's such a thing as an adapter. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Jim Sims -- John Karen Hinkey Seattle, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Epson scanner drivers will not stay installed
Thanks, Bernie. I think I posted this problem on a Microsoft monitored newsgroup a while back but the response didn't seem to fit the issues I'm having. I'll give it another try. Jim Bernie Kubiak wrote: Jim, I'd try posting your question on the on the Windows support groups Microsoft sponsors. The problem with the shutdown sequence suggests that something needs fixing with the OS and that in turn should help with the scanner driver situation. FWIW, I've not had problems with Epson scanner drivers and Win XP (printer drivers were another matter, although the latest version have not been problematic at all, even after the dreaded SP2 update). Bernie James L. Sims wrote: Laurie, I almost always have only one scanner turned on. I have each USB device in its own port - Epson scanner, Epson printer, trackball, and multi-card reader (that takes up two ports). I have tried switching ports (a suggestion made by Epson). What's strange is that the only device drivers that go away are the Epson scanner drivers. Even stranger is that occasionally I have to install/uninstall the scanner drivers several times before the scanner is recognized. Another anomaly is that the computer will often not power down after I use the Epson Scanner. The shutdown sequence seems to go normally but it will not power down - screen goes dark, hard drives spool down, but the fans and power light stay on. Jim Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Epson scanner drivers will not stay installed
LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: What's strange is that the only device drivers that go away are the Epson scanner drivers. This makes me think the problem is that the scanner is basically a SCSI based scanner which uses a USB port but feeds to a SCSI driver. The driver that goes away may be the SCSI driver. The way that SCSI devices with SCSI cards work the card is recognized before the OS and the scanner is recognized only if it is turned on and connected to the card at boot up before the OS loads. If this is not the case one has to turn the SCSI device one and go to device manager and refresh and rescan for devices after the OS loads. This may be the same for USB connected internal SCSI devices as well. Have you tried rescanning for new deviced in device manager to fine the scanner after it has disappeared? Yes. That doesn't seem to do any good, Laurie. However, In trying this again to be sure, I decided to turn off the scanner and then turn it back on. On the third try it recognized it. One other thing I should point out. When I first turn on the scanner, this is after the computer has been turned on for the day, the scanner drivers are reinstalled - Windows has found new hardware routine. Almost every time there is an indication of an error in the installation at the Finish applet. This is the only device that want to reinstall itself upon first use each day. You may be right about it spoofing the SCSI drive through the USB port. Even stranger is that occasionally I have to install/uninstall the scanner drivers several times before the scanner is recognize This is common for SCSI scanners which often need to be reinstalled up to 8 times in succession without any uninstalling of them before they are recognized by the OS. This makes me think the problem is that the scanner is basically a SCSI based scanner which uses a USB port but feeds to a SCSI driver. There were some older parallel port devices that internally were SCSI devices and used SCSI drivers but required a parallel port driver as well so that they could be ported to the parallel port and then to the SCSI driver. Your scanner may be along those lines except it uses a USB port and USB mini-driver instead of the parallel port min-driver employed by the older devices. It is possible that this is confusing you OS or producing some sort of conflict. Try installing the SCSI driver for this scaanner along with the USB and see if that helps. I'm not sure how to do that. Epson packages all the drivers for a specific machine into one compressed file. The shutdown sequence seems to go normally but it will not power down Somehow and for some reason your scanner is causing the system to go into hybernation rather than shut down. Do you turn the scanner's power off before shutting the system down? If not, the system may still see the scanner as beign in use and is reverting to hybernation rather than shut down. I think that's what may be happening. I usually forget to turn off the scanner before I shut down the computer. Come to think of it, this also happens sometimes when I leave a CF card in the reader - and if I delete the images on that card and do not remove it, the computer get upset over a drive not being right. Jim Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Epson scanner drivers will not stay installed
I am having a problem with my computer dropping a driver. I have a Polaroid SprintScan 120 film scanner (firewire interface) and an Epson 1650 scanner (USB interface. In addition, I have a multi-card reader and a trackball that also have USB interfaces. My problem is that I have to reinstall the drivers for the Epson scanner almost every time I use it. My operating system is Windows 2000. Has anyone experienced this problem? The Epson scanner also has a SCSI interface. Maybe using it would help. I haven't done that because the scanner has a 50-pin connector and my Adaptec SCSI card has a 25-pin connector - I guess there's such a thing as an adapter. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Jim Sims Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Revive this list?!
Tony Sleep wrote: He has. I have. You have. Didn't you see the pearly gates on the way in? Geesh! And I thought I was dreamin' Jim Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Revive this list?!
I, for one, would hate to see this list go by the wayside. It has helped me make choices in a evolution of scanners and, as far as I know, scanners are still improving. Many of the members on this list, and they're too numerous to name, have been of invaluable assistance to me. I agree with Brad in that widening the the topic to be inclusive to digital photography. While I now use a digital camera regularly, I still shoot medium format film and all the image printing and distribution is in digital form. Other lists that are peculiar to a manufacturer are very limited in information and narrow in scope. Filmscanners has been by far the best information source I have found. I even ran across an old Bush Millimaki customer who also lives in my home town of Huntsville, Alabama. I know that quite literally thousands of individuals have been informed and assisted from this list. I will do all I can to help revive this list, Tony, from my area - just say the word. Please, keep up the good work, Jim Sims Brad Davis wrote: Tony, First, below is a note from Ed Lusby. I don't know what to make of his difficulties communicating, but I thought sending it along to you might be useful. Below Ed's note is something I wrote to John Mahany after he so kindly sent me the info re: cleaning an SS4000. I hate to see this list die, it has been too good to just let it disappear - especially when much of the expertise that is here (o0r was here) applies all along the process of digital photography. Other lists that are supposed to deal with various topics are usually too limited - either to a certain manufacturer, or software vendor, or the material they deal with lacks the depth that I know I need. The people here are the only ones I've found that consistently know the answers, and more. Laurie seems to be a treasure in himself, and there are several others who are as good and in some cases better. My suggestion is to widen the topic and then try to revive the list. I would be willing to help by shilling for the list on other venues. Hope we can keep it going. Brad Hi Brad, I haven't been able to post to filmscanners recently because my return email address was refused. There is nothing wrong with the return address, so I'm not sure what the problem is. I've also tried to contact Tony Sleep (the owner of filmscanners) but that message is also returned. Would you please forward this to filmscanners for me? Thanks. I share your concerns about the group, Brad, and I certainly agree that the expertise here is unparalleled. I have been astounded at the responses from the experts on the list regarding the amount of time that these people have taken to help others. I believe that is part of the problem, however. Sooner or later you just can't keep doing it. New blood needs to take over, but it takes years to learn what the professionals on this list know. Widening the scope of filmscanners is not a bad idea, but that is up to Tony Sleep. I really miss the Epson inkjet group and would like that area added as well. I'd like to hear from Tony concerning his view of filmscanners and what he would like to do with it. Ed I wish we could rejuvenate the list, I learned more here as relates to all aspects of digital imaging including Photoshop processing and printing than I have found anywhere. The level of intelligence here has been several orders of magnitude above any other imaging list I¹ve been on. Perhaps if the list were generalized to ³digital image creation², letting it grow to include discussions of various software from Lasersoft and Vuescan through various programs like PS (I saw a note elsewhere that asserted that a Lasersoft product is better than PS I think that was what was claimed) through specific printing programs. There is too much knowledge represented by Laurie, Art, David Littleboy and many others (I even come up with some useful stuff now and then) to just let it go. I know that other lists exist, but the chaff is often so thick, and the wheat so sparse that I despair. That wasn¹t true here, even when the arguments re: dMax and # of bytes were going on. Even discussions of equipment I will never own (probably), like the Minolta scanners, were useful. Is something like this worth proposing further? Or am I missing something and it would be best to just let ³Scanners² die? It is my hope that by talking with a few folks, I might refine my idea and have a better chance of selling to whoever (I don¹t even know who runs this list I can be oblivious on occasion). Who should this suggestion go to, and how might it be modified to improve its chances of succeeding, first in being tried, and second in practice? If you think this useful to post to the list, please feel free to do so with any modifications you think are useful. My goal is to find a way to get this going again, I¹m aware that I would feel the loss of a tremendous resource if this list went away.. Thanks
[filmscanners] Re: Device interface and Windows 2000
