Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 11:43:16 +0200 Anthony Atkielski ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: The Polaroid SS4000 has been suggested, so I am considering that, although I still have some questions about the dynamic range, and it is essential that this range be equal to or greater than the LS-2000, since I scan mostly slides. IMV the LS2000 has perhaps a little more shadow separation and about identical ODR if you use 16x multiscanning. With 1x and probably 4x scanning it has less useable ODR than the Polaroid 4000, thanks to a lot more CCD noise. It may seem obvious, but the reviews of both at my site have samples so you can decide for yourself. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
On Sat, 25 Aug 2001 17:02:47 +0200 Anthony Atkielski ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Either way your computer will be obsolete at some point. Like my Leica M rangefinder, you mean? Wrong end of the development curve, Anthony. Your wet-collodion field camera, the one that needed a horse and wagon was = computers c1970. You are not hanging onto a PC Leica. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
On Mon, 27 Aug 2001 11:39:19 +0200 Anthony Atkielski ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I've consistently heard that it isn't as good as the LS-2000, and some sample scans I've seen appear to support this. Specifically, it appears to have a smaller dynamic range. Please read my reviews, if you haven't already. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
On Sat, 25 Aug 2001 11:16:45 +0200 Anthony Atkielski ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I've considered it--but how would I get the pictures back and forth between the two machines? I'd need to buy a router, at the very least, so add a few hundred more dollars. And the machine would need at least 512 MB of memory in order to hold the scans, so add a few hundred more. And I'd need a second copy of Photoshop, and a second top-quality monitor and video board, so add another $2000 or so. We are already into thousands of dollars just for this one chance, and I'm not even counting the scanner! You're right. A revolver would be cheaper g Actually for a long time I did scanning on a separate machine, actually a P200 with 96Mb RAM. All you need is a couple of network cards and a crossover cable, about 40GBP for a pair of 100Mbps NIC's, half that for 10Mbps. You don't need PS on the scanning machine, and as a result you don't need much RAM - 128-192Mb for 4000ppi, and just let the bugger spool if necessary. Nor do you need much CPU, as the scanner is slower than anything else. Plenty of old tat like that around for £100 or less. Get a s/h Millenium video card for £20 if you want decent graphics. I gave away two perfect P200 machines to friends last year as nobody would buy them at any price. You can share the posh monitor, keyboard and mouse as I do, using a Belkin Omni 2 port switch. 3 keypresses to toggle between the PC's. You gain in terms of being able to edit one scan whilst the next is being acquired. Here the scanning PC doubles up as a print and fax server, mail server, file repository with a couple of big disks, LAN DAT backup and CD burning dogsbody. It also hosted this list for about 18m, the sole reason it got upgraded to a Celeron400 as the P200 just couldn't keep up. It's not called //SLAVE/ for nothing, it does all the rubbish you wouldn't want on a machine you want to work at. Right now, it's burning scans to CD so I can clear some space. Having all that lot off and away from the main graphics machine is a great help. Fewer apps and functions make it more stable. Yes, mine is a 'production machine' I use for work every day. Frankly I think your policy of running 100+ apps, worth many thousands of squids, on one (by now rather slow) machine, is rather perverse. Oh, and I use a 1995 Dell P133 laptop for email,WP,accounts etc. Anyhow, I thought NT4 did support USB with patches from MS... SP6 was it? Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
I've bought neither, my comment about purchasing a Leica was a joke. I just don't think I could afford to belong to another cult :-) Art Austin Franklin wrote: I have no comments of Leica rangefinders, other than that I've rarely gotten along well with anyone who tells me they own one ;-) Art P.S. Either you don't get along with your self, or you bought an R, not an M?
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
It is probably the weak point in the process, but it was a matter of pragmatics. I did try to minimize the damage by using a Navitar Gold lens, which is one of the best there are for projection. Still, I would agree it degraded the images. Trying to see a full image with a loupe, especially when there were about nearly 150 frames, is asking a lot of anybody, even photographers, so we decided to make it a more enjoyable evening by projecting the images. At least each slide was probably equally prejudiced against. I did a loupe example prior to putting the trays together, and I was unable to see a real difference in sharpness. Art Austin Franklin wrote: As I think I've posted before, I did a double blind shoot out with Leica and Nikon lenses (a 28mm 2.8 wide angle, a 135mm 2.8 tele and the 50mm 1.4 normal). Each image was shot with one of these three lenses with both the Leica and the Nikon, on Kodachrome 25. After the images were marked, they were placed in slide trays in random sequence, but next to one another, and projected with Navitar Gold projector lenses. A group of 4 experienced photographers were asked to evaluate each pair of images and choose the one they preferred. Consideration as given to sharpness, color accuracy, overall contrast and exposure evenness, and the like. Is doing this type of testing with projected slides really a good test?
RE: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
OH! Art and I agree on something! ;-) I really believe scanning/screen viewing is the best, and most objective, method for technical film evaluation. Certainly for other less technical merits, viewing an entire image on paper or screen is far better. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 6:08 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!! It is probably the weak point in the process, but it was a matter of pragmatics. I did try to minimize the damage by using a Navitar Gold lens, which is one of the best there are for projection. Still, I would agree it degraded the images. Trying to see a full image with a loupe, especially when there were about nearly 150 frames, is asking a lot of anybody, even photographers, so we decided to make it a more enjoyable evening by projecting the images. At least each slide was probably equally prejudiced against. I did a loupe example prior to putting the trays together, and I was unable to see a real difference in sharpness. Art Austin Franklin wrote: As I think I've posted before, I did a double blind shoot out with Leica and Nikon lenses (a 28mm 2.8 wide angle, a 135mm 2.8 tele and the 50mm 1.4 normal). Each image was shot with one of these three lenses with both the Leica and the Nikon, on Kodachrome 25. After the images were marked, they were placed in slide trays in random sequence, but next to one another, and projected with Navitar Gold projector lenses. A group of 4 experienced photographers were asked to evaluate each pair of images and choose the one they preferred. Consideration as given to sharpness, color accuracy, overall contrast and exposure evenness, and the like. Is doing this type of testing with projected slides really a good test?
