filmscanners: Monitors: Shadow Mask or Aperture Grill???

[Robert Kehl]

It seems that some of the best graphics monitors , Cornerstone and Hitachi,
(recommended by members of this list) use a shadow mask CRT while other
monitors use and an aperture grill.  The curious thing to me is that
Cornerstone's factory direct site state that Shadow Mask is better for text
while aperture grill is better for graphics.  What gives?  Any comments
appreciated.

Bob Kehl

Re: filmscanners: Film base deterioration (was Digital Shortcomings)

[Robert Kehl]

- Original Message -
From: Enoch's Vision, Inc. (Cary Enoch R...) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 6:38 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Film base deterioration (was Digital
Shortcomings)


> >
> >I agree with you here Alan,
> >with emphasis being on rearchiving your digital files.
> >BUT keep hat neg or slide archived as best you can because when you're
ready
> >to make a new super duper print on whatever whiz bang is available in
15-20
> >years, you may get a much better image by rescanning the original if it
is
> >intact.  If not, you've got your currently rearchived digital media to
fall
> >back on.
>
>
> This discussion has led me to one conclusion that seems inescapable.
> Clearly it's important to refresh our media assets every few years to keep
> pace with technology. Perhaps the archival method with the greatest
> longevity and 'universality' today is a high quality archival print
> probably made on an Epson 2000P and stored under optimal conditions. In
> another generation or two the images will still be there but the software
> and old file formats won't be.
>



Yes, the Epson 2000P prints would be universal.  BUT, we don't really know
how long they will last.  We only have laboratory simulations that say they
have archival qualities.  I don't see them as any more accurate than the
laboratory analysis that assured us that film had archival qualities.

Nope, for my buck ($US) digital storage that is rearchived forward to the
latest media and lossless file types seems the most reliable and it's
getting cheaper every day.   But keeping the original neg or an archived
photo as backup sure makes sense.

Bob Kehl

Re: filmscanners: Film base deterioration (was Digital Shortcomings)

[Robert Kehl]

- Original Message -
From: Alan Tyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 2:21 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Film base deterioration (was Digital
Shortcomings)


> BTW, all this discussion on longevity brings me to the same
> conclusion as last time we had a prolonged archiving
> discussion here - we need as much of *both* careful neg
> storage *and* systematic digital archiving & rearchiving as
> we can be bothered with.
>

I agree with you here Alan,
with emphasis being on rearchiving your digital files.
BUT keep hat neg or slide archived as best you can because when you're ready
to make a new super duper print on whatever whiz bang is available in 15-20
years, you may get a much better image by rescanning the original if it is
intact.  If not, you've got your currently rearchived digital media to fall
back on.

Bob Kehl

Re: filmscanners: Film base deterioration (was Digital Shortcomings)

[Robert Kehl]

Yeah Tony,
 
 that was news to me, too. 
 
 I was under the misassumption that film was the best 
archival medium around.  Perhaps CD's or other backed up digital 
storage is best, if for no other reason than you can copy it forward without any 
loss before your digital media's (CD, tape, etc) archival life 
expires.
 
BK

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Hersch Nitikman 
  
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 3:41 
  PM
  Subject: Re: filmscanners: Film base 
  deterioration (was Digital Shortcomings)
  Thanks very much, Tony. That was quite an 
  education. I guess that has to be factored into the discussions of the merits 
  of CD-R archives vs relying on the permanence of the original negatives and 
  slides. Hersch

Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: VueScan + flat colors

[Robert Kehl]

Alan,

Wait a minute!  I thought the whole idea of ICC color management was that
the various input and output devices could translate from one colorspace to
another using ICC profiles.  I guess I don't get it!  Maybe I'd better go
read up some more on ICC color management.

I wish someone who knows more about software and hardware could tell me how
to set up my color management so I could get back to photography.  : )  And
I thought wet color work was hard!  : )


Lost in Color Space,  : 0

Bob Kehl

- Original Message -
From: Alan Womack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Majordomo leben.com <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 8:48 PM
Subject: re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: VueScan + flat colors


> Yes, unless you are using a custom profile the native Epson driver does
indeed expect you to be in sRGB.
>
> Alan
>
>  >>  AFAIK this is normal.  The gamuts of the colour spaces are
>  >>  different.  But it leads me to wonder - if some of the
>  >>  problems I've had with colour matching between the screen
>  >>  and the output on an Epson printer is that the printer
>  >>  driver expects the user to be viewing an image in sRGB
>  >>  not in Adobe RGB?
>
>  >>  Rob
>
>
>
>
> Epson Inkjet Printer FAQ: http://welcome.to/epson-inkjet

Re: filmscanners: Matrox G400 vs G450

[Robert Kehl]

Robert,
Thanks for your input.  can you give me any more details?
see below:

- Original Message - 
From: Robert Logan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 5:34 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Matrox G400 vs G450


> 
> NB: The G550 has just been released.
> 

Whats the max resolution on main and second monitors?


> One of the main considerations is the resolution you want to
> have in the secondary display - the G550 will allows a
> higher res on the second due to two RAMDACS (my G400 is 
> limited to 1280x1024).
> 

1280x1024 on the second monitor.  What is the max on the main monitor?


> The G450 is just a tidied up G400, the specs are a bit
> better but not great.

Higher resoltion, refresh rates or both?



> 
> bert

filmscanners: Matrox G400 vs G450

[Robert Kehl]

I've been thinking about buying a Matrox G450 with the dual head feature due
to recommendations on this list.  I just bought a workstation that will come
with a Matrox G400.  For scanning and tweaking in PS6 is this card going to
do as well as the G450 or should I upgrade.  What is the difference between
these two cards?  Looking at the Matrox web site, it does not seem apparent
to me.  Any help?

Bob Kehl

Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: High Capacity Storage (was CD RW Deal)

[Robert Kehl]

Good point Walter.  Perhaps I have been aiming too high in wishing to keep
4000dpi TIF's of all my images on CD.  Perhaps a 4000dpi JPEG will suffice.
It would sure save a lot of storage space (AKA $$$).

Thanks for your thoughts.

- Original Message -
From: Walter Bushell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 1:07 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: High Capacity Storage (was CD
RW Deal)


> But for >40 year storage JPEG's should be quite fine particually 4000
> dpi high quality JPEGs, those found to be of importance can be
> transfered to lossless formats and edited. If you can push something
> forward that long with only the loss of one high quality JPEG
> compression you are well ahead of the game.
>
> It's a small loss compared to making a print say, much less pushing a
> collection of prints that would fit on a CD. Much easier to store so
> likely to be stored under favorable conditions. Of course it's also
> easier to make multiple copies
>
> Also possible to much easier and cheaper to make multiple copies.

Re: filmscanners: High Capacity Storage (was CD RW Deal)

[Robert Kehl]

Dan,

Hadn't seen these yet.  Thanks for the tip.
Looks like they'd be faster than CD's or DVD's.  But the cost per gigabyte
is still kinda steep.

Bob Kehl

- Original Message -
From: Dan Honemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 4:41 AM
Subject: filmscanners: High Capacity Storage (was CD RW Deal)


> > Either way, high resolution scanners seem to dictate high capacity
> > storage needs.  I'd be interested to hear how others are storing
> > and archiving 4000dpi scans.
>
> How about the new Iomega Peerless portables (10 and 20GB, USB and
Firewire)?
> Anyone tried these yet?
>
> Dan
>

Re: filmscanners: High Capacity Storage (was CD RW Deal)

[Robert Kehl]

Rob,

I think you're absolutely right about CD's having more format longevity than
Iomega products.  But I figure in five years, or maybe 10, we'll have be
able to get 10 terabyte?? raid arrays with mirroring for a few hundred bucks
and we'll transfer all our Iomega's or CD's or DVD's or whatever to live
online hot swappable secure storage.  (how much is a terabyte, anyways).  My
point being that CD's are a good bet for long term storage  if you don't
mind having a few thousand of them around.  (You can't fit very many 4000dpi
TIF scans on a CD). But maybe there's a better short term solution to get us
over the hump waiting for high capacity storage to get as cheap as CD's have
become.

Just my thoughts,

Bob Kehl


- Original Message -
From: Rob Geraghty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 8:17 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: High Capacity Storage (was CD RW Deal)


> > on 6/12/01 5:41 AM, Dan Honemann at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > How about the new Iomega Peerless portables (10 and 20GB, USB and
> Firewire)?
> > > Anyone tried these yet?
>
> My only comment here is future proofing.  It's more likely you'll have a
> drive
> which can read a CDR in 5 years time than an Iomega drive...
>
> Rob
>
>

Re: filmscanners: NikonScan 3.1-Silverfast 5.2

[Robert Kehl]

Mikael,

Do you know if Silverfast 5.2 supports batch scanning of full rolls of 35mm
film with the Nikon LS-4000 using the SA-30 roll film adapter?