So far, so good, Art. You are right - the older VIA chipsets were a real pain. Maybe they've got their act together with the later ones. Jim Arthur Entlich wrote: Hi Jim, This sounds like a newer mainboard which, chances are, has a perfectly fine set of VIA chips. Older VIA chipsets (like from 3-4 years ago) were problematic (Like on my Asus P3V133 board). Hopefully the flashing of the bios will settle things. Art James L. Sims wrote: Art, The mainboard (Gigabyte GA-7VAXP) was new last January and has a KT400 (PAC) and VT8235 (PSIPC) chipsets. Unfortunately, they are VIA chipsets. I almost did not buy this mainboard because it had VIA chipsets but, in talking to AMD, an engineer there said that this was a good mainboard and should be trouble free. I flashed the BIOS last night and I may update the VIA drivers today. I plan to check things out a little more today but I have not encountered an Unplug this Device alert since I flashed the BIOS. Other than this problem, I have had not problems with this mainboard and with Windows 2000, it's solid as a rock. Jim Sims Arthur Entlich wrote: I'm assuming the card reader is USB 1.1 Is the USB hub you are using powered externally, or by the USB connection from the computer? Which USB chipset is in your system? Is it an older VIA set? Have you checked is new drivers might be available for the card reader, since it sounds that it is having some conflicts with your system and other USB interfaced items? Art James L. Sims wrote: I am having an annoying problem with my scanners and card readers interfacing with my computer. Often, but not every time, when I turn off one of my devices or remove a media card from a card reader I encounter an alert to eject or unplug the device under penalty of an unstable system. I would not mind doing this but in order to bring the device back on line I must restart the computer and, in the case of my Epson scanner (USB interface), I have had to uninstall and reinstall the drivers. I have a 6in1 internal card reader that, once ejected or unplugged, won't come back without a system restart. The only devices that do not cause any problem are the Epson printer (USB) and Polaroid 120 scanner (Firewire). Has anyone else had this problem and, if so, is there a remedy? Thanks in advance, Jim Sims Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Device interface and Windows 2000
Art, The mainboard (Gigabyte GA-7VAXP) was new last January and has a KT400 (PAC) and VT8235 (PSIPC) chipsets. Unfortunately, they are VIA chipsets. I almost did not buy this mainboard because it had VIA chipsets but, in talking to AMD, an engineer there said that this was a good mainboard and should be trouble free. I flashed the BIOS last night and I may update the VIA drivers today. I plan to check things out a little more today but I have not encountered an Unplug this Device alert since I flashed the BIOS. Other than this problem, I have had not problems with this mainboard and with Windows 2000, it's solid as a rock. Jim Sims Arthur Entlich wrote: I'm assuming the card reader is USB 1.1 Is the USB hub you are using powered externally, or by the USB connection from the computer? Which USB chipset is in your system? Is it an older VIA set? Have you checked is new drivers might be available for the card reader, since it sounds that it is having some conflicts with your system and other USB interfaced items? Art James L. Sims wrote: I am having an annoying problem with my scanners and card readers interfacing with my computer. Often, but not every time, when I turn off one of my devices or remove a media card from a card reader I encounter an alert to eject or unplug the device under penalty of an unstable system. I would not mind doing this but in order to bring the device back on line I must restart the computer and, in the case of my Epson scanner (USB interface), I have had to uninstall and reinstall the drivers. I have a 6in1 internal card reader that, once ejected or unplugged, won't come back without a system restart. The only devices that do not cause any problem are the Epson printer (USB) and Polaroid 120 scanner (Firewire). Has anyone else had this problem and, if so, is there a remedy? Thanks in advance, Jim Sims - Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Device interface and Windows 2000
Art, I believe it's in the VT8235 chipset. Jim Arthur Entlich wrote: I'm stumped. Which chip set is used for USB on your mainboard? Art James L. Sims wrote: Thanks Laurie, the USB controllers are on the motherboard and I haven't upgrade the BIOS. I am not using an external hub. One of the devices, however, is a 6-in-1 card reader that connects to on of the internal USB connectors. Currently, USB devices total 4 - Epson 1640 Scanner, Epson 1200 printer, the 6-in-1 card reader, and a pointing device (trackball). I was advised by manufacturers of trackballs that I have to use the USB port rather than the PS-2 port. The trackballs did not perform well when I used the PS-2 port. I am using the latest device drivers that are available and I will upgrade the BIOS for my motherboard. Thanks again, Jim Sims Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Device interface and Windows 2000
I had tried the Rescan for Hardware routine in Device Manager, Laurie, to no avail. So far, things seem to be working OK with the new BIOS flash. I agree that USB is finicky and why the new keyboards and pointing devices have USB interface is beyond me. I recently had a new pointing device give problems in the PS/2 port and the manufacturer advised me to connect it to a USB port. The tech said although the devices are supplied with a PS/2 adapter, they will function better connected to USB - I think that's overkill. Jim Sims Laurie Solomon wrote: I have a 6in1 internal card reader that, once ejected or unplugged, won't come back without a system restart. The only devices that do not cause any problem are the Epson printer (USB) and Polaroid 120 scanner (Firewire). Not specifically on your problem; but sometimes if the unpluging and repluging of devices does not work, you can try and go tothe Control panel\System\Device manager and click on any of the listed items so as tohighlight one after which click on Rescan for Hardware. This often does the same thing as rebooting the computer in that it will install any loaded turned on and installed devices that the system is not recognizing as well as sometimes reinstall missing or corrupted driver and controller files that are on your system but whose working copies have become corrupted or placed in conflict with something else. Despite all the praise, USB can be a finicky form of connection. With each manufacturer using the specs as merely guidelines which they try to tweak and with limited amounts of power, IRQs, DMAs, PCI slots, etc. and an increasing number of peripherals on systems today with many being USB, there are frequently unanticipated conflicts and problems with some devices being more problematic than others. I currently have a USB 2.0 video capture device connected directly to its own USB 2.0 PCI adapter card in a Win XP AMD 2200 cpu with 1 GB of RAM. While it works ok, if I should need to shut the computer down or reboot, it prevents Windows from starting up again if it is connected during the start up. I can replug it in after startup is completed with no problems. Go figure! James L. Sims wrote: I am having an annoying problem with my scanners and card readers interfacing with my computer. Often, but not every time, when I turn off one of my devices or remove a media card from a card reader I encounter an alert to eject or unplug the device under penalty of an unstable system. I would not mind doing this but in order to bring the device back on line I must restart the computer and, in the case of my Epson scanner (USB interface), I have had to uninstall and reinstall the drivers. I have a 6in1 internal card reader that, once ejected or unplugged, won't come back without a system restart. The only devices that do not cause any problem are the Epson printer (USB) and Polaroid 120 scanner (Firewire). Has anyone else had this problem and, if so, is there a remedy? Thanks in advance, Jim Sims - -- -- 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: 6.0.593 / Virus Database: 376 - Release Date: 2/20/04 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.593 / Virus Database: 376 - Release Date: 2/20/04 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Device interface and Windows 2000
True, Les, but my problem is that the device doesn't come back until I restart Windows. Jim Sims Les Berkley wrote: Hello! Not sure about Win 2K, but under XP, there is a Safely Remove Hardware icon that shows up in the Taskbar. You select the piece of hardware you want to remove, and a few seconds later, it tells you it is OK to remove it. Les -Original Message- Subject: [filmscanners] Device interface and Windows 2000 I am having an annoying problem with my scanners and card readers interfacing with my computer. Often, but not every time, when I turn off one of my devices or remove a media card from a card reader I encounter an alert to eject or unplug the device under penalty of an unstable system. I would not mind doing this but in order to bring the device back on line I must restart the computer and, in the case of my Epson scanner (USB interface), I have had to uninstall and reinstall the drivers. I have a 6in1 internal card reader that, once ejected or unplugged, won't come back without a system restart. The only devices that do not cause any problem are the Epson printer (USB) and Polaroid 120 scanner (Firewire). Has anyone else had this problem and, if so, is there a remedy? Thanks in advance, Jim Sims Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Device interface and Windows 2000
Thanks Laurie, the USB controllers are on the motherboard and I haven't upgrade the BIOS. I am not using an external hub. One of the devices, however, is a 6-in-1 card reader that connects to on of the internal USB connectors. Currently, USB devices total 4 - Epson 1640 Scanner, Epson 1200 printer, the 6-in-1 card reader, and a pointing device (trackball). I was advised by manufacturers of trackballs that I have to use the USB port rather than the PS-2 port. The trackballs did not perform well when I used the PS-2 port. I am using the latest device drivers that are available and I will upgrade the BIOS for my motherboard. Thanks again, Jim Sims Laurie Solomon wrote: First are your USB controllers on your motherboard or are they addin PCI adapter cards? If the first, you may need to upgrade your BIOS for your motherboard; or you could install a PCI USB adapter card in an open PCI slot which would avoid the motherboard controllers and BIOS. Secondly, are you connecting your deviceds directly to the USB sockets in the computer or are you using a USB hub; and if you are using a hub is it a passive hub or an independently selfpowered active hub. Here powered hubs are preferable to unpowered hubs, and direct connection is preferable to connection via a hub. Thirdly, are you using the latest drivers for all the USB devices and controllers and how many of what do you have connected to any given controller? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am having an annoying problem with my scanners and card readers interfacing with my computer. Often, but not every time, when I turn off one of my devices or remove a media card from a card reader I encounter an alert to eject or unplug the device under penalty of an unstable system. I would not mind doing this but in order to bring the device back on line I must restart the computer and, in the case of my Epson scanner (USB interface), I have had to uninstall and reinstall the drivers. I have a 6in1 internal card reader that, once ejected or unplugged, won't come back without a system restart. The only devices that do not cause any problem are the Epson printer (USB) and Polaroid 120 scanner (Firewire). Has anyone else had this problem and, if so, is there a remedy? Thanks in advance, Jim Sims -- -- 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: 6.0.587 / Virus Database: 371 - Release Date: 2/12/04 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.587 / Virus Database: 371 - Release Date: 2/12/04 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Off Topic: About those USB flash memory drives...