RE: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
The cult membership is purely optional. I've bought neither, my comment about purchasing a Leica was a joke. I just don't think I could afford to belong to another cult :-) Art Austin Franklin wrote: I have no comments of Leica rangefinders, other than that I've rarely gotten along well with anyone who tells me they own one ;-) Art P.S. Either you don't get along with your self, or you bought an R, not an M?
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
No, I didn't, nor would I. I've yet to have a complaint by anyone about my use of Nikon lenses. As I think I've posted before, I did a double blind shoot out with Leica and Nikon lenses (a 28mm 2.8 wide angle, a 135mm 2.8 tele and the 50mm 1.4 normal). Each image was shot with one of these three lenses with both the Leica and the Nikon, on Kodachrome 25. After the images were marked, they were placed in slide trays in random sequence, but next to one another, and projected with Navitar Gold projector lenses. A group of 4 experienced photographers were asked to evaluate each pair of images and choose the one they preferred. Consideration as given to sharpness, color accuracy, overall contrast and exposure evenness, and the like. The Leica 28mm 2.8 won all photographers in most of the images. The 50mm 1.4 went about 50/50, and the Nikon 135mm 2.8 won nearly every time. (the 135 Nikkor is an older but tack sharp chunk of glass with very good coatings which I had AI'd to accommodate newer Nikon bodies. From the results, I came to a few conclusions. One, older Nikon lenses seemed to be superior to newer ones (the 28mm 2.8 Nikkor was the newest lens of the lot used). Two, Leica lenses are fine, overall, but hardly worth the considerable cost differences as compared to the Nikon. I have no comments of Leica rangefinders, other than that I've rarely gotten along well with anyone who tells me they own one ;-) Art Austin Franklin wrote: Please don't tell my wife! If she found out I bought a Leica she'd most certainly leave me! Did you really buy a Leica? If so, congratulations! Gee, you'll now be able to see just how good (or bad ;-) your scanner really is!
RE: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
I have no comments of Leica rangefinders, other than that I've rarely gotten along well with anyone who tells me they own one ;-) Art P.S. Either you don't get along with your self, or you bought an R, not an M?
RE: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
As I think I've posted before, I did a double blind shoot out with Leica and Nikon lenses (a 28mm 2.8 wide angle, a 135mm 2.8 tele and the 50mm 1.4 normal). Each image was shot with one of these three lenses with both the Leica and the Nikon, on Kodachrome 25. After the images were marked, they were placed in slide trays in random sequence, but next to one another, and projected with Navitar Gold projector lenses. A group of 4 experienced photographers were asked to evaluate each pair of images and choose the one they preferred. Consideration as given to sharpness, color accuracy, overall contrast and exposure evenness, and the like. Is doing this type of testing with projected slides really a good test?
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Anthony, You've immediately, stoutly and thoroughly discounted ALL of the advice, suggestions and opinions you've recieved here from perhaps a couple dozen people. For every point raised, you've dispatched it in short order as not being helpfull for numerous reasons. As taught in every law school, you've had a counter argument for any and every point raised, without, as I remember, ever recognizing that there might be some validity to the point being made or, as I can remember, offering a thank you to those spending their time in trying to offer suggestions. Clearly you already know that your problem is insolvable It is obvious what your only solution is. Unplug your system and find a new professionpreferably one where every single tool you own isn't MISSION CRITICAL. Goodbye, Brad Anthony Atkielski wrote: Rob writes: I've done multipass scanning on the LS30 without registration problems. The VueScan documentation warns that it might not work very well on Polaroid scanners, though, as I recall. But judging by Ed's comments about the long pass feature, I'd say that single pass multiscanning on the LS2000 would be about as good as it gets. The LS-2000 is an extremely nice scanner. I hope it runs forever.
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Brad writes: As taught in every law school, you've had a counter argument for any and every point raised, without, as I remember, ever recognizing that there might be some validity to the point being made or, as I can remember, offering a thank you to those spending their time in trying to offer suggestions. All of the points raised involved making changes (usually rebuilding the system) to accommodate an LS-4000 that is not compatible with SCSI and Windows NT--but this is something that I had already ruled out, so those points were moot. I originally wanted to know what _other_ scanner supporting SCSI and Windows NT might be the equal of the LS-4000. The Polaroid SS4000 has been suggested, so I am considering that, although I still have some questions about the dynamic range, and it is essential that this range be equal to or greater than the LS-2000, since I scan mostly slides. Clearly you already know that your problem is insolvable It is obvious what your only solution is. See above.
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!! I am scanning film for output as large images (30x40 40x50) on an Epson 1 printer. I wanted to purchase a Nikon 8000ed scanner. Dealers in the US, that I have talked to would not quote a delivery date. In the same price range and with comparable specs is the Polaroid 120+. Reluctantly I have purchased one of them. I have compared images scanned on the Polaroid to the same film scanned on a Howtek drum scanner. When out put on the Epson 1 you can not tell the difference. I have the scanner hooked to a 733mhz G4 Mac with 1.3 gig of memory. Software is PhotoShop 6.01 and Nik Sharpener Pro. I am using the Polaroid Software to control the scanner. I also have Silverfast scanner software but have found it to unstable. I was concerned about buying the Polaroid with out ICE and ROC offered with the Nikon. In reality I am scanning images that are clean and have no color problems. I am sure the ICE and ROC software will save a significant amount of PhotoShop for some but I don't think I will miss it. Overall I am pleased with the Polaroid. Ed Tyler
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
I somehow just knew that your response would not disappoint. Goodby Brad Anthony Atkielski wrote: Brad writes: As taught in every law school, you've had a counter argument for any and every point raised, without, as I remember, ever recognizing that there might be some validity to the point being made or, as I can remember, offering a thank you to those spending their time in trying to offer suggestions. All of the points raised involved making changes (usually rebuilding the system) to accommodate an LS-4000 that is not compatible with SCSI and Windows NT--but this is something that I had already ruled out, so those points were moot. I originally wanted to know what _other_ scanner supporting SCSI and Windows NT might be the equal of the LS-4000. The Polaroid SS4000 has been suggested, so I am considering that, although I still have some questions about the dynamic range, and it is essential that this range be equal to or greater than the LS-2000, since I scan mostly slides. Clearly you already know that your problem is insolvable It is obvious what your only solution is. See above.