Bob Kehl

- Original Message -
From: Mikael Risedal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 8:18 PM
Subject: filmscanners: NikonScan 3.1-Silverfast 5.2


> Took a quick look at the new NikonScan 3.1 version nr 3.1.0  3004
> plugin LS 4000 relesed today.
> Same as before. Crasch boom bang with photoshop, slow scanning speed
> comparing to Silverfast. Silverfast are at least 5 times faster to scan a
> full resolution picture and no bugs.
> I heard  from collegues at a Swedish newspaper that the new Polaroid 120
> scanner in many respects is better than a tested Imacon scanner.
> I will test the polaroid scanner this sunday and see if this true.
> If it is: congratulation Polaroid.
> The software they used together with the scanner was Silverfast.
> Mikael Risedal
> Photographer
> Lund Sweden
>
>
>
>
>
> _
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>

filmscanners: High Capacity Storage (was CD RW Deal)

[Robert Kehl]

- Original Message -
From: Arthur Entlich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 12:30 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: CD RW Deal


>
>
> Jim Snyder wrote:
>
> > on 6/5/01 7:01 AM, Larry Berman at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I just read in PC World Magazine (July issue page 58) that there is
going
> >> to be a shortage of CDRW's and prices will triple this summer by July.
Buy
> >> em while you can.
> >>
> >
> > or wait until September when the first DVD+RW drives come out.
> >
> > Jim Snyder
>
> I believe they are already on sale.
>
> Art
>

DVD-Ram has been around for some time now in a few different formats.  The
most recent format is the 9.4 G double sided 5 1/4"disk format.  The drives
have finally gotten reasonable (around US$500)

http://www.pcconnection.com/scripts/searchresults.asp?SR=1&ER=10&TR=0&ST=AS&;
plattype=P&MarketID=240514&sortval=Price

but the media is still quite expensive (about US$3-5/G) :

http://www.pcconnection.com/scripts/searchresults.asp?SR=1&ER=10&TR=0&ST=AS&;
plattype=P&MarketID=240471&sortval=Price


Still, if you're scanning at 4000dpi it may be the storage medium of choice
since a CD won't even hold one roll of film as TIFF files.  When the price
starts to drop on the media, DVD-ram will be awesome, although slow when
compared to hard drives.  Right now the best high capacity storage might be
cheap IDE hard drives with a Dataport device to make them removable.

http://www.hard-drive.com/cgi-bin/webstore.exe

But then you need to be more concerned with data integrity and may want to
include high capacity tape backup as an option.

Either way, high resolution scanners seem to dictate high capacity storage
needs.  I'd be interested to hear how others are storing and archiving
4000dpi scans.

Bob Kehl



Bob Kehl

Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution

[Robert Kehl]

Frank,

What's a Luddite?  : )

BK

- Original Message - 
From: Frank Paris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 10:57 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution

 There's no percentage in
> being a Luddite these days when it comes to video technology.
> 
> 
> Frank Paris
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684
> 

Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution

[Robert Kehl]

- Original Message -
From: Arthur Entlich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 9:18 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution


>
>
> You are making a number of assumptions which may not hold true for many
> monitors and video cards.  You are assuming that most monitors and cards
> are sharper when placed in a higher pixel mode, and that more than
> likely is actually not true.
>

No assumptions Arthur.  Most monitors/video cards look better at higher
resolutions.  Only the best monitors/video cards look good at their highest
resolutions.  You may have to back off a step, but 640x480 or 800x600 is
antique.

I've been designing  and specifying graphics display systems (both monitors
and large screen) for about 15 years.  I've followed the evolution of the PC
and it's graphics modes starting with CGA.  I'm familiar with all that
you've mentioned and in some cases your concerns are true.

All I'm saying is for those who haven't tried a higher resolution, give it a
try.  It may look better.  But if you don't try it out, you'll never know.
I never switched my monitor/video card into 1600x1200 until I started
running Photoshop.  On my particular equipment (not highend graphics
equipment) it looked better.  If it doesn't look better on yours don't use
it.  But if it does, you'll be happy you tried it.  What do think Arthur.
Can you agree with that?


Bob Kehl

Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution

[Robert Kehl]

Mark,

I'm NOT intending to alienate anyone or imply that if your not operating a
highend system your not up to speed.  Photography and Image Editing is about
artistic skills not technology.  Technology is  just a tool.

I AM saying this.  If you haven't so much as tried using a higher resolution
for image editing and scanning, you may be pleasantly surprised to see that
your existing hardware can offer a more pleasing image rendition than you
thought possible.   I switch back and forth on my Viewsonics (relatively
cheepo) monitor.  Images look better at 1280x1024 or 1600x1200, but when I'm
working on email, spreadsheets or word processing 1024x768 looks better.
When I'm surfing I sometimes switch to 800x600.

Yes, there can be flicker problems due to slow refresh rates at higher
resolutions, but high res, high refresh rate video cards aren't expensive
anymore.  They can be had for less than you might think.

I am using an ATI Expert98 video card.  It provides 85Hz refresh rate
(flicker free) at 1600x1200.  I bought mine for about US $125.  Aberdeen now
sells this video card for US $ 35.99. http://www.aberdeeninc.com/

My Viewsonic 17" monitor is not high-end at all (anymore), but it does
1600x1200 at 76Hz and looks pretty good.  I paid a lot of money for it some
years ago, but now Aberdeen sells it for less than US $400.

I'll be selling this monitor and video card some day soon on e-bay and be
lucky to get US $200 for the lot.  I'll bet there's lots more out there (but
maybe not in Australia - sorry, Rob).

Bob Kehl



- Original Message -
From: Mark T. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 9:34 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution


> Do you guys want to alienate all amateurs on this list?  ;)
>
> My visitor stats say that 80% of my visitors are using less than or equal
> to 1024x768.  This is for a photography site, even if it is by no means
> aimed at the high end of town.  Plus:
>
> 1. Monitor flicker can be a major problem with high-resolutions
> 2. Many older cards/monitors simply don't support true or even high color
> at high resolutions
> 3. Some monitor/card combinations just don't work well at some resolutions
> 4. We are not all made of money, and some of us do this as a hobby. (Try
> even 1024x768 on a 14"!!)
>
> Yes, all of these issues are able to be solved with money, but it all adds
> up. If I'm alone here as an amateur/hobbyist, just say so, and I'll shut
> up! But I thought the list was just about film-scanners, and that having a
> professional or even semi-professional setup was not a pre-requisite..
>
>
> I mean, just take a look at Tony's home page - looks like his monitor
isn't
> even color!  ;-)
>
> MT
>
>
>
> ==
> Mark Thomas   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.adelaide.net.au/~markthom

Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea

[Robert Kehl]

- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 5:27 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea


> Can you describe what you mean by a "Prescan" tab again?
> Is it basically the same thing as the "Scan" tab, except without
> any files being output?  Can't this be accomplished by just
> turning off outputting files in the Files tab and then pressing
> the "Scan" button?
>
> Regards,
> Ed Hamrick

The Prescan Tab would display a Prescan Window.  The  Prescan Window would
display low resolution thumbnail prescans of whatever film was placed in the
scanner, up to 40 frames.  These thumbnails would be selectable via the
mouse using standard Windows selection techniques. (left click, control-left
click, shift-left click).  The selection would show up in the Frame Number
settings.

While your at it, a histogram with mouse selectable white and black points
would be way cool.  Add a little Unsharp Mask and most images could be
scanned and be ready to go straight out of Vuescan.   Photoshop would only
be needed for image manipulation or darkroom type finessing,  not for
scanning images.  And the value of Vuescan will have grown exponentially
(IMO).

Bob Kehl

filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution

[Robert Kehl]

Well if you think you're puzzled, I'm really puzzled.  Why would anyone use
anything but the highest resolution available for scanning and viewing
images created with high resolution devices such as filmscanners.

Unless your scanning at 72 dpi from a flatbed for use on the web, you really
ought to try a higher resolution, as high as your video card/monitor
combination will let you go.  Sure, sure the fonts are hard to read.  So go
into control panel and select "large fonts".  But look at your images in the
highest resolution you can.

I use 1024x768 for word-processing and e-mail on my 17" monitor, but for
images I always use 1600x1200 whether on my 17" or 19" monitor.  Once you
try it it will be hard to go back.

Bob Kehl



- Original Message -
From: Henry Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 8:17 AM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea


> >From: "Frank Paris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >I'm sure we're all using at least 1280X1024 and so there is enough
> >real-estate so that the tabs won't overflow.
>
> I use 1024x768.
>
> This is the second message I have read in 3 minutes where the author, who
> has probably never met any of the other Vuescan users, has made a
definitive
> statement about how those people use Vuescan and how they have their
> computer set-up.  I guess if these two messages had of been correct then I
> would have been impressed by the omniscience of the authors but since they
> were both wrong then I am just puzzled.
> _
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>

Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea

[Robert Kehl]

Ed,

This all sound marvelousbut does this mean my Prescan Window suggestion
didn't make the cut?  Is there hope for this in the future? or is it just
too much programming.

Bob Kehl


- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 1:55 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea



>
> I've organized the tabs from left to right in the order that
> they'll typically be used: Device, Crop, Process, Files,
> Prefs, Preview (for image), Scan (for image).  I'm going
> to try to order the options within each tab in a way that's
> somewhat related to frequency of use.
>
> I've also removed those things from the menus that can be
> done with a button to simplify things a bit.
>


> I quite like this new arrangement, and I'm going to release
> it as the first 7.0 beta in a day or two.  I'd be happy to tweak
> it some more at that time.
>
> To top it off, the LS-40 is working as close to perfectly as
> I can tell.  It was amazing how few the required changes
> were.
>
> Regards,
> Ed Hamrick

Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements

[Robert Kehl]

I agree with Rob.  Windows Common Dialog Boxes are what we have become
accustomed to. (Forgive me Mac users!)  Anything else is cumbersome and
slows down our work, unless we are scanning every day and thereby get used
to Vuescan's uniqueness.  But most of us would rather be shooting pictures
every day and scanning less frequently.  Therefore something more standard
would be greatly beneficial.

Bob Kehl

- Original Message -
From: Rob Geraghty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 7:17 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements


> Michael wrote:
> > I concur, and that recent addition (not having to go to the Vuescan
> > program files for the "crops") was really helpful. Paths are tough,
> > and any improvements here (and there've been many) are welcome.
>
> IMO something like the Microsoft Common Dialog Box would be a great boon
> for setting the paths.  That way it's done visually and you don't have to
> remember or type the text by hand.  I'm talking about interface style when
> I mention the common dialog box - it would increase the size of the
install
> to include the actual OCX (comdlg32.ocx, 137KB).
>
> The common dialog box also allows you to create directories in the process
> of creating the path, which is very handy.
>
> Rob
>
>
> Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://wordweb.com
>
>

Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements

[Robert Kehl]

Ed,

Thanks for the opportunity for all of us to give you input.