May be off topic, Art, but the constantly expanding variety of memory media for digital cameras is a real headache. When I dropped my Fuji 6900 last month (actually, my cat tripped me and I fell on it), I replaced it with a Canon Digital Rebel because it uses Compact Flash memory media cards. The 6900 used Smart Media and, now, Fuji seems to have switched to Secure Digital media. Compact Flash has been around a while and I've been told that SanDisk will be releasing a 3 gig high speed card in the near future. I don't know if any of the digital cameras can be connected to and communicate with one of the flash drives but it would be a nice feature. Some cameras that use Compact Flash will accept the IBM Microdrive but I haven't seen anything about an interface that would permit the use of a Jump Drive while shooting. I transfer the camera image files from the memory card to the computer via a card reader. I do not use digital camera software except for reading the Rebel's RAW (.CRW file extension) images. I understand that you can read these direct with Photoshop 8. Jim Sims Arthur Entlich wrote: I have a question that maybe someone will know the answer to. Since it is off topic you might wish to email me in private mail. I recently bought a small snapshot digital camera which has 16 megs of internal memory and takes Secure Digital memory for expansion. I was wondering if, rather than buying Secure Digital cards, is there some way to use these USB jump disks to download the image files without special software, or can I load the software onto the jump disk so it will communicate with the camera and allow a download of the image files? If not that, if I were to connect the jump disk to the camera while shooting, could the camera see this flash memory as usable and send images to it? I have several reasons why I'm interested in this approach. 1) memory types keep on changing, and I will probably upgrade to a higher quality camera soon and don't want to invest in obsolete memory, if this works it might be universal, and if not, at least the jumpdisk has other usage. 2) For some reason, (I expect marketing) the jumpdisks are much cheaper per MB that S.D. Flash memory, and it seems like their is more to them that the flash memory cards. Art Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Polaroid SprintScan 120 Film Holders -- questions
Victor, With regard to the 35mm carrier, I set the filmstrip in so that the spacings are a little ahead of the support bars. There are teeth on the retaining frame that will engage into the perfs as you lower the retainer. The slide the retainer into the locking position, slowly, until the spacings are aligned with the support bars. It gets a bit confusing with the 120 carrier. With Insight, you can select the image format on the Preview tab. Unfortunately, not all 120 format cameras index the film consistently nor accurately. Insight does provide some overscanning to compensate for the variances but, if the camera indexing mechanism gets a little gummy, the spacings may widen beyond Insight's margins. At that point the camera, or back, may need maintenance. The frame spacing on my old Kowa Six's vary from about .125 to .212 and that is pretty much within the scan zone of Insight. Just make sure the first frame is closely cropped to the leading edge of the carrier. I haven't tried it but there is also an option to scan the full strip. In VueScan, you can adjust the frame pitch with the Frame Spacing, on the Device tab. I use the term Frame Pitch because this adjustment seems to be the distance from the leading edge of one frame to the leading edge of the next frame. With my experience, the dimensions are assumed to be in centimeters. Frame Offset defines the lead position of the frame. You will have to play around with these setting to get what you need. My best results were obtained with a Frame Offset setting of -.247 and a Frame Spacing of 6.25. These setting may not work for you. In SilverFast, there is a button on the image panel that is labeled 6.6. this button toggles the format between 6X6, 6X7, and 6X9. There seems to be ample overscan to cover varying spacing. Hope this is helpful, Jim Sims Victor Landweber wrote: To the list -- A few questions about SprintScan 120 film holders: 1. How can I get 35mm film to stay aligned with the dividers and not shift when I close the 35mm film holder? 2. Is there a way to get the scanner to recognize the spacing of my 6×4.5 negatives? My camera spaces the images very differently from that marked on the 2¼ film holder. The only solution I've thought up is to select one of the other film sizes with the hope that it will include the intended negative. 3. Does anyone have any experience in filing out the SprintScan 120 film holders so negatives can be scanned full-frame? Please say how you did it, and how it's working for you. I have Polocolor Insight, SilverFast AI 5.5, and VueScan. Thanks. -- Victor Landweber Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: SS 120 questions
Simon, Once I got Silverfast and Insight into ps7 they work great. I don't think you'll have a problem. Jim Simon Lamb wrote: That is great news that the plug-ins work. Would my Insight 5.5.2 and Silverfast Ai 5.5 work as normal under PS7? I am concerned about the Piezo BW plug-in as well, as I use it for all my bw printing. Simon On 24/4/02 7:38 am, Op's [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Simon Lamb wrote: I wish I could help, I am still waiting for Adobe to send me my PS7 upgrade! I will probably not install it in the short term anyway, as I have my workflow adequately supported with PS6 and I don't want to start having configuration issues upset that flow. I wouldn't have though Adobe would have rewritten the plug-in interface as there was nothing wrong with it., so I would presume that existing plug-ins would work. Do any other plug-ins work? PS6 and PS 7 look similar But as a bonus (among other things) there is a healing tool which clones heaps better. The healing tool will be of benefit to those which do not have ICE - brilliant tool and well worth getting a copy of PS7. Plugins are working the same. I like the new features. Rob Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: SS 120 questions
Simon Lamb wrote: I have two questions for other SS 120 owners: 1. Does your machine make noises like something inside is vibrating, almost sounds like it is loose and rattling, during the autofocus procedure? Simon, my machine is noisy - a high pitched noise during auto focus and a kind of whininning/rattling noise during the scan. I think some of that noise is from stepper control. 2. I have done some focus tests and found that there is inconsistency between the focus when scanning frame one on a 6X6 strip and scanning frame three. In some tests, frame one is very obviously more in focus and sharper and in other tests frame three is the more in focus and sharper. It is due to the film flexing slightly when the holder is closed. This inconsistency is not good as it is causing me to have to redo scans until I get the best focus, for which I do not have time. Has anyone else noticed this or got a resolution/workaround? I have had a couple of instances where the film tried to bow in the carrier. But repositioning the film and locking it down again seemed to correct it. I've had little problems with film not being flat. Having said that, I'll still go for the glass carrier when it becomes available. Jim Thanks. Simon Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: IT8 calibration SS 120
Simon, Unfortunately, it scans where it thinks the frames are but there's enough overscan that you can position the film strip in the carrier to get all frames in view. Because of the way 120 cameras index and register each frame, varying film tensions, slippage of the metering roller, and a sloppy stop pawl, frame registration varies a good deal. I'm even starting to have good results with VueScan by altering the Device/Frame Offset to -.25 (VueScan changed this to -.247) and Frame Spacing to 6.25. This seems to work for my old Kowa Six's. slight alterations to these setting may be required for Hasselblads, Bronicas, and Mamiyas. Jim Simon Lamb wrote: James That's what I like about this list - people who know! Thanks very much for the tip, I will check it out. Does it just scan 6x24 or does it try and scan between where it thinks the frames are. The latter could still be a problem. Simon On 21/4/02 4:38 am, James L. Sims [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Simon, In SilverFast there is a button on the image panel (six down) called Job Manager that will permit you to preview and scan all four images in the carrier. Make sure you click the 6X6 and then click the third button from the left at the bottom of the Job Manager panel. Another applet will appear and it's fairly self explanatory. Jim Simon Lamb wrote: Jim I am just being paranoid about flatness. The scans are tack sharp. I will definitely look into the glass carrier though. Here is a suggestion for anyone from Lasersoft who may be listening. Can we have a 6X24 option so that we can scan a whole four image strip please? Insight has it and it means I can actually scan all frames on a four frame strip of 6X6. Simon On 21/4/02 1:08 am, James L. Sims [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Simon, I have not noticed a flatness problem with the SS 120 MF carrier. According to Polaroid, however, they will have a glass carrier available within about a month. I am having an indexing problem, when using VueScan, with MF carrier. I have devised some work-arounds but it's still a hassle. All the carriers work well with Insight and SilverFast. Jim Simon Lamb wrote: Chris How do you find the film flatness in the MF holder? It does not look flat to me although the images seem to be in focus. I seem to try a few times to get a strip to lay flat. Any tips? It is also impossible to scan every frame on a four frame strip. I like the 120 although the film flatness of the MF is an issue. Simon On 20/4/02 9:12 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does an IT8 calibration slide come with the Silverfast Ai version 5 software supplied with the Sprintscan SS 120 in the UK? It does. Or is supposed to; my first SS120 didn't have one (the machine was returned due to other reasons) and second also didn't. So both times I had to call the retailer - who got Polaroid to send one out. The first slide they sent looked liked it had been dragged across a floor under someone's foot - but both the retailer and Polaroid sorted everything out. Took a few days - so the moral of all this? Check the box/contents before driving the 3 hour journey home. Craig Auckland | Photographer Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: IT8 calibration SS 120