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
I'm afraid that here in Oz the word wanker would be starting to be uttered.. . like we do here about your Rugby team . Springbok Steve
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Austin writes: You SAID they were not missing on the slide, which is what I said, and you now deny. Yes, I just said that I saw detail in highlights and/or shadows that did not appear in the scan. Where is the problem? I will answer no more on this, I feel you are just playing games, and really are not seeking an answer to an inquiry. That's up to you.
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
What the hell is it with Leica owners. I understand Paxil is effective for obsessive-compulsive disorder. ;-) Art Austin Franklin wrote: Hi Anthony, Good to see you on here. Presumably things will get a lot quieter on the Leica list now...!? Tony, stand by for a lot more mail on this list now... :-) Tim A Thanks, Tim...dawn breaks over marble head...I did not realize this Anthony and mxsmaniac, from the Leica list, were one in the same.
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Sometimes, if we are very lucky, we find our soul mates! I hear wedding bells. ;-) Art Austin Franklin wrote: Austin writes: You examined a 35mm slide on a light table and concluded that there are no blown highlights or blocked shadows on it? No, I saw detail in highlights and/or shadows that were missing on the scan. You SAID they were not missing on the slide, which is what I said, and you now deny. Here is what YOU wrote: Blown highlights and blocked shadows (I should never see both on a single scan, if the dynamic range is adequate), on a slide that contains neither when examined on a light table. I will answer no more on this, I feel you are just playing games, and really are not seeking an answer to an inquiry.
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
oh dear, we are slipping downhill...:-) - Original Message - From: Steve Woolfenden [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 5:20 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!! I'm afraid that here in Oz the word wanker would be starting to be uttered.. . like we do here about your Rugby team . Springbok Steve
RE: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Sometimes, if we are very lucky, we find our soul mates! I hear wedding bells. ;-) Art Art, I am glad for you that luck has finally come your way! ;-)
Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Anthony Atkielski wrote: You make the same mistake that many microcomputer companies make, including the big ones like Microsoft. Their employees have never dealt with true mission-critical systems, in the mainframe or NASA sense (for example), Oh my god, we are dealing with rocket science! ;-) Art
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
on 8/27/01 5:39 AM, Anthony Atkielski at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've consistently heard that it isn't as good as the LS-2000, and some sample scans I've seen appear to support this. Specifically, it appears to have a smaller dynamic range. I don't know where you've heard that, Anthony, but I'd say the optical image quality of the two scanners is nearly identical, and neither is clearly better than the other EXCEPT when it comes to pixels, and here the SS4K wins hands down As for dynamic range, I ran side by side comparisons of them at my local pro dealer before I bought mine, concentrating particularly on the Dmax on a particularly dense slide. To my and the sales guy's total surprise the SS4K did marginally *better* than the Nikon. To complicate matters, the software you use can have a dramatic difference in the dynamic range. Nikon Scan 3.1 does a much better job mapping a wide dynamic range into 8-bit computer graphics than Nikon Scan 3.0. Ditto Vuescan Image versus Slide media setting. Mike Duncan
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Austin Franklin wrote: Sometimes, if we are very lucky, we find our soul mates! I hear wedding bells. ;-) Art Art, I am glad for you that luck has finally come your way! ;-) Please don't tell my wife! If she found out I bought a Leica she'd most certainly leave me! ;-)
RE: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Please don't tell my wife! If she found out I bought a Leica she'd most certainly leave me! Did you really buy a Leica? If so, congratulations! Gee, you'll now be able to see just how good (or bad ;-) your scanner really is!
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
my new computer is just wonderful. it great to finally get into the modern age. i have changed over my 20 programs and it is no big deal. the speed saves so much time. mr underpowered computer mentioned he was having some problems with things in his system not working well. he must be developing film while he waits for photoshop to do something.he certainly does not deleiver photos over internet as his system will not take a dsl line.
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
what do you do that you need all the applications and networking?
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
windows 2000 professional addition is an undated version of windows nt and it works well.
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Jawed writes: Anthony, see my site with a few samples that show the LS40 with Nikon Scan 3.1 with difficult slides (Provia 100 F RDP3, Velvia). This combination never clips highlights and gets a lot out of the shadows with little noise. I get my best results with my LS-2000 using NikonScan, too. I haven't been able to see any advantage to VueScan thus far. When I look at the histograms, it often appears that the entire slide was successfully scanned (the histogram drops to zero at both ends), but this is not invariably the case. Shots with bright contrast (e.g., sunlight and shadow) often show a little bit at one end or the other. So it would _seem_ that I'm getting everything. However, adjusting it so that it looks just like the slide is quite a challenge. I suppose there isn't any way to get it to look _exactly_ like the slide. I'm not able to use the LS40 because it doesn't use SCSI or Windows NT. It isn't perfect in highlights because I think it doesn't have quite enough contrast in this range - effectively there is an S-shaped curve in the scanning process which places more emphasis on the middle tonal values at the slight expense of tonality in the shadows and highlights. Highlights seem to wash out when I adjust levels, but I'm not sure why. There doesn't seem to be much headroom in highlights. Unfortunately NS 3.1 blows the highlights in negatives, if those negatives cover a very very wide range (I'm guessing 10 stops+) ... Well, that can only be the case for black and white. Scanning color negatives is a breeze with Nikon scanners, and I always get excellent results. However, I hardly ever shoot negative film because it doesn't give the nice results of slides, and it's harder to handle and store, and C-41 always comes back from the lab covered with scratches and dust, so I have to use ICE, which is very slow and impacts image quality. I get excellent results with black and white, despite the broad density range. I've heard of grain aliasing but never paid much attention to it, since I'm not trying to scan grain, anyway. I dare say Nikon tuned the LS40 (and NS 3.1) for slide scanning. I'll take your word for it, since I'll never find out for myself. I spent about 10 hours all told creating that site and I think it would have taken me another 10 hours to optimise Vuescan's settings - so I apologise for the introductory nature of the tests. I've never been able to figure out how to optimize VueScan's settings. At best, I've gotten results that look just like NikonScan. I don't understand why so many people prefer VueScan.