1.) The zoom preview sounds awesome.   If we could zoom in two to four times
to 400% it would be even better.

2.)  Yes.

3.)  Sounds like a good improvement.


I would also suggest that a Prescan Tab should be added to the left side
that would display a Prescan Window.  A Prescan button would also be added
that  would allow a low resolution prescan of whatever film was placed in
the scanner, up to 40 frames.  The frames would be displayed in the Prescan
window as thumbnails.  These thumbnails would be selectable via the mouse
using standard Windows selection techniques. (left click, control-left
click, shift-left click).  The selection would show up in the Frame Number
settings, which would now be on the updated Crop Tab.

While your at it, a histogram with mouse selectable white and black points
would be way cool.  Along with a little Unsharp Mask most images could be
scanned and be ready to go straight out of Vuescan.   Photoshop would only
be needed for image manipulation or darkroom type finessing,  not for
scanning images.  And the value of Vuescan will have grown exponentially
(IMO).

Keep up the great work!

Bob Kehl



- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 4:56 AM
Subject: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements


> I'm thinking about some improvements to the VueScan
> user interface, and I'd like to solicit feedback and suggestions.
>
> These are the main things I'm thinking of - let me know if you
> don't like these changes or if you'd like to see things done
> differently:
>
> 1) Adding a "Zoom in" and "Zoom out" button that will double
> (or halve) the size of either the preview or scan images.  While
> zoomed, the preview or scan window will have scroll bars.
> I'll also remove the "Exit" button to free up some space.
>
> 2) Move the Preview and Scan tabs to the left side of the
> window and move all the option tabs to the right side of
> the window.
>
> 3) Reorganize the tabs on the right side to make them
> a bit more logical and useful (these suggestions came
> from a helpful user):
>
> Scanner tab. This tab would include Scan From, Mode, Auto Scan, Auto
Eject,
> Media Type, and Bits Per Pixel from the Device tab; Resolution, Auto
Focus,
> Auto Exposure, and Number of Passes from the options tab.
>
> Color tab. This would include all the items in the current Color tab, plus
> all the items in the Media tab.
>
> Crop tab. This would include all the options from the current Crop tab
plus,
> from the Device tab, the Region, Mirror, Rotate, and Frame numbers
settings.
>
> Files tab. Everything from the current Files tab, along with Size
Reduction,
> Get dpi, and Watermark from the Options tab.
>
> Preferences tab. This would have all the settings from what is now called
the
> Window tab.
>
> If you have strong feelings about my doing things differently, please
> let me know soon.
>
> Regards,
> Ed Hamrick

Re: filmscanners: Where to buy a LS-4000

[Robert Kehl]

Tom,


Ed Hamrick mentioned that he will be upgrading Vuescan to operate the new
Nikon scanners.  I would recommend using Vuescan over Nikon scanner
software, English or Japanese versions.  If you haven't tried it you will be
pleasantly surprised.

Regards,

Bob




- Original Message -
From: tom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 6:53 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Where to buy a LS-4000


> Hi,
> In Japan it will be in shops on 24.03.2001, my local shop will sale it on
this
> day at the following prices:
> LS4000 158,000Yen (~1338USD)
> LS4 78,000Yen (~670USD)
> The price seems to be good so probably I will buy one of them.
> The problem is that it will be with Japanese software and it will be one
of the
> first units...
>
> Regards
>
> Tomasz
>
> --- Robert Kehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ...The local Nikon rep suggested that maybe the first few would
> > arrive in mid-February.  The latest update is mid March.  Of course
that's
> > subject to revision in mid-March.  I'll let you know when mine arrives.
>
>
>
> __
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
> http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

Re: filmscanners: Where to buy a LS-4000

[Robert Kehl]

I got on a waiting list with a Nikon dealer in Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA,
back in early February.  I was fortunate (maybe, maybe not, depending on
whether the first units that ship work) to be second on his waiting list.
Nikon is rationing out the new units based on orders received from their
dealers.  The local Nikon rep suggested that maybe the first few would
arrive in mid-February.  The latest update is mid March.  Of course that's
subject to revision in mid-March.  I'll let you know when mine arrives.

Bob Kehl



- Original Message -
From: Dieder Bylsma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Rob Geraghty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 9:05 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Where to buy a LS-4000


> At 23:35 +1000 03/03/01, Rob Geraghty wrote:
>
>
> >"Arthur Entlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>  Phil Edmunston, the author of Lemonade, suggests never buying a newly
> >>  designed car in the first year.
> >
> >Bear in mind most models are tested on the Japanese market before being
> >released elsewhere.  This is true of many Japanese manufacturers.  It's a
> >*really* bad idea to buy the Japanese model as soon as it is released,
> >because
> >they may not have got all the bugs out yet.
> >
> >Rob
>
> um
>
> Nikon Japan hasn't even announced it. =(
>
> This is why I'm trying to get it from the States...otherwise I'd've
> bought it here if it were even announced and available here. Seems a
> bit ass-backwards to buy a Nikon product from the USA when it was
> probably made in Japan and bring it back to Japan, but what can I do?
> My LS-30 is fried and to get it repaired will take as long as getting
> an LS-4000.
>
> D.
> --
> --
> Dieder Bylsma |
> __|

filmscanners: Nikon Problem LS-2000

[Robert Kehl]

I have an LS-2000 with a probelm that Nikon's "quality service" doesn't seem
to be able to resolve.  I need some input from LS-2000 users.

When scanning negatives with the autofeed filmstrip adapter, the scanner
doesn't center on the images but leaves a white banner on top and crops a
little at the bottom. It seems as though the CCD is not centered on the
image area.   I'm not talking about centering between frames, which can be
corrected with the "offset" control.  I'm talking about centering the image
top to bottom of the filmstrip.

It does this consistently.  I've sent it in to Nikon's USA Service
Department in New Yourk TWICE!.  The first time they changed a few parts but
didn't fix the problem.  The second time they just checked it and sent it
back.  Both times they included a form that stated "teh unit  is functioning
normally".

Is this Normal?.   I'm not sure, because it's done this since I first bought
it.

Help.

Bob Kehl

Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??

[Robert Kehl]

Jack & Michael,

Actually Dolby manufactures patented electronics for both the encoding and
decoding of audio. That is, in order to use a Dolby process (Noise
Reduction, Surround Sound Imaging, etc) the audio source must be encoded
using a Dolby process *and* the playback device must decode using a Dolby
decoding process.

ASF is not like Dolby.  ASF (as I understand it) is a one ended technology.
There is no ASF software for my camera.  My film is not encoded with an ASF
process.  The ASF software works at the scanning end of the process.

All else aside,  Dolby *does* make both encoders and decoders available as
stand alone products on a professional level.  ASF could do the same, but I
guess that that might infringe upon their relationships with the scanner
manufacturers.  Who can fault them?  They are in business to make money?
Aren't we all?

My US $0.02  and then some.

Bob Kehl



- Original Message -
From: Michael Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 4:47 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??


> Jack... I thought Dolby was patented circuitry, ie: hardware... You guys
sell
> software.. I think you are missing a big bet (and it has been commented
upon
> previously in this forum) by not making your goodies available to those of
us
> who are serious about filmscanning... I would hold up our esteemed guru,
Ed
> Hamrick, as one who is working fervently to fill the niche you and the
scanner
> manufacturers are leaving wide open... I can buy SilverFast bundled with
or buy
> it separately, why not GEM and ROC, especially if my scanner already
supports
> ICE? I haven't yet tried to contact Minolta support (my Elite works
beautifully)
> but if they are anything like most customer support, it means hours on
Ignore
> and generic answers from support droids, unless I want to scream and
finagle to
> get ahold of someone who really knows something. I am serious about this..
I am
> not a hobbyist.. I am a pro.. I shoot film, I scan it and manipulate it
and burn
> it on a CD to deliver to my client... there are a lot more like myself...
we
> have a certain amount invested in a pro-sumer scanner and may not be ready
to
> jump at the latest and greatest and untried offerings from Nikon, etc.
>
> Anyway, that's my two cent's worth...
>
> Mike Moore
>
>
> Jack Phipps wrote:
>
> > Think of our software like Dolby(tm) for stereo equipment. You can't buy
> > Dolby(tm) for your stereo, you have to buy a stereo with Dolby(tm).
> >
> > The software is custom designed for each scanner model and we have
worked
> > with scanner manufacturers to deliver the software to end users. I
encourage
> > you to contact your scanner manufacter. They may be able to provide our
> > products to you.
> >
> > Jack Phipps
> > Applied Science Fiction
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Michael Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >
> > So when will you guys make your super software available to the end
users? I
> > have a Minolta Elite with DIce... Love it, but would also like to have
the
> > other
> > goodies...
> >
> > Mike Moore
> >
> > Jack Phipps wrote:
> >
> > > I wouldn't consider a scanner that didn't have Digital ICE. Not only
that,
> > > but the Nikon scanner has Digital ROC (Reconstruction of Color) that
does
> > an
> > > incredible job of restoring color to faded images. It even works on
> > certain
> > > new over/under exposed images as well. It also includes Digital GEM
(Grain
> > > Equalization & Management). This reduces the grain when you have to
> > enlarge
> > > images and grain becomes apparent. This is one of the first scanners
that
> > > bundles all three of these important features into one scanner. You
can
> > find
> > > more information on these features at:
> > > www.asf.com
> > >
> > > In my biased opinion, the Nikon is the clear choice between these two
> > > scanners.
> > >
> > > Jack Phipps
> > > Applied Science Fiction
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: David Freedman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 4:43 PM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
>

Re: filmscanners: VueScan 6.6.2 Available

[Robert Kehl]

- Original Message - 
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2001 6:15 AM
Subject: filmscanners: VueScan 6.6.2 Available

snip
> 
> What's new in version 6.6.2
> 
snip
> 
>   * Significantly improved infrared dust removal
> 

Is this an additional significant improvement over 6.6.1 ?  