Simon, I have not noticed a flatness problem with the SS 120 MF carrier. According to Polaroid, however, they will have a glass carrier available within about a month. I am having an indexing problem, when using VueScan, with MF carrier. I have devised some work-arounds but it's still a hassle. All the carriers work well with Insight and SilverFast. Jim Simon Lamb wrote: Chris How do you find the film flatness in the MF holder? It does not look flat to me although the images seem to be in focus. I seem to try a few times to get a strip to lay flat. Any tips? It is also impossible to scan every frame on a four frame strip. I like the 120 although the film flatness of the MF is an issue. Simon On 20/4/02 9:12 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does an IT8 calibration slide come with the Silverfast Ai version 5 software supplied with the Sprintscan SS 120 in the UK? It does. Or is supposed to; my first SS120 didn't have one (the machine was returned due to other reasons) and second also didn't. So both times I had to call the retailer - who got Polaroid to send one out. The first slide they sent looked liked it had been dragged across a floor under someone's foot - but both the retailer and Polaroid sorted everything out. Took a few days - so the moral of all this? Check the box/contents before driving the 3 hour journey home. Craig Auckland | Photographer Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: MF on flatbed
For medium format I have been using an Epson 1640 and the resolution (1600 ppi) is not ideal. The 2450 would be much better from the standpoint of resolution. However, I get a rather objectionable degree of noise and some posterization when scanning thick negatives and slightly underexposed transparencies. The posterization is more prevalent with the transparency scans. Is anyone who is using the 2450 experiencing this problem? Jim Sims Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: I have tried many different times to do negs on various flatbed scanners without a transparency unit and none of them made satisfactory scans. On the other hand, the Epson 2450 Photo scanner does a super job with 2400 ppi scans of up to 4x9 inch transparency/negatives. Well worth the money. Godfrey On Saturday, February 16, 2002, at 05:05 PM, Ken Durling wrote: Does anyone have any experience scanning Medium Format (6x6) negs or slides on a flatbed? I don't have a transparency adapter, but someone mentioned something like a light tent? This is new to me, so I thought I'd ask. I have an HP Scanjet 5200C. Is there any hope? Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Anyone heard from David?
I haven't heard anything from David Hemingway since his rather disturbing reply stating he would be the one looking for a job. He has contributed a great deal on this list and I had decided to purchase the 120. But if he is gone from Polaroid, is Polaroid ditching their scanner line? The Chapter 11 announcement didn't scare me. Marketing and support cutbacks do. Has anyone heard from him? Jim Sims Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
Re: filmscanners: 1640 SU Re-Install Question
Rafe, I had the same problem a while back and I believe I deleted the folder EPFB5 in the Windows\TWAIN_32 folder but I'm not sure. About a year ago I had a similar problem with the Epson 1200 scanner and an Epson support tech instructed me to delete an inf file in the TWAIN_32 folder. With the 1640 things look a little different and I think I deleted the EPFB5 folder and reinstalled the software. I've got a good memory, just short. There is also one file in the TWAIN_32 folder - WIATWAIN.DS - that also may be Epson related. The only thing I see that can be uninstalled from Add/Remove is the Epson Smart Panel and I don't think that will do it. I also rebooted with scanner on to install. I used the installation CD and then installed the update. With the 8000 there also I'd think its data would be in a separate folder. Hope this doesn't steer you wrong, Jim rafeb wrote: I can't for the life of me get my 1640 SU TWAIN driver re-installed on my machine (Win 98 SE.) It was happily working a while back, but was deinstalled when I got the 8000. I had a need for it this evening and tried to reinstall it, with no luck. Strange thing is, the scanner itself is showing up nicely in Device manager, and all seems well with it -- no warnings, exclamation marks, or other signs of foul play. A download of the TWAIN driver from Epson (v. 5.00A) yields a self-extracting .EXE file. When exploded, this file yields a single .INF file and two .CAB files. I can unzip the .CAB files with WinZip, but not sure if I should. So now what? I tried installing from the scanner's distribution CD, and no luck there either. There's a directory on the CD with the same 3 files as in the download (a .INF and two .CAB files.) Taking the simple dummy route gets me no closer. It says (alternately) Installing TWAIN driver. Reboot computer. or TWAIN Driver deleted. Reboot computer -- but in any case, I can't see the TWAIN driver listed in PhotoShop (Select TWAIN source) for the life of me. Any ideas? Epson documentation (FAQ on web site) suggests that Plug and Play should have a role here, but it doesn't seem to. I've not seen any windows Wizards kick in to ask for that .INF file. rafe b.
Re: filmscanners: 1640SU @CompUSA $150
I've had the 1640SU for about two months and I believe it's a big bang for the buck. It seems to have a bit more range than the Epson 1200U that I did have and works well with Vuescan. The only problem I'm having is what appears to be posterization in the near highlight areas. I'm not sure what causes this but it was much worse with the 1200. I'll be happy to send anyone a small cropped sample as an example if anyone could suggest what is wrong. These are on scans from transparencies. If anyone could help me out on this issue I'd really appreciate it. Other than that I think the 1640 is a good unit for the price. I've scanned medium format negatives that look very good. It will not, however, take the place of a good medium format film scanner. For those of us on a tight budget, it's a good choice in the interim. Jim Stan McQueen wrote: At 02:59 PM 7/17/2001 -0400, you wrote: Try Buy.com $279 Harlee Little How good is the 1640SU? This price is approaching my threshold for an MF scanner. Stan Yep, there it is. And not only that, but a little popup window informed me that I could get another $25 off for any purchase over $250. That would make the final cost of the 1640SU with TPU $254. Seems like a winner for MF scanning. Now for some questions: 1. Has anybody tested this? How good is it? and 2. Does VueScan support it? Stan === Photography by Stan McQueen: http://www.smcqueen.com
Re: filmscanners: SS120 Nikon 8000 ... how do they work?
A zoom (or variable focal length) lens narrows the field of view as the focal length is increased - that's magnification. Jim Arthur Entlich wrote: Austin Franklin wrote: Yes, this is in fact exactly what I am speaking of. Minolta does this on a small scale with their Multi scanner line. That's not zooming, it's changing the magnification. That is entirely different. I'm not sure I see a difference in this case. If the area of the film being projected onto the CCD array is reduced or increased, how does this differ from the use of a zoom. Doesn't a zoom lens change magnification ratios? I must be missing something. I don't see much of a difference in the theory... Art
Re: filmscanners: Polaroid under major financial problems.....
Good points. Also we should all bare in mind that competition tends to keep prices competitive and make (hopefully) technical support more attentive to customer issues. I hope, and believe, the current economic situation will blow over and that Polaroid, as well as Compaq and Big Blue, will survive. The problem is, as you have pointed out, a world issue. Jim Raphael Bustin wrote: Polaroid is certainly not the only company in fanancial distress at the moment. Compaq and IBM are also on the ropes, not to mention about every company in the world involved in networking hardware or software, or semiconductor fabrication. Japan's economy, as a whole, has been in the dumps for several years now. rafe b.