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Space and money prevent this strategy for me, although I will grant that it works. But just paying for and finding a place for a new scanner would be a stretch (already $1700), so spending additional thousands and additional square metres for a parallel system is not economically feasible at this time. I just wish I could plug the new scanner into the place of the old scanner, which would be possible if Nikon had had the foresight to maintain compatibility. - Original Message - From: Peter Marquis-Kyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 07:42 Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!! Anthony Atkielski writes Derek writes: Your main machine then has two NICs including the one you already own. I have no more slots for another NIC. Anthony, think about putting the two NICs in the new PC -- current versions of Windows do Internet Connection Sharing (not to mention USB and Firewire). For what it's worth, here's my recent experience of upgrading a mission-critical setup. I am a solo consultant and I used a 200mhz PC for some years for document production with Photoshop, Word, PageMaker, etc. When it got short of breath handling larger files I added a new Pentium 3 PC and networked the two machines. I gradually set up the new machine to take over as main workstation, and at every stage had at least one reliable productive machine to work on with any application or peripheral. The migration is now complete -- the old machine is left to handle the cable internet connection, the firewall, the fax modem, the CD burner and a couple of hard disks on which I keep backup mirrors of my data directories. I even got used to having a second computer on a temporary stand behind me -- I can spin around on my chair and use the other computer (God it's slow). I'll run some wires to another room soon and get it out of my studio, just as soon as I finish a couple of jobs... Peter Marquis-Kyle
Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Karl writes: Their product lifecycle is five+ years. For NT 4.0 they've also released the dates for this to happen: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle.asp They've tried that before. They always end up supporting things beyond that date, as large customers insist on it. Notice that MS-DOS is still on the map, and yet it has been around for a lot longer than five years! It's nice to see that they are actually trying to organize things, but they are still pretty random about it, and I predict that there will be many exceptions to the rules (as they themselves admit at the bottom of the page). As for something being unsupported, that isn't a problem, as long as it is still working. I've never made a support call for any Microsoft product on my current machine, as far as I can recall (even when it is supported, you still have to pay money for a support call, anyway).
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Robert writes: Since you say it yourself that this is only the *theoretical* dynamic range then why do you already exclude the Polaroid without making any actual test. I've consistently heard that it isn't as good as the LS-2000, and some sample scans I've seen appear to support this. Specifically, it appears to have a smaller dynamic range. I can't do an actual test myself, because that would require buying the scanner. You even say yourself that the LS-2000 has lots of noise. Where did I say that? It has no more than I'd expect of a scanner in its class.
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Rob writes: I've done multipass scanning on the LS30 without registration problems. The VueScan documentation warns that it might not work very well on Polaroid scanners, though, as I recall. But judging by Ed's comments about the long pass feature, I'd say that single pass multiscanning on the LS2000 would be about as good as it gets. The LS-2000 is an extremely nice scanner. I hope it runs forever.
Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Moreno writes: Yes there has. From Microsoft. Look it up yourself. I can't look up what doesn't exist. Next time, verify that something really exists before you assert that it is there.
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
what do you do that you need all the applications and networking? I try to earn a living, as opposed to just playing with the machine. I do have a few games installed, but they are about the only non-critical applications on the machine (and, ironically, they are the most likely to reinstall without a hitch on a new machine).
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
windows 2000 professional addition is an undated version of windows nt and it works well. Can you guarantee that every one of my applications will run on it without change? How do I support my 1800 Type 1 fonts, for example? How does it handle dongles? How well does it work with PPTP and DSL? Will it support all five of my printers? My graphics tablet? My two scanners? My CD burner and the software that goes with it? My tape drive? My two modems? My PCMCIA slot? My video board? My ISDN card? If any of this stops working after an upgrade, I'm out of business.
RE: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Since you say it yourself that this is only the *theoretical* dynamic range then why do you already exclude the Polaroid without making any actual test. I've consistently heard that it isn't as good as the LS-2000, and some sample scans I've seen appear to support this. Specifically, it appears to have a smaller dynamic range. Scanner testing is VERY operator dependant. I know someone who can get better scans from an Epson 1640 than most anyone can get from their high end scanner. I don't know what you've heard, or what scans you've seen...but I believe it's fair to say that it wasn't necessarily very scientific testing... I also don't know how you can see an apparently smaller dynamic range and attribute it to the scanner. It could be the image, it could be the operation of the scanner...it is not necessarily attributable to the scanner it self. I just don't believe you can conclude that. I'm not saying your conclusion is wrong, just that I don't believe it's really based on solid footing.
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've consistently heard that it isn't as good as the LS-2000, and some sample scans I've seen appear to support this. Specifically, it appears to have a smaller dynamic range. Anthony, can I ask *where* you've consistently heard this? What I've read in this group has been the opposite, hence my surprise. Rob
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
on 8/27/01 5:39 AM, Anthony Atkielski at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've consistently heard that it isn't as good as the LS-2000, and some sample scans I've seen appear to support this. Specifically, it appears to have a smaller dynamic range. I don't know where you've heard that, Anthony, but I'd say the optical image quality of the two scanners is nearly identical, and neither is clearly better than the other EXCEPT when it comes to pixels, and here the SS4K wins hands down. 4000 dpi beats 2700 dpi, no question. I know you have some theoretical reasons for thinking this isn't so but I can see the difference in sharpness in blind tests on 10x8 prints of scans of the same image (and so can my wife). The SS4K is consistently better. As for dynamic range, I ran side by side comparisons of them at my local pro dealer before I bought mine, concentrating particularly on the Dmax on a particularly dense slide. To my and the sales guy's total surprise the SS4K did marginally *better* than the Nikon. Dmax figures quoted in product brochures simply reflect the bit depth the equipment scans at, whereas actual detail captured reflects many other variables including sensor performance, illumination type, scanner firm/software etc. I suggest you take some sample negs and trannies down to your local pro shop (yeah, the expensive one) and get the guy to scan them. Then take the images home on CD and pore over them. You'll get a real feel for the differences. Also get the guy to print them out at 10x8 and see how they look. Any differences at this size will stick out like sore thumbs at bigger mags. I run the SS4K mailing list (http://www.topica.com/list/ss4000) and we get very few reports of problems. The main one seems to be dust on the sensor. In every case I know of Polaroid's support has been exemplary. The bundled Silverfast software is fine for reversal film but I would recommend Vuescan for negatives. -- John Brownlow http://www.pinkheadedbug.com ICQ: 109343205
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
it works fine with some of that stuff as i have it but i am amassed that you works with that stuff. what you need is a new computer and then eventually a scanner.