Bob Kehl

Re: filmscanners: x Stuart !! was .. Black Widow or Slidescan Transp'y Adaptor ???

[Robert Kehl]

Stuart,

Ezio is right.  I got one of those little slide adapters with my HP 6300.
It's a real joke.   I can't believe HP ever made it.  I had the same
experience as Ezio, except I didn't have to get on my knees and make peanut
butter, because I gave up after two or three tries.  (Ezio, I guess you have
greater perseverance than I do.)

Anyway Stuart, if you value your time at all, take the advice you're given
and get a real filmscanner.

Bob Kehl



- Original Message -
From: Ezio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 6:35 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: x Stuart !! was .. Black Widow or Slidescan
Transp'y Adaptor ???


Sturat this Black Widow stuff it is exactely the rip-off I had from HP.
Then ... if you want to try it ... I can send it to you for free !
It costed to me ... 3 years ago ... 1 month of pure and siny Italian cursing
.
This is quite enough for me ... I had to get on the knees on some peanuts
for 1 week to pay my sins !!
.. and to buy a REAL film scanner to be able to scan my slides ...
more over ... it is impossible to scan films with this ... the orange
casting of the dye is not removable at all .

I am not kidding ... when I say I will make you trying ... then eventually
either you send it back to me in Italy either you send few bucks to pay it
whenever you will decide to keep it .

..

Ezio.


__
Well it doesn't require power, it has no moving parts and simply sits on top
of your scanner its dimensions are H x 100mm, L x 170mm & W x 90mm. With a
specifiction like this all that's left is for some impressive reviews from
magazines and users to let you see what they thought.


FilmSCAN 35 produced for Black Widow by SlideScan®


'The Results: Quite simply brilliant.'
'All scans I made were superb.'
Scanned Image quality 27/30
Ease of use 28/30
Build quality 16/20
Value for money 19/20
'A neat gadget at a fraction of the cost of a dedicated accessory slide
scanning adaptor'... its a simple and very neat bit of kit - and very cost
effective to boot.'
Doug Harman, Deputy Technical Editor, Amateur Photographer Magazine, 29th
January 2000.


Sincerely.

Ezio

www.lucenti.com  e-photography site


- Original Message -
From: "Stuart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: x Stuart !! was .. Black Widow or Slidescan
Transp'y Adaptor ???


> Hi-here is the url for this device
> Stuart
>
>
http://www.blackwidow.co.uk/cgi-bin/bwshop/bw.cgi?ACTION=ENTER+SHOP&thispage
=frameset.htm&ORDER_ID=!ORDERID!
>
>
>
>
> At 09:22 01-02-01 +0100, you wrote:
> >Stuart,
> >It might be that ''Black Widow'' or ''Slidescan'' adapters are using a
> >different set of tricks to cheat the flat bed scanner and to succeed to
scan
> >slides on a flat-bed , but I wasn't able to find any description of this
> >devices on the Web.
> >By the way ... when scanning slides ... this devices are they really
letting
> >the scanner to focus on the film surface ? In facts the reflection of the
> >light coming from the lamp is not the only point when scaning slides.
> >To exactely focus the film surface is one of them ... the 1 or 2 mm
distance
> >from the glass given by the slide frame is important enough pushing the
> >optical resolution toward the edge.
> >Not to mention all the other factors to be considered.
> >
> >I am firmily convinced that flat-bed scanners cannot succeed in having
even
> >a lousy chance to scan slides.
> >
> >Sincerely.
> >
> >Ezio
> >
> >www.lucenti.com  e-photography site
> >
> >
> >- Original Message -
> >From: "Stuart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 2:46 AM
> >Subject: Re: filmscanners: x Stuart !! was .. Black Widow or Slidescan
> >Transp'y Adaptor ???
> >
> >
> > > The point u r missing as far as I can see is that the Black Widow and
> > > Slidescan slide adaptors are totally different from the transparency
hoods
> > > you are talking about -these are a prism device that siits on top of a
> > > flatbed and is not made by the scanner manfrs like the HP device-test
> > > reports from magazines are good
> > > stuart
> > >
> > > At 02:14 01-02-01 +0100, you wrote:
> > > >Rob is a real gentleman !
> > > >
> > > >The definition he gives about the pure sh@# sold by HP as Slides
Adaptor
> >is
> > > >opening my old wound !
> > > >
> > > >The results are not poor ... simply are not there .
> > > >After 3 months of absolute pain and real cursing in Italian (the
worst
> > > >possible and the most siny ... don't we have the Pope . ? ) I
have
> >given
> > > >up (it was 3 years ago with a very expensive 6200c ... totally
useless
> >...)
> > > >and I have bought a Nikon LS-30.
> > > >
> > > >Sincerely.
> > > >
> > > >Ezio
> > > >
> > > >www.lucenti.com  e-photography site
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >- Original Message -
> > > >From: "Rob Geraghty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >

Re: filmscanners: Encoding/compression Was:CD storage

[Robert Kehl]

Does anyone have any experience with using Genuine Fractals as a compression
tool?

How does it compare to TIF files with LWZ compression for 50mb image files?

How lossy/lossless is it?

Bob Kehl

Re: filmscanners: VueScan 6.6 Available

[Robert Kehl]

Ed.

I don't want you to reveal your secrets, but you say you have a better way
to accomplish both dust removal and grain reduction.  Speaking purely of the
results, not necessarily the process, how is it better?

Thanks,

Bob Kehl

- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 11:04 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: VueScan 6.6 Available


> In a message dated 1/31/2001 9:59:13 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > Please tell us more about the difference between your spot removal vs.
ICE.
> >
> >  And what are you saying about reduction of film grain??!!  Now that
you've
> >  conquered Digital Ice's spot removal are you also improving on ASF's
film
> >  grain equalization ?
>
> I'd rather not go into the details of what I did, but I was careful not
> to violate any of ASF's patents.  In avoiding their patents, I was able
> to come up with a much better way of doing infrared dust removal
> (what ASF calls ICE) and grain reduction (what ASF calls GEM).
> Both are combined in the "Options|Clean" option.
>
> The key insight came when I learned about Sigma filters.  I was
> amazed at how well the final algorithm worked.  I can probably
> tweak it some more, but it works quite well now.  I'd recommend
> using the "Clean" setting instead of "Scrub" or "Scour" since
> it seems to work well and is quite fast.
>
> Regards,
> Ed Hamrick
>

Re: filmscanners: VueScan 6.6 Available

[Robert Kehl]

Well done Ed!

Please tell us more about the difference between your spot removal vs. ICE.

And what are you saying about reduction of film grain??!!  Now that you've
conquered Digital Ice's spot removal are you also improving on ASF's film
grain equalization ?

Please expound.

Bob Kehl


- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 11:52 AM
Subject: filmscanners: VueScan 6.6 Available


> I just released VueScan 6.6 for Windows, Mac OS and Linux.
> It can be downloaded from:
>
>   http://www.hamrick.com/vsm.html
>
> What's new in version 6.6
>
>   * Significantly improved image cleaning.  It now
> removes dust spots completely when there's an
> infrared channel and reduces film grain at the
> same time (with or without the infrared channel).
>
> This is the first version that does a better job removing
> dust spots than the ICE algorithm, and even works well
> with Kodachrome (ICE doesn't).
>
> Regards,
> Ed Hamrick
>

Re: filmscanners: Re:Subject line!

[Robert Kehl]

Mr. Nitikman,
 
You are absolutely correct.  Correction 
received and noted.  
 
Bob Kehl
(originator of this string)

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Hersch Nitikman 
  
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 12:18 
  AM
  Subject: filmscanners: Re:Subject 
  line!
  Hey, guys and gals! I have found this thread both interesting 
  and on topic. BUT: Re: filmscanners: 
  SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? has LONG SINCE ceased to be what was 
  being discussed.  The purpose of the subject line is really supposed to 
  be a guide for browsing folks as to whether they want to read this one or that 
  one, isn't it? If we don't change the line for a week or two, wandering all 
  over the map, it sort of loses its purpose, doesn't it? How long would it take 
  for us to think what we want to discuss, and put that in the subject 
  line?As I will soon be 77, and am subject to 'Senior Moments', don't flog 
  me too hard the first time I ignore the above 
  advice...Hersch

Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?

[Robert Kehl]

IMO we need to take ALL claims in sales literature with at least a couple of
pounds (or kilos) of salt, not just a grain or two.  Yes, the qualifiers
such as "behind glass" and of course the kind of temperature and humidity
that is only found in Paradise are NOT real world parameters.  It's much
like how that  computer you're typing on was rated in its sales literature.
The manufacturers obviously put the best sounding specifications forward.

But it's not really a question of whether your prints will last 20 years or
100 years as the manufacturer claims, (soon it will be 1000 years -
millennial prints??)   But the real question is which printer and ink/paper
combo will give you the longest life in the real world.  If (this month)
that's not Epson, who is it?

Bob Kehl



- Original Message -
From: Laurie Solomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 11:40 AM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?


"Lightfastness' maybe; but what about "gasfastness" or "ozonefastness?"
Afterall, it was not the lack of lightfastness that caused the orange fade
in the 1270 case and usually within a period of time much much shorter than
the 10 year lightfastness claim for the Premium Glossy paper.  I really
think that we all need to take such longevity and archivalness claims with a
grain or two of salt.  Yes, adding the provision of "when kept behind glass"
is  or maybe the qualifier than makes the claim standup; but how many people
keep many, if not most - not even saying all, their prints behind glass or
stored in individual Mylar enclosures.  Moreover, is the 20 year claim for
glossy or matte papers?  Typically the claims of 20-25 years lightfastness
have been for Epson Heavyweight Matte Paper and not for glossy papers such
as EPP, which have, at best, a lightfastness claim of only 2-5 years ( often
even if under glass in the case of the EPP paper this is extended to 5-10
years).