Re: filmscanners: OT Polaroid (was: Nikon 8000ED
I can't imagine that anyone would enjoy reading about the financial trouble of an organization. Good jobs are at stake and investors are exposed to high risk. I sincerely hope, and believe, Polaroid will find their way out of this. You're right Lynn, Polaroid is a gutsy company and it has made many contributions to the photographic community. As soon as the current situation stabilizes, as I believe it will, I plan to acquire a 120 and not at a fire sale. Jim Lynn Allen wrote: Rafe wrote: In all fairness, I suspect Polaroid will find some way to continue operations. I would hope so--they're one of the gutsiest companies we have left in the USA. A long-time favorite. Maybe they'll just get bought out and assimilated into some new mega upstart. I don't think Kodak is strong enough (or willing) to do so--this might be a test of my prognosticatory powers...if it happens, someone can tell me I told you so. :-) Sad to see American manufacturing concerns in such a sad state. Totally agreed, Rafe. Not that they didn't partialy bring it on themselves (but I'd select Polaroid as exception to that). IMHO, what the cure would be is a world-wide minimum wage law that would put everyone on a more-level playing field. Something like that might bring all workers up to something comparable to EU and Japanese standards--American workers would appreciate the raise, probably. And I'm already sorry I brought it up. ;-) Best regards--LRA _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: filmscanners: PS 6.0 v. PS 5.0 LE v. Jasc Paintshop Pro 7.02
Matthew, There are many others subscribing to this mail list that can better advise you than I but this is my opinion: While there is no question that Photoshop is a powerful and precise graphics application, to the beginner, it is also very intimidating. Jasc's Paint Shop Pro (version 7.02), on the other hand, is much more user friendly and includes most of the features you will be needing - at least as you learn the techniques of digital imaging. Some of the features that Photoshop include (that Pain Shop Pro does not) are; a choice of color management profiles and a very good, albeit complex, monitor calibration feature, 48 bit, greater control of levels and curves, and more advanced tool and layer options. Paint Shop Pro offers only one color management profile (sRGB) and, I believe, is not quite as precise a graphics application as Photoshop. Paint Shop Pro includes a large library of preshapes that can be used in raster and vector layers, an impressive choice of tools, and does not require the computer resources that Photoshop can. Paint Shop Pro is very user friendly and will most likely meet your needs (at least in the beginning) for about a fifth the price of Photoshop 6.0. My opinion, Photoshop LE and Photoshop 5.0 (that is now included in some scanner bundles) are not as good a choice as Paint Shop Pro v 7.02. I use Photoshop and Paint Shop Pro because I believe both applications offer distinct advantages. I started out using Paint Shop Pro because it was cheap. It has evolved over several years to a much more powerful application and has remained a very easy program to learn and use. One bit of caution. When it comes to rotating an image to align a tilted image, neither of these applications do it well. Image alignment should be done by carefully aligning the image in the scanner. 90 and 180 degree rotations are handled very well with both applications. My suggestion to you, Matthew is to start out with the latest version of Paint Shop Pro and move up to Photoshop when, and if, you think you are ready. If your scanner is supported by Vuescan, I would also highly recommend it. You will need to output to 36 bit in Paint Shop Pro but it does a very good job. Jim S. Matthew Prastein wrote: I'm new to all this, just getting my feet wet, and have a very basic question about image processing software. It's clear, from all the content here, that PS, and in particular PS 6.0, is the Rosetta stone, an essential professional tool for achieving image quality, and uniformity, in publishing. But what about lower-class people like me? I'm an amateur, with very modest equipment (an Acer Scanwit 2740S and an Epson 900), very much in the learning mode. Should I shell out the $500+ bucks, plus the learning time, to get a grip on 6.0? Will 5.0 LE serve me better, at least in the learning phase and possibly for all time? And what about the Jasc program? It receives rave reviews in popular (i.e. non-professional) reviews, especially in computer publications, but I don't recall any reference to it in this list. Why not? What capabilities is it missing, that I really ought to have in order to do quality work? Put another way, how do I choose software that matches the capabilities of the rest of my system, and yet provides a reasonable path for future upgrade?
Re: filmscanners: LS4000 slide removed from mount
All of the Nikon F series, the Canon F1, and the Topcon had 100% viewfinder coverage. One of the reason most SLR did not was because registration (viewfinder/film image coincidence) did not need to be as precise. Jim Sims Enoch's Vision, Inc. (Cary Enoch R...) wrote: At 23:40 02-06-01 -0700, Arthur Entlich wrote: As some may know, almost all viewfinders, except one Contax and a couple of older Nikons (F2, I think) and maybe one other camera which give 100% view of what ends up on the film) The vast majority of camera view finders show only 92-96% of the image which is recorded to the film frame. Just FYI, the Canon EOS1n and EOS-1v have this ability. I use the former for copy work and rely on the 100% viewfinder feature extensively. I never shoot images all the way to the edge but with the 100% viewfinder coverage I don't have to worry about it either. I believe the Nikon F4 and F5 have the same capability. 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: What is 4,000 scanner quality like in practice.
E-Cost is showing both the Nikon 8000 and Polaroid 120 in their product list. Jim Tony Sleep wrote: On Wed, 23 May 2001 20:04:57 -0500 Laurie Solomon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I believe you may be mistaken or misinformed. The new 4000 ppi scanners are 35mm film scanners and not medium format scanners; hence they will not handle 120 film No, both Polaroid and Nikon have introduced MF 4000ppi scanners as well as 35mm units. The Nikon 8000 is AFAIK not quite available yet, the Polaroid SS120 is. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Filmscanning vs. Flatbedding
A friend gave me a set of prints and negatives this week to use in an article for a newsletter publication. The prints were pale, low contrast and very little color saturation. My friend asked me what he had done wrong. Upon examining the negatives (Kodak Gold), they look to be slightly fogged. I'm not sure if that was the case because I've never worked with this film. I scanned the negatives (35mm), however, on my Epson 1640 using Vuescan and, after working with the levels and curves in Photoshop, obtained very acceptable results. The contrast and color saturation were great. The images will print out to a sharp 5 X 7 image. I can't imagine what a good medium format scanner will do, with 48-bit and extended optical density range, but I should know in a month or so after I obtain one of the new medium format scanners. There is no doubt in my mind that scanning the negative is far better than scanning the print. Jim Sims Lynn Allen wrote: For the last several days I've been going back to my roots vis a vis archiving; scanning old prints again, instead of old negs or slides. Although I've read Tony's and others' comments on the differences in dynamic range etc., I'd never really noticed it so much before. Like, with flat scanning, grain-aliasing isn't much of an issue, dust is removeable with a Kleenex :-), and it's pretty easy to see if the scanner is seeing what *you're* seeing and reporting it fairly. But after a few flatscans, I found myself comparing them in my mind to what I've been getting on filmscans, thinking things like, Good Lord, these photos are faded!, Why on earth did they print it *that* way? and Where the h*ll did all the *colors* go? That's about when it struck me that there's a very good reason why some of us used to or now have darkrooms--our better chance to control the outcome. Years ago it was OK with me to the let the local shop dictate how good my pictures were. Now, when I see the difference between prints they made 30-40 years ago and the ones I made last week, I'm starting to think, Hey, this filmscanning stuff might just catch on! :-) Best regards--LRA --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
Re: filmscanners: Paintshop Pro
I use both Ps and PSP. I think each have their advantages and, when working with converted CAD images, the ability to precisely define a rotation is a great feature in PSP. Neither applications, however, do well at rotating images at other than 90 degree increments - I think Photoshop may do it a little better but not much. Jim Sims shAf wrote: Rob writes ... ... I was trying to remember the neatest features which PSP 7 has over Photoshop. Two which are extremely useful are: 1) The ability to rotate an image a fraction of a degree ... Not true ... I just pulled up an old image with a non-level horizon, and with the ruler tool drew a line across the horizon. Now Image=rotate_canvas=arbitrary indicates the exact rotation necessary to make the horizon horizontal ... to a hundredth of a degree! shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: System configurations
Hemingway, David J wrote: Hopefully you can help me with a survey on what type of computers and resources you are using for scanning. I would appreciate if you could answer the below questions and return to me off-list to my email address. Thanks David Computer Platform= PC Operating System = Windows ME Processor/Speed = AMD Athlon (Thunderbird) 900mhz Memory = 512 meg Free Disk Space = 20 gig Image Editing Software= Photoshop 6
filmscanners: Scanner consideration
I have returned my Epson Perfection 1200U Photo scanner and will be buying a new scanner. I know that a film scanner is the way to go for scanning negatives and transparencies but I also need a flatbed scanner. Since most of my transparencies and negatives I scan are medium format and larger (up to 4 X 5), I can not justify a film scanner at this time. I am considering the Epson 1640 for the flatbed and hope that it will give better results than the 1200. They're specs tout a 3.3 D-Max and 42 bit, a little better than the 3.0 D-Max and 36 bit that was stated for the 1200. I'm wondering if anyone on this mail list has experience with the 1640 and would recommend it. I'd really like to see the new Polaroid 120 but I'm afraid it may be above my budget limits for now. If the 1640 will provide anything near the results I'm looking for that's the route I'd like to pursue. The 1200 was bad to posterize in the greens and flesh tones with the slightest under exposed transparency or over exposed negative. Any advice or recommendations would be appreciated. Jim Sims
Re: filmscanners: ColorSteps?