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
--- Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do have a few games installed, but they are about the only non-critical applications on the machine You have games installed on a mission-critical system??!! A system that is so important that when it is out for a day or two would ruin your whole business?!! Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
--- Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The VueScan documentation warns that it might not work very well on Polaroid scanners, though, as I recall. According to previous messages from you it seems that you wouldn't have time for multi scanning anyway. So why bother if it does or does not work well with the SS4000? Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Austin writes: Scanner testing is VERY operator dependant. Well, if I could feel confident that the SS4000 would indeed give me at least the same dynamic range plus the higher resolution, I might well spring for it. How is the software included with it? (I'm mainly concerned about driver stability and whatever utility Polaroid provides for doing scans, and their reliability under NT.) I also don't know how you can see an apparently smaller dynamic range and attribute it to the scanner. Blown highlights and blocked shadows (I should never see both on a single scan, if the dynamic range is adequate), on a slide that contains neither when examined on a light table. I'm not saying your conclusion is wrong, just that I don't believe it's really based on solid footing. Well, as I've said, if I can feel assured that the SS4000 will do at least as well as the LS-2000, I might switch to that one day, since it apparently is SCSI and is supported under NT (right?). I don't need increased resolution as much as increased dynamic range, but both would be nice, as I have a few slides (well, more than a few) that push the envelope on dynamic range considerably, and I have a handful of slides that also contain more detail than I can scan at 2700 dpi, although that's pretty rare, as it's unusual to get beyond 40-50 lp/mm with handheld shots and/or anything other than Provia, Velvia, Tech Pan, etc.
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Rob asks: Anthony, can I ask *where* you've consistently heard this? Reviews on the Net and in magazines, and one or two sample scans I saw. The general opinion of the Nikon scanners seems to be consistently and significantly higher.
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Johnny writes: The main one seems to be dust on the sensor. Is all of the optical path readily accessible without disassembling the scanner, as it is on the Nikon? On the LS-2000, I just brush dust off the mirror and lens and everything is fine. The bundled Silverfast software is fine for reversal film but I would recommend Vuescan for negatives. Does it require installation of weird drivers or other privileged system software? That always makes me nervous.
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Anthony Atkielski wrote: Pat writes: Well, if ICE isn't a critical requirement, why not look at the Polaroid (or the Canon, which has an equivalent to ICE, and scans at 4000 dpi) which several people have suggested? Because I understand that it has less dynamic range, and since I scan slides almost exclusively, I cannot afford to compromise on that point. Once again, don't believe the specs you read placed by manufacturers. It isn't true. Isn't there anyone building scanners like this besides Polaroid and Nikon? Aren't there any dedicated scanner manufacturers that build comparable scanners? Why does everything from Imacon start at $10,000? Because Imacon can, because they use different technologies which are apparently better enough in results for some to pay that much extra. But the lower end market is being well served by the companies you mention (and Minolta and Canon, etc.), so their isn't enough demand for more expensive products (like Imacon) so prices stay high on the top end products. I also assume Imacon offers much more customer support for that price (at least I would hope so!) Art
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
It was an incidental observation. - Original Message - From: Robert Meier [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 18:29 Subject: Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!! --- Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The VueScan documentation warns that it might not work very well on Polaroid scanners, though, as I recall. According to previous messages from you it seems that you wouldn't have time for multi scanning anyway. So why bother if it does or does not work well with the SS4000? Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Robert writes: You have games installed on a mission-critical system??!! Yes. I only have one system. A system that is so important that when it is out for a day or two would ruin your whole business?!! Correct. Does this surprise you? Games are just applications like any others.
RE: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Rob asks: Anthony, can I ask *where* you've consistently heard this? Reviews on the Net and in magazines, and one or two sample scans I saw. The general opinion of the Nikon scanners seems to be consistently and significantly higher. Specifically, where... as in what's the URL, what magazine?
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Anthony Atkielski) wrote: Derek writes: Your main machine then has two NICs including the one you already own. I have no more slots for another NIC. I think mentioning that all your slots were full at the beginning would have helped... Use the other machine as the Internet interface then.
RE: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Anthony Atkielski) wrote: Derek writes: Your main machine then has two NICs including the one you already own. I have no more slots for another NIC. I think mentioning that all your slots were full at the beginning would have helped... There are dual NICs.
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Austin asks: Specifically, where... as in what's the URL, what magazine? I don't remember.
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
It's not obvious to me why configuring NT routing isn't exactly the same problem as configuring a bought-in router, just with different syntax. A simple standalone router offers a few advantages; it's pretty much a plug and play operation (for basic use), doesn't require any system overhead or configuration, and doesn't require a particular PC to be up and running for internet access. For the average person it's a simpler, easier solution.
Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Moreno writes: If you consider a state-of-the-art $10k Intel-based workstation a desktop, then what is your old NT box? A peashooter? It's not price, it's purpose. Personally, I don't know any photographers, scanner operators, or prepress houses that are running computers more than two years old; most are likely to be running fairly current technology. Have you ever seen other computers besides PCs? As a general rule, no desktop system is a misson-critical production system. Several clients are running JD Edwards as their mission critical application, and their upgrades are frequent and numerous, at least several times per year. The upgrades take minutes, not years. Minutes for new hardware, an OS change, and reinstallation of all applications? Of course, in the context of this newsgroup, this doesn't apply. I just wanted to point out that you're wrong. What purpose is served by attempting to prove that I'm wrong, if the attempt is not relevant to the topic under discussion? I don't see anyone on this list, other than you, complaining about the new Nikon scanner interface. Perhaps they are not in the same position I am in. And as far as Nikon is concerned, their scanners sales are doing really well. You'd be hard pressed to convince them that they blew it, other than in not having enough manufacturing capacity to meet demand. I may make the attempt, just the same.