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Robert Kehl
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 9:35 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?



- Original Message -
From: Tony Sleep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 1:46 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?


On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:01:40 -0600  Robert Kehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:

>>  However, when
>> something better comes along my 2000P will be up for sale. I'll let you
know
>> in a hundred years how the prints are holding up.

>Perhaps you shouldn't have tempted fate. New Epson : Stylus Pro 5500,
2880dpi, 3pl,
>Epson claim '20yrs light fast when mounted behind glass'. £2,495GBP tho'.



I believe the 5500 claims 200yrs light fastness.
But how 'bout the new 1290, 2880dpi, 4pl with 20yrs lightfastness!

BK

Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?

[Robert Kehl]

- Original Message -
From: Tony Sleep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 1:46 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?


On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:01:40 -0600  Robert Kehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:

>>  However, when
>> something better comes along my 2000P will be up for sale. I'll let you
know
>> in a hundred years how the prints are holding up.

>Perhaps you shouldn't have tempted fate. New Epson : Stylus Pro 5500,
2880dpi, 3pl,
>Epson claim '20yrs light fast when mounted behind glass'. £2,495GBP tho'.



I believe the 5500 claims 200yrs light fastness.
But how 'bout the new 1290, 2880dpi, 4pl with 20yrs lightfastness!

BK

Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?

[Robert Kehl]

- Original Message -
From: Tony Sleep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 1:46 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?


On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:01:40 -0600  Robert Kehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:

>>  However, when
>> something better comes along my 2000P will be up for sale. I'll let you
know
>> in a hundred years how the prints are holding up.

>Perhaps you shouldn't have tempted fate. New Epson : Stylus Pro 5500,
2880dpi, 3pl,
>Epson claim '20yrs light fast when mounted behind glass'. £2,495GBP tho'.


So...you wanna buy a slightly used 2000P?

Bob Kehl

Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?

[Robert Kehl]

- Original Message -
From: Rob Geraghty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 11:26 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?


> Rob
>
> PS I'm glad to hear you're happy with the 2000P, Frank, since
> it seems to have received an unwarranted poor reputation on
> the Epson inkjet list.

After almost 10 years of printing with an HP colorlaser and almost all of
the desktop color inkjet technology they ever produced, I can say I am very
happy with my Epson 2000P.  I still use my HP's for quick prints because
they are fast, but the 2000P produces beautiful prints.  However, when
something better comes along my 2000P will be up for sale. I'll let you know
in a hundred years how the prints are holding up.


>
> PPS Obscanning: what is the largest print anyone has made
> from a 2700dpi scan?
>
>
I've printed 13"x19" from both 2700 dpi (LS-2000) and 4000dpi (Mtek 4000t).
The 2700 dpi at 13"x19" looked very nice.until I laid the 4000dpi
next to it.  The 4000dpi had better definition in the details.  My judgement
(just one man's opinion) is that depending on the type of photography you're
doing the extra resolution may not matter.  For instance, a portrait may
actually benefit from the slightly softer details whereas a landscape may
beg for the greater depth of reality that the extra resolution can provide.
Does this mean that at this point the decision about resolution is about art
rather than science? Perhaps.

My early tests were somewhat slanted towards the 2700 dpi LS-2000 because I
had the ICE turned on.  I learned thru this list that some sharpening is
applied when using ICE (I should have used Vuescan) .   I'll be retesting
when I get a chance without the sharpening (using Vuescan) so that the scans
will be equal except for the resolution.

Bob Kehl

Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?

[Robert Kehl]

- Original Message -
From: shAf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 2:17 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?


> Everytime I make such a purchase I predict such innovations.  For
> example, the SS4000 was available when I purchased my LS-2000 ...
> anyone could have predicted Nikon would match the resolution, and with
> the upper limit of available detail being ~6000ppi, you can also
> predict subsequent improvements.
>
You're absolutely right.  It's like this with all technology these days.
Since the advent of the PC in the early eighties I've purchased eight PC's
for my personal use (sorry Mac users).  I've never worn one out.  They were
all replaced due to obscolesence.

I've found that it is a lot less expensive to be just a step or two behind
the "state of the art".  But because I've always valued my time rather
highly, I've not hesitated to spend a thousand or two per year for increased
speed and efficiency.  When it comes to scanners, I will also get improved
product.  This is something I never got by upgrading my PC.  So perhaps
shelling out a few extra bucks (or pounds) to have the absolute "state of
the art" in scanners is a good value.

I believe the key here is to weigh the cost vs. the income produced in the
time saved (an assumption is made that the new equipment is going to aid in
production of income).  Otherwise, accept that you have a somewhat expensive
hobby or stay a few steps behind the "latest and greatest" and save the
money.



> You are in a unique position of needing to keep up ... I am not ...
> most of are not. Your situation might beg for the possibility of
> leasing or renting such equipment.

I've tried that route but never found it to be much of a cost saving in the
long run.  What works best for me is to buy top quality equipment at the
best prices, produce income with it to offset its cost, and sell it before
it is a dinosaur, or reassign it to a less demanding (less producing)
assignment.


>
> Still, the LS-2000 has ICE capability ... I would believe this still
> makes it more valuable than you suspect.  I wonder if Nikonscan v.3
> with ICE^3 will be made available as a purchaseable upgrade for
> LS-2000 scanners(?) ... or will it work with Firewire only?  This
> software would make the LS-2000 more valuable.
>
> shAf  :o)
>
>

You are right again.  I've discovered that e-bay buyers are paying up to
$1000 for LS-2000's.  Whereas my Microtek 4000t (just sold) didn't bring
quite as much.  I was overlooking the ICE as well as the multi-scanning
capability and the SCSI interface of the LS-2000.

Bob Kehl








>
>

Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?

[Robert Kehl]

- Original Message -
From: Stan Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 7:48 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?


> A 4000 dpi scanner produces an 18+ megapixel image from a 35mm slide. A
2700
> dpi scanner produces one with just over 8 megapixels. That's less than 1/2
> the information. With the 2700 dpi scanner, you would not be able to
produce
> an 11X14 at 267 pixels per inch. That would degrade the image quality at
> least on the Fujix machine output.
>
> For what it's worth
>
>
> Stan Schwartz
>
> http://home.swbell.net/snsok
>

Good point.  I agree.  I don't think 4000dpi is enough to do what I really
envision.  But probably the best I can do with today's films.  But films may
get even better than they are today in a struggle to not become obsolete.
And as printers get finer and finer in resolution and computer memory,
storage and processor speed continue to grow exponentially, 4000dpi could be
come hobby level scanning.

Bob Kehl

Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?

[Robert Kehl]

- Original Message -
From: Tony Sleep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2001 12:25 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?


>
> I consider the 2700ppi market a different one to the 4000ppi. The majority
of users
> won't need the higher res (at A4 or so there is little difference), and
the costs of
> a competent PC to handle the higher res scans (twice the size) are a
deterrent. So
> if the LS2000 already does what you want, why change it?

I agree. Most people don't need 4000dpi.  There seems to be very little
difference between 2700dpi and 4000dpi for 8"x10" printing.  Although there
is some difference and some people on this list would insist it is a notable
difference.  But I want to sell large prints for corporate and home display
puposes.  I think they call it art.  : )
I see no reason why only the painters get to frame their artwork in 24"x36"
frames.  I'd like to see how close I can get with 35mm film.  For that I
need all the reolution the film will yield.  If 2700dpi with interpolation
is almost as good as 4000dpi, then how good is 4000dpi with interpolation?
I'd like to find out.

As for the cost of more computing power, you're right again.  No reason to
run out and plop down money just to make good 8x10's,  but I want to see how
large I can print without using my view camera.  So I'm the exception.  I'll
spend a few thousand bucks to see what it will do for me.

Bob Kehl

Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?

[Robert Kehl]

- Original Message -
From: bjs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2001 1:46 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?


>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Tony Sleep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2001 10:25 AM
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
>
>
> > It'll be very interesting to see how the Nikons perform, but I think we
> have now
> > passed the point where successive generations mean large improvements in
> native scan
> > quality.
>
> I agree that gross errors and faults are largely gone from the better
> scanners today.  But noise, "grain" and color accuracy still seem to be
> common scan quality complaints (besides the ubiquitous software quality
> issues).
>
> It would be interesting to hear why people are upgrading to the new
> scanners.  What current problems are they trying to solve?
>
> Byron
>
>
I'm upgrading because I love the film handling of the Nikons vs. the
Polaraoid.  And I want the 4000dpi and..its only money.

Bob Kehl

Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?

[Robert Kehl]

- Original Message -
From: bjs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2001 5:11 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?


>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Frank Paris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2001 12:37 PM
> Subject: RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
>
>
> > I have no problem with the slide holder. What possible difference would
it
> > make if it were made out of metal? The problem with the negative holder
> > isn't that it is made out of plastic. It's simply badly designed.
> >
> > Frank Paris
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684
> >
>
> True enough...I've seen people knock the Canon holder because it is
plastic
> and not metal.  But I've sat on it, rolled over it with a chair and
> otherwise done horrible things to it without a problem.
>
> A metal version wouldn't have survived as well in fact.
>
> How it is designed is the important factor.  Good plastic works as well or
> better than metal from a materials viewpoint.
>
> Byron
>
>
Plastic vs. metal isn't even the question for me.  The Nikon needs NO film
holder. Not plastic.  Not metal.  You just feed the filmstrip in.  I've just
finished scanning about a thousand frames on my LS-2000 without a hiccup.
Hassle free.  My SS-4000 really slows me down.  Time IS money.
Quick and easy.  That's what matters!

Bob Kehl

filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?