These are the symptoms that I had experienced with scans from my Epson Perfection 1200U Photo - midtone gradients in steps with a blue-gray to blue-black cast and very pale greens (that should have been rich green). There was also a substantial loss of detail in these areas of pale green. I had defined these symptoms as posterization. I thought the images were unacceptable and never tried printing them. I did, however, look at them in Photoshop 5.5 and Paint Shop Pro 6.0 and the images were the same when viewed in both applications. I am using an ATI All-in-Wonder Pro 128 display adapter and was previously using a Rage Fury 128 - both using ATI Rage 128 architecture. I did note that these problems occurred on scans from slightly over exposed negatives and slightly under exposed transparencies. I sent the scanned images to Epson, with the problem areas annotated, and they concurred with what I described but said none of their scanners would do any better. I returned the scanner and they are refunding my money. I have a friend with an Epson Perfection 1640 who is very pleased with it. He is using a Mac (don't want to get another fire started here), but there were two things I didn't do that you have pointed out. one is I did not make a test print (I thought what I saw on the screen would show up in the print). And 2, I did not try the scan using another display card. I should mention, however, that I have another friend, with an Epson 1200 Photo who is using a Matrox G-400 display adapter. I have seen similar symptoms on his scans although he insists that they are not as prevalent as on my scans. That is subjective because the scans were not of the same images. After reading some of these posts I think I will ask my friend with the Epson Perfection 1640 to scan some of my problem images and compare the results. Good points to consider and this is only one example that makes this group worthwhile, Jim Arthur Entlich wrote: Richard, I ran into a problem with Photoshop 4.01 on the PC where it posterized badly when I did levels adjustments in 16 bit. The problem did not occur if I worked in 8 bit. It usually happened in midtones going quite dark blue-black. I never printed these so, I have no idea what they would have looked like. However, I was told by some it was probably a graphic/video card driver problem. I had upgraded to the newest version, so I contacted Diamond, my videocard manufacturer. They admitted there were some incompatibilities with the card I had and Photoshop, and suggested I update the card on a trade in basis. On a last attempt, I upgraded to Photoshop 5.0, and magically the problem went away, so it was either a PS and Diamond problem, or a PS only problem, but it's gone now, and I did not replace my videocard or have I upgraded the driver since. I recognize your situation is on a Mac, and I don't know if any of this relates, but obviously PS Version 4 for Windows was buggy. Art Richard Starr wrote: --- You wrote: 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? --- end of quote --- Thanks for the answers to this. I am still finding my way with my semi-disabled Nikon 3510AF. Full resolution scans take 15 minutes and correcting the color misregistration takes 10 more. Until I can afford a modern scanner, I'm still in the dark ages. The film in one case is either Kodak 1000 negative film or an 800 negative film from maybe Agfa. Definitley available light material shot in my little Olympus XA4 (a jewel.) I would have done some curves or gamma adjustments in Photoshop. Maybe a curves adjustment in the Nikon software for one of the pictures. The odd thing is that the posterization seems to show in the display and not in the print. This suggests a bug somewhere in the software or hardware. It's Photoshop 4.0.1 on a SuperMac with an ATI video board and a Sony monitor. It's all good stuff. Still, this Photoshop version is a little buggy, I think. I used to use this version on a 68000 Mac and it worked better with regard to previews anyway. On the PPC Mac (it installs as a ppc version)checking and unchecking preview boxes may or may not affect the display depending on the thing being adjusted. When the display is previewed, the adjustment affects the whole screen, so the background becomes magenta or darker or whatever. It's hard to make subtle judgements that way even if the image fills most of the screen. I don't think the 68k Mac version did these things. Maybe later versions don't. (Holding the mouse down on the drag strip of the control window in many functions does
Re: filmscanners: scanning/photoshop workstation (long)
PAUL GRAHAM wrote: (Snip) Basically the new 4000 dpi m/f scanners will output such large files that handling them demands a new ball game in desktop systems: files of 500 to 700 Mb will be common at 4000 dpi, (in 16bit), and no doubt 6000 dpi will come along soon for 35mm. If you do 5x4" - god help you. I think it comes down to what resolution you need for the intended purpose. I think 300 ppi for an 8 X 10 is sufficient for my Epson 1200 printer (2400 X 3000 image size). I can not discern any improvement with higher resolutions - not that I would turn down a 4000 or 6000 ppi scanner if I could afford it and I do work with image files much larger than this. Processing power is not the problem, a high end Mac, P4 or AMD Athlon, will all do the job well. All of these have enough power/ MHz. The issue seems to be the memory handling of these large files: Now, the rule of thumb is that you need 3 to 5 times the RAM as your file size for efficient PS handling, so... this means maximum RAM on the machine: (Snip) ok: from what I understand the max RAM controllable on a windows board is set by the chipset, and of course, the physical number of memory slots present. Older chipsets/boards are pretty much the same as Mac's (3 memory slots (dimms), 1.5Gb controllable) But there are now motherboards out there now that have new chipsets (3 or 4 Gb controllable) and 4 memory slots, so 2 Gb is can easily be dedicated to Photoshop alone. Newer DDR memory boards (latest Athlon systems) are also out there with 3 or 4 slots, as are P4 boards, with Rambus memory RIMMS, but... this memory is very expensive, with a 512Mb stick being about $800 in DDR compared to only $170 currently in the older SDRAM. so.. if you are buying four of these (to make 2Gb) then you can save literally thousands of $ by not buying the latest memory types, losing maybe a few % performance. Or put another way, you can have 2Gb of SDRAM for the price of 500 Mb or DDR RAM. It seems a new style Athlon SDRAM board with 4 slots is the way to go for best bang per buck at present. MicroStar's K7 Master is the only mainboard I've see advertised with this feature (I'm sure there must be others). More RAM is essential. I have already experienced one hard drive crash that seems to have been caused from over heating. My OS has also lost its way occasionally after working with large image files - particularly after opening very large Windows Meta Files. I really wish I knew why this was happening. It happened with Win 98 and now with Win ME (for me, ME is much more stable than 98). According to the information from MicroStar their K7 Master will accept both DDR and SDRAM with a 4 gig capacity. From the standpoint of economics I think installing 2 gig of SDRAM would be a big improvement over what most of us have now. Also, while AMD's Irongate 761 chipset is relatively new and is probably not as mature as the VIA chipset, it is solid as a rock and, in casual communications with one AMD engineer, they acknowledge most of the commonly reported issues and have three driver updates pending certification that should resolve most of these issues. (Snip) So that is where I am at, and about to spend my hard earned dosh. Sorry if this is geek-speek to some, but others will (hopefully) point out some mistakes or oversights in my thinking, and advise another way... please. I know this sounds crazy high-end stuff, but I really think its coming in thick and fast... there will be plenty more pro-photographers out there doing this same m/f scanning, and all coming up against these issues. Very good points Paul, and with the higher resolution scanners coming on line the computer resources will be required to meet the tasks. From the information I've seen about Microsoft's new OS, Windows XP, better management is in the future - I just hope all the CPU and device manufacturers are on board with the new system. Drivers were a major issue with ME. Jim Sims regards to all, paul
Re: filmscanners: scanning/photoshop workstation (long)
Dave King wrote: Vat is dis vindows XP? I'm a little slow on the uptake, Dave but XP is what has been call "Windows Whistler" in its beta form. It will be released sometime in the latter half of this year. Microsoft says it's the first major development since Windows 95 and is based on the Win 2K kernel. It has a few innovations that I believe will make life a great deal better for a good many of us. Peer to peer communications, improved device interface, and better memory management, to name a few. Just hope it's not all Internet user friendly with frills for sending the kid's photos to grandma. I think getting away from the old VXD drivers and using the WDM (Windows Drive Managed) architecture is a definite plus Microsoft's Windows XP home page is at: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/default.asp Jim Dave
Re: filmscanners: Keeping messages On Topic
I agree with Rob's comments. I had been experiencing GFP blue screens frequently while running Win 98 and 98SE when in a number of graphics programs (including Photoshop). While I had heard that Win 2K was much more stable I opted to go with WinME. WinME, early on, had driver issues that made installing some devices impossible. Now that most of those issues are resolved ME is the most stable system I've had on my machine. I do get an occasional "Program no longer responding" but never a blue screen. I believe that discussions relating to OS and other program applications are relevant when they can include scanning and post editing scanned images. Reliability and performance of various CPU's with regard to scanners and imaging could also bring useful information to those of us who are considering a change. Scanning and image editing can be very demanding on the resources of a computer and how well it all interfaces is, I believe, a germane topic. Jim Sims Rob Geraghty wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: to this mailing list. Similarly, messages about the relative merits of various versions of Windows are certainly unrelated to film scanners and don't really belong on this mailing list. Ed, while I agree with avoiding topics that are really way off from film scanning, things like the OS can be very relevent. If PS and the scanner perform much better in a particular OS, that's very important information. I'm toying with the idea of upgrading to Win2K, so the comments of others who are also working with film scanners are of great interest. If I asked questions in a forum dedicated to Win2K only, I may get different answers or none at all. Rob (with apologies for the acronyms :)