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Your main machine then has two NICs including the one you already own. I have no more slots for another NIC. I think mentioning that all your slots were full at the beginning would have helped... Use the other machine as the Internet interface then. Another solution would be to get a dual port NIC.
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Austin writes: You examined a 35mm slide on a light table and concluded that there are no blown highlights or blocked shadows on it? No, I saw detail in highlights and/or shadows that were missing on the scan.
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
i have had numerous conversations with nikon about the LS-4000. that scanner is a very advanced scanner capable of doing fabulous things for the true professional. the true professional needs an updated computer system designed for photography and graphics use, not office. i have had to do significant upgrading and it was worth it. their target market is the true photographer and if you do want to keep up to date don't complain or degrade nikon.
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Arthur writes: I also assume Imacon offers much more customer support for that price (at least I would hope so!) I doubt it. Usually in domains like that, customer support actually costs _more_, not less. If they can soak customers for $10K for a scanner, they have a captive market, and so they can soak them for support as well (cf. Quark).
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
on 8/27/01 3:55 PM, Anthony Atkielski at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Austin writes: You examined a 35mm slide on a light table and concluded that there are no blown highlights or blocked shadows on it? No, I saw detail in highlights and/or shadows that were missing on the scan. unsubscribe
RE: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Austin writes: You examined a 35mm slide on a light table and concluded that there are no blown highlights or blocked shadows on it? No, I saw detail in highlights and/or shadows that were missing on the scan. You SAID they were not missing on the slide, which is what I said, and you now deny. Here is what YOU wrote: Blown highlights and blocked shadows (I should never see both on a single scan, if the dynamic range is adequate), on a slide that contains neither when examined on a light table. I will answer no more on this, I feel you are just playing games, and really are not seeking an answer to an inquiry.
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Can't agree more Winsor, this fellow just likes to see his print on screen. Every now and again an individual like this crops up on a list, the list mum ( dad? ) tries to maintain a tolerant attitude but eventually people get so frustrated by a list that is getting clogged with pedantic drivel that subscribers start to leave. Very unfortunate but it is a fact of life. This fellow, despite insisting he must have a mission critical pc blah blah obviously has ample time to respond, and respond, and respond ad nauseum while the rest of us use our ( mostly) fast, modern pc's and macs to do something constructive. The difference between an older machine and a new 1Ghz or thereabouts Athlon with large amounts of RAM is staggering. I'm afraid that here in Oz the word wanker would be starting to be uttered.. Geoff - Original Message - From: Winsor Crosby [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 5:45 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!! Apparently the list has been taken over by someone with a problem and not the one stated. He really does not want a solution to the stated problem. He just wants you to talk and talk. About him. -- Winsor Crosby Long Beach, California
Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: CD-R is too slow. CD-RW is ten times worse. So you're painted yourself into a corner again. I have always heard that Polaroid scanners are not as good as Nikon scanners. I would not want to take a step backwards. =8^o I've heard quite the opposite. I have an LS30 but if I could have justified the cost, I'd have bought a SS4000. Rob
Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Arthur writes: ... I have to say that your demands aren't completely reasonable, and you seem to really be fighting with yourself in your refusal to make certain changes which ultimately would save money. Apply those same words to photographic equipment, and see if they still sound sensible. The public has been very well brainwashed with respect to computer equipment. Not only do people not find it odd that they are expected to junk their computers every year or so and buy completely new hardware and software, but they've actually been convinced that this is the way things are _supposed_ to be. And yet, if this same situation existed with anything else--even other high-tech goods--it might incite people to riot. Sorry, but there aren't any changes that would cause me to save money. The cheapest way to use my computer is by not changing anything at all, and so that's what I do. I long ago learned--after decades of dealing with computers--that the most stable and reliable computer system is a system that is never changed, and especially never upgraded. This is true for desktop systems, it's true for handheld systems, and it's true for multimillion-dollar mainframe computer systems. If I could just buy a fancier scanner and plug it into my system in place of the existing one (which would be possible if the LS-4000 were SCSI and Windows NT compliant, like its predecessors), I could justify the cost of the scanner. But when I have to upgrade all the hardware, and install a new operating system, and rebuild and reinstall every application, and tweak and reconfigure for months in the hope that I've installed all the patches, parameters, and changes that I had in my old system that made it work so well for my needs, the cost of the scanner pales, and the overall investment far exceeds anything that could possibly be justifiable for me, no matter how much better the new scanner might be. As I've said, it's like having to rewire your house and replace all the appliances and lights just to get a new washing machine. Nobody would ever find that normal. And yet that's exactly what happens almost any time you upgrade your computer system. How do you think the PC industry maintains just high growth? People have to buy new systems over and over. And the money the industry is making is coming out of your pocket, if you fall into this upgrade trap. Fortunately, people are gradually showing signs of restlessness with this system, which is why PC sales are way down. Some people have finally discovered (or rediscovered) that there is really no reason to buy a new computer every two years, when the old computer still works just fine. If I bought a car which required a fuel that was no longer manufactured in my country, and the only way I could drive the beast was to import the fuel from someplace else at tremendous cost, hassle and maybe even risk, I'd cash in my chips on that vehicle and accept the inevitable, that the car had been a bad purchase within the realm of the marketplace. Yes, but I've carefully avoided making that mistake, to the extent possible. If you very simply are saying that I absolutely refuse to upgrade then, indeed you are probably stuck with limitations as to your purchase options, but then, if that's the case, the weak link might not be the LS2000... The weak link is in Nikon's marketing strategy. As a result, I do not have a LS-4000, and they do not have my $1700. As I've said, if Nikon marketed camera equipment in the same way, regularly making older equipment obsolete, Canon would have squished the company long ago. Nobody pays Nikon prices and then tolerates obsolescence a few years later. The same is even more true for companies like Leica.