[Robert Kehl]

Thanks to very good input from this list I bought both a Nikon LS-2000 and a
Microtek 4000t (Polaroid SS-4000) last year for a special project.  I used
the Nikon for the mainstream scanning because of it's great film handling
capabilities (mine didn't have a stepper motor problem) and I used the
Microtek for super hi-res scans.  I have been delighted with both scanners.

However, I am a sound & image technology consultant by trade and so I cannot
resist having the latest and greatest technology.  As I put my former "state
of the art scanners" up for sale I wonder, what are they really worth?  I
realize that with every wave of new technology the former "state of the art"
technology fades somewhat, but how much?

With the advent of the Nikon LS-40 (Coolscan IV) at it seems my LS-2000 has
really got to lose value.  Unless I missed something, the LS-40 is the next
step up repalcement for the LS-2000 and at $895 it  just made my LS-2000
just this side of a boat anchor.

But the new Nikon LS-4000ED probably affects 4000t (SS-4000) owners a bit
less, since both the new Nikon and the Polaroid scanners ultimately give you
same the same image resolution and quality.  It seems that  LS-2000 owners
all around the world may want to move up right away, but the SS-4000 owners
have less to gain by running out and buying the new 4000dpi scanner from
Nikon when they already have a 4000dpi scanner. Still the film handling and
Ice3 could be nice.  Any comment from SS-4000 or 4000t owners?  Are you
planning on a move up to the new technology right away or am I the only one?

Anyway,  it seems to me that my LS-2000 just dropped in value to somewhere
around $600 but perhaps my 4000t (SS-4000) will hold its value a little
better, maybe somewhere around $1,200.  Response would be appreciated.

Regards,

Bob Kehl

Re: filmscanners: New scanners from Nikon

[Robert Kehl]

Ed,

You're amazing !

Bob Kehl

- Original Message - 
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: New scanners from Nikon


> In a message dated 1/9/2001 5:54:05 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> > Does Vuescan support these new scanners yet?
> >  
> >  If not, what week will you release the new version that does?
> 
> It looks like I'll be getting one of the new Nikon scanners on
> loan in mid-February.  I should have VueScan working with
> it about a week later.
> 
> Regards,
> Ed Hamrick

Re: filmscanners: New scanners from Nikon

[Robert Kehl]

Ed,


Does Vuescan support these new scanners yet?

If not, what week will you release the new version that does?

: )

Bob Kehl



- Original Message - 
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 4:16 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: New scanners from Nikon


> In a message dated 1/9/2001 3:58:44 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> >  Nikon Coolscan IV ED, LS-40
> >   Nikon Super Coolscan 4000 ED, LS-4000
> >   Nikon Super Coolscan 8000 ED, LS-8000
> >  
> >4000 dpi and 14 bit/channel
> 
> The CoolScan IV ED (LS-40) is a 2900 dpi scanner
> with 12 bits/channel.  All 12 bits are read by NikonScan 3.0.
> 
> Also, the LS-40 has a USB interface and the LS-4000
> and LS-8000 have Firewire (IEEE 1394) interfaces.
> 
> The LS-4000 is for 35mm and APS, while the LS-8000
> adds support for MF film.
> 
> All three scanners have a separate infrared channel
> and use LED's for their light source.
> 
> There's also a new roll film adapter for the LS-4000
> called the SA-30 which takes a whole roll of uncut
> film.
> 
> The new ED scanners (love that name) use the same
> film adapters as the LS-2000 series (including the
> SF-200 slide film adapter).  It looks like the firmware
> in the LS-40 doesn't support the SF-200 slide feeder
> (just like the LS-30 doesn't).
> 
> Regards,
> Ed Hamrick
> 

Re: filmscanners: RE: Here's a place...

[Robert Kehl]

Downloaded and installed last night.  Works great.  No problems.

Thanks much

Bob Kehl


- Original Message - 
From: OK Photo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 7:54 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: RE: Here's a place...


> 
> >Please , anybody having problems in downloading or succeeding in it ?
> >
> >I don't understand any more what's happening.
> 
> Just d/l it this morningno problems.
> 
> Paul
> 
> 

Re: filmscanners: VueScan 6.3.19 Available

[Robert Kehl]

- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2000 4:33 AM
Subject: filmscanners: VueScan 6.3.19 Available


> I just released VueScan 6.3.19 for Windows, Mac OS and Linux.
> It can be downloaded from:
>
>   http://www.hamrick.com/vsm.html
>
> What's new in version 6.3.19
>
>   * Significantly improved image cleaning on scanners
> with an infrared channel (Scan Elite, LS-30/LS-2000)
>


Ed,

I have a previous version of Vuescan, as it seems most people on this list
do.  In what way is it improved.  Please expand on this.

Bob Kehl

Re: filmscanners: 4x5 budget flatbed scanners - opinions

[Robert Kehl]

Tony,

Thank you for your straight answer.
It's what makes this list so unique.

BK


> > what are Newton's rings?
>
> Newton's rings are an optical interference artifact, which appear as
concentric rings ...

Re: filmscanners: 4x5 budget flatbed scanners - opinions

[Robert Kehl]

- Original Message -
From: Johnny Deadman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Filmscanners <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 2:42 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: 4x5 budget flatbed scanners - opinions


> (the biggest problems with my flatbed are (1) Newton's rings, (2) dust and
> crud and (3) limited Dmax... very easy to blow your highlights.




Johnny,

You got me on this one. I understand "dust and crud" and "limited Dmax" but
what are Newton's rings?

Thanks

BK

Re: filmscanners: Max Sharpness?

[Robert Kehl]

- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2000 2:45 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Max Sharpness?


> Yes, VueScan and NikonScan use the infrared channel
> differently to remove dust spots.
>
> > Which software achieves more
> >  sharpness when using ICE?
>
> VueScan doesn't smooth the pixels outside the area where
> there are severe dust spots (using the Clean setting), while
> NikonScan does.
>
> NikonScan applies a sharpen filter after smoothing the pixel
> data, and VueScan doesn't (you can sharpen in Photoshop).


I thought that NikonScan 2.5 gave separate switches for clean and
sharpen!?!?!?

I thought I had NikonScan's sharpening turned off when I compared NikonScan
output to Vuescan output  on my LS-2000 (using the clean feature of both
scanning software packages).  Vuescan looked a little softer.  I never
imagined that there was still some sharpening going on with the Nikon
software.  I may have to retest!?

BK

Re: filmscanners: Second Hard Drive

[Robert Kehl]

Ezio,

If I read you right you're saying testing has shown that the 160SCSI drive
outperform an IDE Raid array by more than double.  What is the cost of this
set-up?  Is there an econimical way to get into this type of storage?

Bob Kehl


- Original Message -
From: Ezio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2000 5:44 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Second Hard Drive


> Rob ,  let me please put some doubts on the figures claimed by such
kind
> of vendors ... ;-) ..
> No FLAME at all , but ... 15 years in hardware sales are driving my
> behaviour ... a ''raw'' access to a wild animal like a SCSI 160 through a
> SCSI 160 controller ... TODAY ... is unbeatable specially for LOOONG files
> like ours (images) . (in our environment)
> An array can take a lot of advantages from a wise use of caching
algorhythms
> (too many h ???) ... and thus the data claimed can be foolishing a lot ...
> in facts ... I have demonstrated (at work) how   wild beasts like 1rpm
> SERIAL disks without any cache (buth with many parallel paths) can
> outrageously outperform mega cached (32GB cache) arrays ... handling files
> with a SINGLE DATA FIELD of 64GB  on a 2 Terabyte sub-set of a huger
> file system .
>
> NO WAY ... in these cases (we are in the same situation if you think we
have
> HUGE files with HUGE records ... and not many files with small records ...
> and sometimes repetitive !!!) to have arrays going faster than ''raw''
> access to fast disks .
> BTW ... the array made 60MB/s sustained throughput ... the wild serial
> beasts made 160MB/s sustained throughput ... on the  same sub-set of data
(2
> Tera) .
> (in this case sustained for almost 4 hours continuously)
> .. the net result ? ... the customer bought 115Tera of raw wild animals
;-)
> .. and I won the bet vs. my colleagues ...  ;-)
>
> Sincerely.
>
> Ezio
>
> www.lucenti.com  e-photography site
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Rob Geraghty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2000 12:20 PM
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: Second Hard Drive
>
>
> > Ezio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Photoshop and other I/O bound applications receive a great help in
> > speeding
> > > up from I/O ... MORE than upgrading the clock of the CPU.
> >
> > Anyone wanting more IO speed at a reasonable price might want to think
> about
> > an IDE array.  Promise make an IDE RAID card - check their web site and
> > you'll find a link to a comparison of a 2 drive array with a 15K rpm
SCSI
> > drive.  The array performs pretty well.  I find myself constantly
> frustrated
> > by waiting for scans to load and save.  My second hard drive is an old
> mode
> > 4 5400rpm drive - the CDROM drive actually reads a scan file faster than
> the
> > old hard drive!
> >
> > Price for an array: 2 x IBM 7200rpm 15GB drives + Promise RAID
Controller
> > total cost about US$330
> > The cost of a SCSI 3 adapter and a suitable SCSI 3 drive would be quite
a
> > bit more.
> >
> > Rob
> >
> >
>
>

Re: filmscanners: Scanning negs and white spots

[Robert Kehl]

Michael,

I remember using PhotoFlo 36 years ago.  But I was only 10.
And I remember how easily film (either negs or slides) scratched, even as I
got older.

Thanks for input.