Re: filmscanners: A cautionary tale
Tim Mimpriss wrote: (Snip) ...so I wonder whether NewColor's tedious insistence on warming up the scanner before scanning results in better illumination and a more consistent scan. Does anyone have any ideas on this topic. Tim, Gas filled lamps normally require some period of warm-up time in order to uniformly stabilize intensity and color temperature. Tube type lamps will probably not be uniform in intensity (usually weaker at the ends) when first turned on. I would think that the reason for is that the gas used may be a compound mixture and excitation of the various elements occur at different times. Jim Sims
Re: filmscanners: Re: monitors
This does seem to be a confusing issue to some. I've had seasoned professional photographers bring me JPG image files on a 3.5" floppy asking for an 8" X 10" print. The only correlation between the pixel density product (H X V) of the electronic image and the hard image is the target resolution of the hard image. As opposed to a negative enlargement, the electronic image really has no size other than pixel density, but when the electronic image is printed to a hard image, the pixel density will determine the resolution of the final product. A 576 X 720 pixel image, for example, printed to an output size of 8" X 10" would have a resolution of 72 dpi. A 2400 X 3000 pixel image would produce an 8" X 10" hard image at 300 dpi. With regard to scanning resolution, I consider only the number of pixels needed to produce the hard image at a defined size and resolution. Jim Sims Tony Sleep wrote: Which don't you agree with: A. "The only dimensions that matter are the number of pixels. The dpi and hence the "physical dimensions" are utterly meaningless." or B. "That's erroneous to say they are 'utterly meaningless'. They CLEARLY are utterly meaningFUL to the printer driver, and, along with the xy number of pixels, determine the printed size of the image." Look, I was trying to simplify a common source of confusion for newbies, which is that scans have only one dimensional parameter that matters: the number of pixels along each side. I know this because I have explained it to many, many of them, and watched a little lightbulb come on when they twig the utility of working only with pixels. Newbies get endlessly confused by the presence of physical dimensions, eg 24x36mm, when a scan is presented across about 3 screens worth of real estate @100% zoom and appears to be about 20"x30". 'Why isn't it 24x36mm on screen, at 100%?' summarises their confusion. It needs to be explained that this is purely a matter of scan PPI/screen PPI, and the physical size of the original is MEANINGLESS, redundant information. It's much easier to understand this if the physical size of the original is just ignored, in the same way that we ignore the physical size of the monitor screen. The scan is X by Y pixels, presented on a monitor which displays A by B pixels, and at 100% zoom you get 1 scan pixel mapped to 1 screen pixel. Usually at this point, illumination dawns. Likewise, it's much easier to understand print resolution in DPI by dividing the number of pixels along each side of the scan by desired output size in inches or cm. This gives an immediate figure for print DPI - eg 2700ppi/10" = 270dpi. Again, the physical size of the original (24x26mm) is IRRELEVANT by this method. Alternatively, you can figure out the largest size at which a given print DPI is achievable by dividing scan pixel dimensions by the target resolution, eg for a 3750x2500pel scan, divide by 240dpi (240dpi being widely regarded as optimal for Epsons) = 15.6"x10.4". Again, original target size is IRRELEVANT by this method. The above is how many image editing software's work with print sizing, but Photoshop, being the comprehensive beast it is, presents all the information it has, including the original target dimensions. It is not necessary to know this, and it leads to cognitive dissonance in people who are struggling with the learning curve. That was the (small) point I was endeavouring to make, in the hope that it might clarify matters for anyone confused by the whole business. Austin's point, that output size is meaningful and necessary to the printer driver, is of course correct - but seems to have reintroduced exactly the confusion I was seeking to eliminate. You don't need to bother with that until you come to set an explicit output size for printing, and even then there is no need to pay any attention to the original size (in cm or inches) if you work with the scan size in pixels. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
filmscanners: Color spectrum
Printer inks, film dyes, source light, and CCD spectrum sensitivity all have a direct bearing on color content. I would think inks and dyes would have a very limited color spectrum. Artificial source light can also be limited in color content. Tungsten, for example, favors red typically emitting 62% red, 25% green, and 13% blue in the visible. CCD sensors have varying spectral responses depending on the type material. Silicon favors red, Cadmium, although not linear, sees some IR and UV. Selenium and lead are probably the most linear over the visible spectrum. At one time I had the data on imaging tubes and CCD sensors relating to video imaging that included spectral response as well as data on source light. I will look for it but the file on the related project is probable long gone. Jim Sims
Re: filmscanners: Chemical Film Resolution.
My expertise, with regard to components of resolution, pretty much stops at the image plain. There are quite a few on this list that are far more qualified to address the film issues. Wish I knew more. Jim Chris McBrien wrote: James, thank you very much for that very clear and concise explanation. Could you possibly add something about film speed and grain size as I find this affects scan quality when using say 64 ASA in the Summer and 400 ASA in the Winter. Regards Chris MCBrien. - Original Message - From: "James L. Sims" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 4:02 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Chemical Film Resolution. Chris, It does seem to be a hot topic but I would like to share my experience and observations on this subject. I have been involved in a number of studies regarding resolution as it applies to process cameras, still, motion picture, and television (including HDTV). Film resolution is only one part of the product resolution equation. Lens resolution (at the specific f:number used for the exposure), film flatness, accuracy of focus, and camera movement during exposure also play a major role in the resolution of the final product. Through the years my company has conducted numerous resolution test on film. In the early tests, with 35mm SLR cameras, the camera was placed on a good tripod and carefully focused on an SMPTE resolution chart at a distance of 26 times the lens focal length. The exposures were made (throughout the lens' f:stop range) using the camera's self timer to release the shutter. It was determined, however, that the impact of the reflex mirror (as it flipped up against the top of the mirror cage), introduced enough vibration to affect the resolution of horizontal lines. The exposures were subsequently made in darkness, with the shutter open, and an electronic strobe was used to make the exposure. Other measures taken with regard to the test camera included; precise adjustment of the focusing screen to assure coincidences with the film plain, installing a lapped pressure plate to insure flatness, and reducing the clearance between the camera's stock rails and the pressure plate to .008" (from the .010" standard) to maintain film flatness over the imaging aperture. A magnifier was used to aid focusing and a dial indicator gauge was used to monitor lens position. The focusing of each tested lens was a tedious and time consuming process. We found that the film/lens product resolution of (most popular brand) 50 mm lens' ranged from about 12 line pairs/millimeter at f:1.4 to about 70 line pairs/millimeter at f:8. At f:16, the resolution was back down to about 40 line pairs/millimeter. Kern, Leitz, and Zeiss lens' faired significantly better - with about 40 line pairs/millimeter at f:2 to near 100 line pairs/millimeter at f:4. The resolution was down to about 50 line pairs/millimeter at f:16 with these lens'. It is interesting to note that 50 mm and 105 mm lens' consistently tested best. The point of this is that under average conditions where focus is quickly done, the camera is hand held, and camera specifications are within manufacturer's specifications, maximum resolution cannot be achieved. A consensus of opinion (from those who have studied this subject) seems to be that a resolution of about 30 line pairs/millimeter would be tops and that may be a stretch. If you think about it, 30 lp/mm is not bad. That means a definable "image bit" is only .0006" (.0167 mm) in diameter on the film and (from a 35mm image) only .0052" (.133mm) on an 8' X 10" enlargement (not cropped) - difficult to see with the naked eye. Jim Sims Chris McBrien wrote: At risk of starting World War 3, what is the resolution of Chemical Film? The National Geographic magazine used to ask for any photos to be submitted using Kodachrome Film, so let's say Kodachrome 64 as a good all round film. I've tried searching for the answer but haven't found 'a number'. I hope this question does not block the InterNet. Chris McBrien.
Re: filmscanners: Chemical Film Resolution.