Bob

- Original Message -
From: Michael Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 7:16 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning negs and white spots


> 1. RE: Dust/Scratches: I have been following with some interest and
> amusement the thread about people getting rid of dust on negs and
> transparencies. The more things change the more they remain the same...
> I have been a professional photographer for nigh on 32 years...used to
> own a photo lab...a custom black and white lab with condenser
> enlargers... talk about magnifying every speck of dust... anyhow, the
> dust problem starts with the processing, particularly the drying... this
> is particularly true of b/w, and the solution for b/w is to have the
> correct dilution of Photoflo and a dust free drying cabinet... with
> color negs processed by machine, the problem is more scratches from the
> rollers or transport mechanism when the machines are not kept impeccably
> cleaned... you have to WATCH THE LAB Also, try to avoid the types of
> negative sleeves where the lab has to slide the negs into (for uncut
> rolls) this can give you striations, scratches that won't show up until
> you make an enlargement... better the neg sleeves that open on one side
> if you prefer uncut rolls like I do... the sleeves they use for cut negs
> are okay, as are plastic binder pages for negs...
> The minilabs are not good places to process 35mm film you plan to enlarge
much
> past 8x10 The best advice I can give is to find a good custom lab...
per roll
> price for process only is not much more than a min-lab, but the quality
> (particularly the cleanliness) is much better.
> Next, your scan environment is particularly important. The posts about
> cleaning negs with cotton gloves and/or clean towels... I would hate to
> have to blow up a 16x20 print from one of those negs DO NOT TOUCH
> THE SURFACE OF A NEGATIVE WITH ANYTHING EXCEPT A STATICMASTER BRUSH, and
> keep that to a minimum... If a neg is dirty, talk to your lab about a
> proper cleaning...
> To keep the dust off a neg, use a can of Dust-Off just before the scan,
> and if you have a real problem, buy an electrostatic dust zapper that
> filters the room air The only place you should touch a neg or
> transparency with white gloves is on the edges...
>
> 2.. Does anyone have experience and comments on using a Minolta San
> Elite for scanning Fuji Reala negs? Would like to know if VueScan will
> give me any advantages over the Minolta software.
>
> Mike Moore... Salt Lake City, Utah
>
>
>
> Rob Geraghty wrote:
>
> > I (and others) have noticed scanned negs tend to show a lot of white
spots
> > which don't seem to be caused by dust on the surface of the neg.  Since
> > the image is inverted, presumably the spots are dark or black (opaque)
on
> > the neg itself.  Without ICE, this makes for a lot of work in scanning a
> > film.
> >
> > I suspect that it's from a couple of possible causes:
> > 1) Dust bonded into the neg during processing
> > 2) spots of undeveloped neg emulsion caused by bubbles during processing
> >
> > I don't think I had any such features on B&W film I processed myself by
> > hand, but I'd have to check.  Is this yet another downside of mechanical
> > processing of C41 in minilabs?  Dust in the chemistry and bubbles on the
> > film?  Does anyone have a clearer idea of the cause(s) of these spots?
> > The white spots in negs seem to be much more frequent than black spots
in
> > slides (which in my experience almost always *are* dust that can be
cleaned).
> >
> > Rob
> >
> > Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://wordweb.com
>
>

Re: filmscanners: Upgrading to Photoshop 6.0 from LE

[Robert Kehl]

Take another look here.  http://www.adobe.com/offer/69502

The normal  LE to v6.0 upgrade price is $499.

But there is a special price of $299 for a limited time.
(No good down under though.)

You're right about the $199 price from  v5.5 to v6.0.

Is this getting clearer or more confusing?



- Original Message -
From: Rob Geraghty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 5:04 PM
Subject: filmscanners: Upgrading to Photoshop 6.0 from LE


> Frank wrote:
> >Still, it's half price from a version you basically got for free.
>
> According to Adobe's web site -
http://www.adobe.com/store/products/photoshop.html
>
> The upgrade from LE is US$499 instead of the full price of US$609, so it's
> only a one-sixth discount or 18% off RRP.  The $199 upgrade appears to be
> from previous full versions such as Photoshop 5.5.
>
> Rob
>
>
> Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://wordweb.com
>
>
>
>

Re: filmscanners: Image databases?

[Robert Kehl]

Well Rob, as long as your trying out programs here's an interesting one.
CyPics from CyWarp.

http://www.cywarp.com/DownloadCyPics.asp

I've used it briefly.  It's based on Microsaft Access.  Key features include
consistent keywords via user built dropdown keyword lists, and the ability
to find images that have been moved and thereby keep itself in synch.

Let me know what you think.  I'll be trying out thumbs+ and will provide
feedback as well.

I'm trying to make a decision about image databases too.  I'm glad you
started this string.

Thanks.

Bob Kehl


- Original Message -
From: Rob Geraghty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2000 9:13 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Image databases?


> I've tried a couple of the programs which have been suggested and here are
> some comments which I hope may be of help to others.  I wouldn't use Jasc
> Media Center or Armadillo Photo, but they may be useful for others.
Thanks
> for everyone's suggestions so far!
>
> 1. Jasc Media Center Plus 3
> o Displays thumbnails much like PSP
> o Doesn't provide the ability for sub-folder display like PSP browse
> o Thumbnail size is easily changed
> o Most image info is stored in the album - not necessary to have a CD
source
> in the drive
> o Double clicking will open the image using the specified editor.  If the
> disk is not present, JMCP will prompt with the label or the disk to be
> inserted.
> o Keywords can be stored against files and searches performed
> o F3 and Ctrl-F3 toggle forward and backward between keyword matches.
This
> could be painfully slow if many matches are present
> o No means to organise images into sub-groups other than putting them in
> separate albums or using keywords
>
> 2. Armadillo Photo
> o Non-standard windows interface.  Although the program has clearly been
> built using a standard tool such as C++, it ignores all the standards for
> Windows interfaces;
>  - no menus
>  - no resizable windows
>  - non-standard look and feel
> o Only one database is possible.  It does not seem to be possible to have
> several databases split by say subject material
> o Database growth is rapid.  Rather than storing only the thumbnail, the
> program stores both a thumbnail and and optimised and reduced larger
image.
> It doesn't seem to be possible to link only to the original image as for
> JMCP above.  The user is never prompted for a missing disk (eg. CDR) since
> the database copy is used, although the information regarding the original
> and the volume it came from is available. Processing only a few hundred
> images resulted in over 60MB worth of data in Armadillo.
> o Many Keywords can be entered against a given image, but the drop down
> lists are extremely inconsistent
> o The program seems unstable.
>
>
>

Re: filmscanners: horribly dirty negatives from SS4000

[Robert Kehl]

- Original Message -
From: Johnny Deadman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Filmscanners <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 7:59 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: horribly dirty negatives from SS4000


> on 9/11/00 8:05 pm, Robert Kehl at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > The Artix4000t definately gives me sharper higher resolution prints from
y
> > Epson 2000P especially at 13"x19".  But the time I spend cleaning and
> > spotting is a high price to pay.  My conclusion?  I am using the Nikon
for
> > my first scans because the Digital Ice is amazing.  No cleaning, no
muss, no
> > fuss.  The 2700dpi is more than enough for screen display (even when
> > projected) and for prints to about 8"x10".  When I want a super sharp
print
> > or a very large print, I scan on my Artix4000t.  I guess I'll have to
keep
> > them both.
>
> The dust problems are almost certainly to do with your scanning
environment
> and your general treatment of the negs. I have absolutely NO dust problems
> with my SS4000... to the point that I literally spot only one or two dots
> and then only on some negatives. You may want to investigate some
> anti-static treatment or something.
>
> (Incidentally, I'm fairly certain that blowing negs can build up static as
> electrons peel off the oxygen molecules onto the emulsion...or vice versa.
> The same thing happens with helicopter blades which is why you have to be
> grounded before you hit the ground when you're winched out of one... I
know
> this from experience! So over enthusiastic cleaning can cause more
problems
> than it solves).
> --
> Johnny Deadman
>
> http://www.pinkheadedbug.com
>
>
Johnny,

I agree about the dust problems.  (the helicopter blades I'll take your word
on)
The static, especially in winter, is pretty bad here.
I do have a high efficiency air cleaner, but it can't keep up when the
static is so high.

I need to get a humidifier perhaps.  Meanwhile,  I have Digital Ice.

I haven't seen any degradation in image quality from Digital Ice, but I
haven't done any extensive tests.
Has anyone else?


Bob Kehl

PS.  How do you "ground" yourself before getting out of a helicopter?

Re: filmscanners: horribly dirty negatives from SS4000

[Robert Kehl]

Frank,

Do you use a dry towel.  Or is it moistened with something?

Bob



- Original Message -
From: Frank Paris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 7:14 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: horribly dirty negatives from SS4000


> One thing I have always noticed is that slides seem to be much easier to
> keep clean than negatives. Negatives seem to attract dust like a magnet.
> When using the HP PhotoSmart my rule of thumb is, get it right the first
> time, because if I have to scan the strip again, it is wasted. But
> amazingly, I found what sounds like a very rough way to clean a negative
> strip. I take a well washed towel, grip the edge of the slide between two
> fingers of one hand, and run the slide through the towel with the other
> pressing against both sides of the film at once with a fair amount of
> pressure. This does not seem to scratch the film strip and they come out
> amazingly clean. It sounds awful, but it seems to work for me.
>
> Frank Paris
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Julie, female Galah (3 1/2 years and going strong at the moment)
> Little Birdie, male Splendid Parakeet (13 years)
> Snowflake, male cockatiel (12 years)
> http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Robert Kehl
> > Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 5:05 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: filmscanners: horribly dirty negatives from SS4000
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: Frank Paris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 12:04 AM
> > Subject: filmscanners: horribly dirty negatives from SS4000
> >
> >
> > > Has anyone had trouble with their SS4000 producing horribly dusty and
> > > scratchy negatives? I can't believe how filthy my negatives are and
how
> > much
> > > time I have to spend cleaning them up. I never had this problem
> > with my HP
> > > PhotoSmart. Things seem to be getting worse, too. I just got through
> > blowing
> > > off what looked to start with pristine negatives and they
> > looked pristine
> > > after blowing them off as well, then I make the scans, and there's
> > hundreds
> > > of dust spots of varying sizes and scratches all over the scan.
> > Could the
> > > SS4000 be injuring my negatives?
> > >
> > > Frank Paris
> >
> > Yes Frank, I've had the same trouble with my Microtek Artix 4000t
> > (Polaroid
> > SS4000).  I got mine about the same time you got yours.  Except I bought
> > both the Artix4000t and a Nikon LS-2000 so I could compare.   I planned
to
> > keep the best one and sell the other.
> >
> > The Artix4000t definately gives me sharper higher resolution prints from
y
> > Epson 2000P especially at 13"x19".  But the time I spend cleaning and
> > spotting is a high price to pay.  My conclusion?  I am using the Nikon
for
> > my first scans because the Digital Ice is amazing.  No cleaning,
> > no muss, no
> > fuss.  The 2700dpi is more than enough for screen display (even when
> > projected) and for prints to about 8"x10".  When I want a super
> > sharp print
> > or a very large print, I scan on my Artix4000t.  I guess I'll have to
keep
> > them both.
> >
> > I took the advice of a gentlemen who recently unsubscribed from this
list
> > and sold his scanner because he couldn't stand the dust problem. He went
> > back to PhotoCD.  No, I'm not going to go the PhotoCD route.  But he
> > recommended a supplier of film cleaner, antistatic gloves, etc.  I spent
a
> > few more bucks on some of that stuff to make the job easier, but
> > its still a
> > job.  Thank God and Applied Science Fiction for Digital Ice.
> >
> > I hope the next Nikon scanner has Digital Ice.  If the new Kodak
> > scanner had
> > it, I'd buy one today.
> >
> > Bob Kehl
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Re: filmscanners: horribly dirty negatives from SS4000

[Robert Kehl]

- Original Message -
From: Frank Paris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 12:04 AM
Subject: filmscanners: horribly dirty negatives from SS4000


> Has anyone had trouble with their SS4000 producing horribly dusty and
> scratchy negatives? I can't believe how filthy my negatives are and how
much
> time I have to spend cleaning them up. I never had this problem with my HP
> PhotoSmart. Things seem to be getting worse, too. I just got through
blowing
> off what looked to start with pristine negatives and they looked pristine
> after blowing them off as well, then I make the scans, and there's
hundreds
> of dust spots of varying sizes and scratches all over the scan. Could the
> SS4000 be injuring my negatives?
>
> Frank Paris

Yes Frank, I've had the same trouble with my Microtek Artix 4000t (Polaroid
SS4000).  I got mine about the same time you got yours.  Except I bought
both the Artix4000t and a Nikon LS-2000 so I could compare.   I planned to
keep the best one and sell the other.

The Artix4000t definately gives me sharper higher resolution prints from y
Epson 2000P especially at 13"x19".  But the time I spend cleaning and
spotting is a high price to pay.  My conclusion?  I am using the Nikon for
my first scans because the Digital Ice is amazing.  No cleaning, no muss, no
fuss.  The 2700dpi is more than enough for screen display (even when
projected) and for prints to about 8"x10".  When I want a super sharp print
or a very large print, I scan on my Artix4000t.  I guess I'll have to keep
them both.

I took the advice of a gentlemen who recently unsubscribed from this list
and sold his scanner because he couldn't stand the dust problem. He went
back to PhotoCD.  No, I'm not going to go the PhotoCD route.  But he
recommended a supplier of film cleaner, antistatic gloves, etc.  I spent a
few more bucks on some of that stuff to make the job easier, but its still a
job.  Thank God and Applied Science Fiction for Digital Ice.

I hope the next Nikon scanner has Digital Ice.  If the new Kodak scanner had
it, I'd buy one today.

Bob Kehl

Re: filmscanners: 4000 dpi question

[Robert Kehl]

And what about the Epson 2000


- Original Message -
From: Stephen Irving <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 3:48 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: 4000 dpi question


> The Epson 1200 apparently prints best at an output dpi of 240 but what
about
> the best output dpi for the Epson 1270?
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Rob Geraghty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2000 8:51 PM
> Subject: RE: filmscanners: 4000 dpi question
>
>
> > Sisk98 wrote:
> > > I just received the Polaroid sprintscan 4000 slide scanner.
> > > I;m new to scanning. I would like to print 11x17 inch prints
> > > on my Epson 1200. My question is..what should I scan my slides
> > > or negatives at to achieve the best results. 4000dpi??
> >
> > The Epson 1200 will print best at an output dpi of 240dpi.  Divide the
> number
> > of pixels you get from a frame scanned at 4000ppi by 240 and you'll get
> > the print size in inches without resampling.  You should easily get
11x17
> > from it.
> >
> > Most film scanners scan best at their maximum non-interpolated dpi - so
> > for the SS4000 that would be 4000dpi.  I always scan with my Nikon LS30
> > set to 2700dpi.
> >
> > Rob
> >
> >
> > Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://wordweb.com
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Re: Scanner < $1500 selection ?

[Robert Kehl]

There is a dealer in southwest US with a few Microtek 4000T scanners going
for $900 each.
They are a pc dealer that bought out a closing photo/pc store.  Then units
are new in factory sealed cartons.
I just got one.  Looks great.
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]





- Original Message -
From: Dynax N <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2000 11:54 AM
Subject: Scanner < $1500 selection ?


>
>
> Hello all.
>
> It's time for me to move up from my Polaroid 35+. I am
> looking for a new scanner in the $1500 price range.
> Right now there is teh SS4000, LS2000 and the Minolta
> Elite.  Which one is the right one for me?  I need to
> scan negative really well (reala and portra) and slide
> at an acceptable quality.  My 35+ doesn't do a a good
> job in scanning. For some reason, Vuescan never works
> on it (very dark picture from Vue scan)and with
> Insight I have to adjust the brightness to around +10
> - + 20.  I think the CCD is going bad.  Changing the
> light bulb didn't help.
>
> Thanks
> -Khanh
>
>
>
> =
> .("`-''-/").___..--''"`-._   " Calculate, Inovate, Try, Try, Try
>`6_ 6  )   `-.  ( ).`-.__.`) Integrity, Honesty, Tau Beta Pi"
> RR (_Y_.)'  ._   )  `._ `. ``-..-'  -- H. F. Klos Jr., PA Z'78
>  _..`--'_..-_/  /--'_.' ,'  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> (il),-''  (li),'  ((!.-'http://users.ntplx.net/~khanh
>
> __
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
> http://mail.yahoo.com/
>
> 
> The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
> To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE
FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are
reading the Digest.
>



The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

Re: Microtek Artix 4000T

[Robert Kehl]

Elroy,

Have you used the 8000dpi interpolation yet?  Is it any good? Is it
supported in Siverfast? How is Microtek to deal with on problems?
What problems did you find with the Microtek software.  Thanks for your
input


Frank,

You're right.  The Polaroid is cheaper.  So that would seem to end the
debate.  However, I just found a few Microteks from a photo store closing
going for $900 each, new in factory sealed cartons.  I think I'll have to
buy one.  Even if I buy Silverfast to operate it with, I'm still dollars
ahead.  If I buy VueScan I way ahead.

- Original Message -
From: Frank Paris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 12:44 AM
Subject: RE: Microtek Artix 4000T


> The Polaroid is considerably cheaper than the Microtek at this time. I
also
> like everything I've heard about their support. They seem extremely
> interested in improving their software offering, continually updating it.
> Silverfast is bundled with it now. I sent them email asking a couple
> questions and received a response in two days, which is what they promise
on
> their web site.
>
> Frank Paris
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Julie, female Galah (3 years)
> Little Birdie, male Splendid Parakeet (13 years)
> Snowflake, male cockatiel (12 years)
> http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Elroy Eckhardt
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 9:52 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: Microtek Artix 4000T
> >
> >
> > The Microtek and Polaroid scanners are identical and both made by
> > Microtek.
> > The only difference is the Polaroid external case and the software that
> > comes with the scanner.  Silverfast is the best for either scanner.  Buy
> > whichever is cheaper considering what software is bundled with
> > the scanner.
> > I think Polaroid may be cheaper and may be bundling Silverfast with the
> > scanner.  It changes fairly frequently.  I have the Microtek since it
was
> > less expensive at the time.
> >
> > Elroy Eckhardt
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Robert Kehl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 2:01 PM
> > Subject: Microtek Artix 4000T
> >
> >
> > > I am new to this list so if this topic has already been covered,
please
> > > forgive the redundancy.
> > >
> > > I've read a number of reviews of film scanners including Tony's
> > review of
> > > Nikon LS-2000 and Polaroid's SS4000.
> > >
> > > I understand that Microtek makes the scanning engine for Polaroid.
Does
> > > anyone have an informed opinion or evaluation of how well the Microtek
> > > hardware or software stack up to Polaroid or others?  I understand
> > > Microtek's software uses Kodak color calibration.  It also
> > allows 8000dpi
> > > interpolation.  Anyone have experience with it?  Does it work? How
good?
> > >
> > > I am also wondering if anyone has any experience with the new Kodak
> > RFS3600
> > > scanner or software.
> > >
> > > Bob Kehl
> > >
> > >
> > > 
> > > 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.
> > >
> >
> >
> > 
> > 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.
>
>
> 
> 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.
>



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.

Microtek Artix 4000T

[Robert Kehl]

I am new to this list so if this topic has already been covered, please
forgive the redundancy.

I've read a number of reviews of film scanners including Tony's review of
Nikon LS-2000 and Polaroid's SS4000.

I understand that Microtek makes the scanning engine for Polaroid.  Does
anyone have an informed opinion or evaluation of how well the Microtek
hardware or software stack up to Polaroid or others?  I understand
Microtek's software uses Kodak color calibration.  It also allows 8000dpi
interpolation.  Anyone have experience with it?  Does it work? How good?

I am also wondering if anyone has any experience with the new Kodak RFS3600
scanner or software.

Bob Kehl



The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.