Chris, It does seem to be a hot topic but I would like to share my experience and observations on this subject. I have been involved in a number of studies regarding resolution as it applies to process cameras, still, motion picture, and television (including HDTV). Film resolution is only one part of the product resolution equation. Lens resolution (at the specific f:number used for the exposure), film flatness, accuracy of focus, and camera movement during exposure also play a major role in the resolution of the final product. Through the years my company has conducted numerous resolution test on film. In the early tests, with 35mm SLR cameras, the camera was placed on a good tripod and carefully focused on an SMPTE resolution chart at a distance of 26 times the lens focal length. The exposures were made (throughout the lens f:stop range) using the cameras self timer to release the shutter. It was determined, however, that the impact of the reflex mirror (as it flipped up against the top of the mirror cage), introduced enough vibration to affect the resolution of horizontal lines. The exposures were subsequently made in darkness, with the shutter open, and an electronic strobe was used to make the exposure. Other measures taken with regard to the test camera included; precise adjustment of the focusing screen to assure coincidences with the film plain, installing a lapped pressure plate to insure flatness, and reducing the clearance between the cameras stock rails and the pressure plate to .008 (from the .010 standard) to maintain film flatness over the imaging aperture. A magnifier was used to aid focusing and a dial indicator gauge was used to monitor lens position. The focusing of each tested lens was a tedious and time consuming process. We found that the film/lens product resolution of (most popular brand) 50 mm lens ranged from about 12 line pairs/millimeter at f:1.4 to about 70 line pairs/millimeter at f:8. At f:16, the resolution was back down to about 40 line pairs/millimeter. Kern, Leitz, and Zeiss lens faired significantly better with about 40 line pairs/millimeter at f:2 to near 100 line pairs/millimeter at f:4. The resolution was down to about 50 line pairs/millimeter at f:16 with these lens. It is interesting to note that 50 mm and 105 mm lens consistently tested best. The point of this is that under average conditions where focus is quickly done, the camera is hand held, and camera specifications are within manufacturers specifications, maximum resolution cannot be achieved. A consensus of opinion (from those who have studied this subject) seems to be that a resolution of about 30 line pairs/millimeter would be tops and that may be a stretch. If you think about it, 30 lp/mm is not bad. That means a definable image bit is only .0006 (.0167 mm) in diameter on the film and (from a 35mm image) only .0052 (.133mm) on an 8 X 10 enlargement (not cropped) difficult to see with the naked eye. Jim Sims Chris McBrien wrote: At risk of starting World War 3, what is the resolution of Chemical Film? The National Geographic magazine used to ask for any photos to be submitted using Kodachrome Film, so let's say Kodachrome 64 as a good all round film. I've tried searching for the answer but haven't found 'a number'. I hope this question does not block the InterNet. Chris McBrien.
Re: filmscanners:
While I have no doubt that monitor calibration is fundamental to image quality, I think improper calibration can do more harm than good - it ain't easy. I have read and studied Ian's and Andrew's procedures and am only beginning to make headway (using Adobe Gamma). Others in my area feel they are losing ground. I think the old phrase, "A chain is only as strong as its weakest link" is appropriate. I'm sure I don't have an appropriate profile for my Epson 1200 printer and my printed images still print a little dark. My monitor, by the way, is a 19" Mag Innovision XJ810. Haven't seen that mentioned as a monitor of choice. I will say it's much better than my previous eight year old 15" NEC 4Ds. The phosphors were getting very tired. FYI: Windows ME Photoshop 6 Jim Sims Tony Sleep wrote: Just a quick comment regarding monitor adjustment. I don't disagree Art. It was just that it's something which should be got out of the way at the outset, and mightn't have occurred to someone who is new to all this. Curiously enough, the worst, most worn out and least calibrated monitors I have ever seen have been on the desks of graphic designers g. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Downright Depressing
After having so many difficulties scanning negatives and transparencies on my Epson 1200U scanner, I discussed one of the problems, posterization, with a SilverFast tech. He suggested that the problem could be beyond the capabilities of my scanner and to make some scans with a higher quality scanner. Upon his suggestion, I asked the owner of a local photo service company to scan a particularly difficult negative (2 1/4" X 2 1/4")on his Sytek scanner (perhaps an overkill to the tech's suggestion). The comparison of his scan and the best I could do on my scanner is depressing, to say the least. While the color was a good bit off (it was a raw scan), there was no posterization and I was able to adjust the colors to within an acceptable range in Photoshop. The image was razor sharp. The photo service has been in business for almost thirty years and has made the transition from film to digital imaging. He has two printers - one very large format inkjet and another large format printer that exposes the image, via a laser scan, on to photographic paper. The images are breathtaking - some billboard size. While he still has one E-6 line operating, does some black and white work, and still uses a Deardorff copy camera for copy work, over 90% of his business is digital. It was interesting (to me, at least) that he does not use ICC profiles. His finish work is all done within his in-house loop and image scans are given to the customer as raw TIFF files. He uses both PC's and Macs in his facility. An even more interesting observation is that the scan he made for me was done to produce a 20" X 20" image at 300 dpi. That is well within the capability of the 4000 dpi Polaroid and Microtek scanners and the Minolta Scan Multi II. The Sytek does have a bit higher OD (advertised 4.1 Dmax) but I believe that the scanners just mentioned could come very close to the same result. All have 42 bit image data internal (I think). The visit to my friend, Cecil Isbell, his company, Quality Photo, was an eye opener. While a good medium format scanner is probably beyond my justifiable reach, I fully appreciate Polaroid and other manufacture's interest in producing quality scanners for medium format at a price within the reach of serious amateurs and small business professionals. Things just keep getting better. Jim Sims The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
Re: Measuring resolution (was Re: Real resolution of a 4000 dpiscanner?)
Rob, Edmunds did make a USAF target exposed on emulsion. The $100 one (I think) is on glass chrome plate. In the eighties I built a series of autocollimators as a part of a research project and may have a spare one of these laying around somewhere but it probably is cut sown to a 1" diameter circle. If I can find it, maybe a contact exposure can be made on film. I believe there is an easier way to do a comparative resolution test. It won't give you any numbers but it will provide an objective comparison between the two scanners, each set to their max. optical resolution. If you can get a sharp black/white edge on film, take a look at the scans of this edge on each scanner. If, for example, the edge is diffused over a span of four pixels (from both the 2700 dpi and 4000 dpi scanners), then the 4000 dpi scanner has a higher resolution because there are simply more bits of information. If the 2700 dpi scan is showing four pixels across the edge and the 4000 dpi scan is six, then the resolution would be similar. Ideally there should be X Y edges. There are bullet holes in this type of test but I think it would be a quick way to get some idea as to the comparison of resolving capability. Meanwhile I will look for the glass target. Jim Sims Rob Geraghty wrote: Shough, Dean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would be very leery of obtaining useful or repeatable results from a recorder. Why? It's 4096 lines, which is more than the scanner I want to test. It's an electronic device so it ought to be able to print the same image on the same film in a much more repeatable way than photographing a target, and it removes the distortions caused by a camera's lens system. What makes you think that it would be any better than the scanner you are trying to measure. See above - it's 4096 lines whereas my Nikon LS30 is 2700 dpi. The USAF target is available as chrome on glass from Edmund Industrial Optics ( http://www.edmundoptics.com ) for $100. Max resolution is 228 lines/mm. If you could find their OEM supplier, price might be around $50. Which translates to AUD$200+ including PP. I can't justify that sort of expense on something which I'm doing for interest's sake. I could buy ten rolls of Provia 100F for that price, which would be a whole lot more useful to me. Thanks for the pointer though. If I win lotto I'll buy one. :) I can use the film recorder for free (plus the cost of the film). The point of the exercise (again) wasn't so much getting a scientific measure of the scanner's resolution (although it may be possible), it was to get a clean image of a target to scan rather than having to use the somewhat complicated protocol I posted for use with a camera. What films I could use will be restricted by what films the recorder supports. Anyhow I'll try it - I've been wanting to try writing film scans back to film anyway. Rob The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
Re: Real resolution of a 4000 dpi scanner?
With a film target there is very likely a limiting resolution of 50 to 60 line pairs/millimeter (2540 to 3048 ppi). Resolution should be measured at high contrast using an etched glass plate at some known spatial frequency and line width. I believe it would be difficult to determine ultimate resolution using the Kodak target. There are resolution targets available on glass plate and etched in metal but these may be impossible to use with a film scanner. Jim Sims bjs wrote: - Original Message - From: "Mikkel Høj" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 10:01 AM Subject: Sv: Real resolution of a 4000 dpi scanner? Have a look for yourself at the attached image. It is the Kodak Q60E3 to the left and Provia 100F picture to the right. The lower chops have been downsampled from 00 dpi to 3000 dpi and then back. They look the same to me. This suggests the Polaroid/Microtek aren't any better than about 3000 dpi of resolution. This is consistent with the group scan results so one would be wise to check into this further before plunking their money down for a "4000 dpi" scanner. Hopefully someone can do some tests that show definitely whether the Polaroid is capable of 4000 dpi resolution or about 50% more resolution than the 2700 dpi units. So far the jury appears to be out. Cheers, Byron The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
Re: Real resolution of a 4000 dpi scanner?
MTF: Modulation Transfer Function. Bern Levy, Marketing Manager for Angenieux Corporation (USA) a few years ago summed it up about as simply as I've heard. "The ability to resolve a black/white edge." While that's not all there is to it, it's a good general description. Resolution (in Line pairs/mm) is the number of line pairs that can be distinguished at a defined spatial frequency. The MTF is a measurement of how well those lines are defined. Jim Sims Alan Womack wrote: What is MTF? AND Where would I look this up? Your own tests show a clear differential in MTF, although only a small increase in resolution. In terms of image quality MTF is *vastly* more important than ultimate resolution. Look it up. In fact look up the whole matter of resolution and MTF and their relative perceptual value. The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