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Pat writes: Well, if ICE isn't a critical requirement, why not look at the Polaroid (or the Canon, which has an equivalent to ICE, and scans at 4000 dpi) which several people have suggested? Because I understand that it has less dynamic range, and since I scan slides almost exclusively, I cannot afford to compromise on that point. Isn't there anyone building scanners like this besides Polaroid and Nikon? Aren't there any dedicated scanner manufacturers that build comparable scanners? Why does everything from Imacon start at $10,000? And why, if the Nikon is required do you resist the suggestions for a second machine solely for supporting the scanner? Because it's an extra couple thousand dollars, and it requires room that I do not have. It is indeed the most realistic option, but still not very practical. Why bother moving them, if you're content with the machine you have otherwise? Because it would be hard to use the second machine with nothing at all on it, although I suppose that's doable. It makes the scanner awfully expensive, though--I'd end up paying $3000 for a 10% improvement in scans.
Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Pat writes: Well, the fact is, washing machines are not exactly a new technology, while computers are still in the growth phase of their product life cycle. I've been hearing that for twenty years. It was true in 1980, but it's not true now. For some years now, computers have had more than enough horsepower for just about anything anyone might care to have them do. This is one reason why sales are down: some people are starting to realize that their existing computers are just fine, and others are discovering that buying last year's model is far cheaper than buying this year's model, and it is still more than they'll ever need. So rebuilding my house isn't necessary. But frankly, compared to when my washer was built, quite a few advances *have* been made in washing machine technology, and if I want them, I have to throw the old one out in order to get the new features. But you don't have to rebuild the house, so that's not a problem for you. It isn't obvious to me that the dropping of SCSI was purely a marketing decision. It certainly wasn't a technical decision. The insides of the scanner are pretty much identical, and Firewire and SCSI are just different enough to ruin compatibility, but they are not dramatically different. It is a high end product aimed at professional photographers and small service bureaus. These are precisely the users with large investments in hardware and software that they cannot afford to destablize just to install one new component. If you want the professional market, you need to address backward compatibility; only consumers are willing to buy everything new over and over, since they don't have to make money with their computers or depend on them, anyway. Working with computers for all these years, I know this; apparently Nikon does not, although it seems to have no trouble understanding the principle when it comes to building cameras and lenses. Two different divisions, probably. Of course, this principle applies to all sorts of domains, not just computers. Nobody ditches an entire television studio filled with equipment just to accommodate one new camcorder, either. Regardless, if the bulkl of the potential customers prefer a more convenient interface, why build a product with multiple interfaces? I don't think the bulk of customers were polled, but in any case, building for multiple or alternative interfaces is not that difficult. Firewire is hot pluggable and faster. The speed of the interface has never been a limitation with any scanner I've used. Although I use SCSI on my computer, I can't think of an advantage it has in this application, offhand. The advantage is that you already have it. But by only providing it with a single interface, they reduce the cost of the product, as well as the complexity of the software to run it, and in turn reduce support costs. Support costs are zero for customers who don't buy it. I run several hundred production systems. I manage PC platforms for a large asset management company. If the computers I was responsible for didn't function with all user specific settings and applications after a PC upgrade, I wouldn't have a job. Desktop PCs are nothing like production systems. The mere fact that a desktop PC is used in a business environment doesn't make it a production computer system. A production computer system is the one that runs your payroll and your online inventory system. How often do you rebuild those? Yes, your washing machine accepts the same fittings as old ones. So does your computer. I know of scanners that don't accommodate SCSI. But your washer won't let you add new features without replacing it. Neither will my scanner. Your computer does. Computer = house, scanner = washing machine. And although you knew this when you bought your computer, you're behaving as if it is wrong. It is. My old Nikon FG will let me mount the latest AF-S lenses. But don't bother being indignant about it. It is tiresome. I used to feel that way, long ago--before I actually had to do productive work with PCs. As long as you can afford to play around with them, letting them remain inoperative for weeks or months while you reconfigure and rebuild and readjust, you don't realize what the problem is. I used to rebuild my PC at work all the time (one of the so-called production systems that you say you maintain). It didn't matter if it didn't work for a couple of days, since I used it only for e-mail and one in-house application. And it was easy to rebuild, anyway, since I only had two applications that needed to work on the machine, and no weird hardware. But I've never done that at home; the home machine is a true _production_ system. Less often than once every 6 years? Yes. The more money you drop on your investment, the longer it has to last without change--a fundamental principle of business. No business can afford to repeat an investment before its
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Mike writes: Is this true? That has been my understanding from reviews I've read. I was under the impression from reviews the dynamic range of the SS4000 was almost the same as the LS4000 and IV. Almost isn't good enough when you are scanning slides. I cannot afford to sacrifice anything with respect to dynamic range; even the current Nikon scanners don't have enough of it, but they seem to be the best available.
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Austin writes: Why do you consider 3.4 too low, and for what is it too low? I scan slides. I don't mean this to come across snide, but do you actually know what a density range of 0-3.4 means? Yes. It means 12-bit output, which gives a _theoretical_ dynamic range of 4096:1, or log(4096)=3.6, for density range. (A range of 3.4 actually corresponds to about 2500:1.) Unfortunately, actually achieving this with the scanner is much more difficult. My LS-2000 is just barely able to extract most of the detail from a slide, but it is very noisy in the shadows and tends to blow out in the highlights.
Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Art said: If my reel to reel player failed and the parts were no longer made, and my only choice was buying a Revox at thousands of dollars, I might just decide it was time to buy a CD player, or whatever. Annoying though that you will have nothing to play your reel to reel archive on? Colin Maddock
Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Moreno writes: That's not true. How about plug and play? That's something that SCSI is not. Strange--that's exactly how it was for all my SCSI devices (two scanners, a tape drive, a disk drive, and a CD-R burner). And firewire, unlike SCSI, doesn't require your devices to be powered on at boot time. Not a big issue for me, as I always turn everything on on those very rare occasions when I boot, anyway. SCSI devices also require proper termination, which is one of the larger problem and support issues with SCSI devices. I've never had a problem with it. Firewire devices do not have the cable length and bandwidth limitations that SCSI devices do. SCSI has always provided all the bandwidth I need (scanners are not exactly burning the wire with data), and cable lengths have not been a problem thus far. Windows 2000 has been out for more then a year and a half now. When it's out for ten years, I'll think about it. Microsoft will officially drop NT support soon. No, they won't. Far too much of their corporate customer base is still running NT, and will be for some time to come. Why would Nikon want to introduce new products that support obsolete operating systems and hardware? Because it doesn't know any better. Like I said, the camera and scanner divisions are obviously quite separate, with the latter having learned nothing from the former. Speed and cheap sound good to me. Not when you examine the microprocessor architecture, and find out that the PPro actually used its clock cycles more efficiently than subsequent processors based on the simpler PII. The PPro was much more of a native 32-bit machine, and had a more efficient pipelining architecture, if I recall correctly. Back in the Pentium Pro days, Intel's profit margin was around 45%, not 70%. And they still are. It's significantly less these days. When it gets down to 5%, I'll worry about them. CPU's are very complex items to design and manufacture, and fabrication plants to manufacture the CPU's cost billions of dollars, and must be re-tooled every twelve to 18 months. That is a problem for the manufacturer, not me. And nothing requires retooling every 18 months, except a desire on the manufacturer's part to constantly bring newer processors to market, whether they are needed or not (the 45% margins have to be justified somehow, I guess). I think a couple of hundred for a fast Intel or AMD CPU is a bargain. As compared to what? Imagine what an incredible deal the OS is, then, since it only costs $30, and required a lot more design work than the microprocessor. Even a fast CPU is rarely more than 20-25% of the system price, not more than half as you allege. In my case, it was half the cost of the system. The monitor was about 25% of the cost. Does it really take you two months to reconfigure a system? A production system? Yes! Try it sometime. Computer technology is evolving at a much faster pace than your washing machine. It is moving laterally more than it is moving forward, and much of the evolution and especially the change is unwarranted. Your Pentium Pro NT box is probably still as fast as the day you bought it. Yes, which is why I don't want to upgrade it. And it will probably run all the software and hardware of it's day, and do it well. And so it does. It will admirably run any filmscanners of that era too. Those that were sold then, yes. But the LS-4000 is virtually identical to those scanners, and yet it will _not_ run on my system. There is no magically advanced technology in the LS-4000; it's only an incremental improvement. There is nothing about it that requires obsoleting the previous interface. As long as it's doing everything you need it to do, there's probably not a lot of incentive for you to upgrade. I agree, and I have no plans to upgrade. Professional computer users upgrade far more often than less casual users. No, they do not. The largest and most critical production systems also tend to be running the oldest hardware and software. I know this for a fact, as I earn a fair chunk of my income from professional computer users. I suspect you earn your income from desktop business users, which are not the same thing. Production systems are different. In the context of this conversation, photography and scanning, I find this market segment to be the most likely to upgrade to new technology as soon as it's available. If they don't upgrade often, they're not likely to stay in business. Not true. The more critical a production system is to business, the less likely it is to be even touched, much less upgraded. I know of major multinational companies that are still running software from 1968, because it works and because they cannot afford to do anything that might stop it from working even briefly (as in minutes or hours). Nikon did support NT at one time. Now that NT is no longer being sold, they've moved on to offer products
Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Rob writes: So you're painted yourself into a corner again. How so? Everything works for me. =8^o I've heard quite the opposite. I have an LS30 but if I could have justified the cost, I'd have bought a SS4000. I was thinking of the LS-2000, not the LS-30. The hardware is identical, of course, but the firmware is crippled in the LS-30, and one of the features that is crippled is the dynamic range.
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 06:43:07PM +0200, Anthony Atkielski wrote: Or you could spend less than $1000 on a completely new computer with not much CPU but lots of RAM and a Firewire card to use as a dedicated scanning station. That would be the most practical solution, but that is still $3000 or more. And I really don't have any place to put it, nor do I have any easy way of connecting the two computers (that would require a router or something similar--add another couple hundred dollars to the bill). No, just two 100MBit network cards ($10 a piece) and a cross over cable. As long as you don't want to connect more than two machines this is the cheapest (and probably fastest) solution. If you want to add a third machine, you still don't need a router: A hub for about $50 will do it. A router is only neccessary if you want to route packets from one subnet to a different subnet, which is not the case in your setup. Karl Heinz -- Karl Heinz Kremer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So you're painted yourself into a corner again. How so? Everything works for me. You can't upgrade. I was thinking of the LS-2000, not the LS-30. The hardware is identical, of course, but the firmware is crippled in the LS-30, and one of the features that is crippled is the dynamic range. I thought you already had an LS2000? FWIW I haven't found the dynamic range to be a huge problem with Vuescan. At the point where shadow detail is lost in a slide scan I'm seldom interested in seeing it on a print anyway. The LS30's DR is more than adequate for any kind of C41 film. If I was really serious about scanning silver based BW I'd need a different scanner - my (limited) experience of scanning BW film is that it's much too dense for the LS30. Rob
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Karl writes: No, just two 100MBit network cards ($10 a piece) and a cross over cable. And what do I do with my Internet connection?
RE: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
I don't mean this to come across snide, but do you actually know what a density range of 0-3.4 means? Yes. It means 12-bit output, It does not necessarily mean a 12 bit output... which gives a _theoretical_ dynamic range of 4096:1, or log(4096)=3.6, for density range. (A range of 3.4 actually corresponds to about 2500:1.) Glad you understand what a density ratio represents. Now, how do you know that the Polaroid does not have a better density range than the Nikon? Did you actually verify this through testing? As I said, if you are going by the data sheets, the numbers are useless.
Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Rob writes: You can't upgrade. The only upgrade that might interest me is to a LS-4000, and that is not possible. The rest is fine. I thought you already had an LS2000? I do. But you mentioned an LS-30.
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
No, just two 100MBit network cards ($10 a piece) and a cross over cable. And what do I do with my Internet connection? Perhaps you can buy a $25 hub and save the $5 cost of a crossover cable.
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Austin writes: Have you measured your transparencies to see exactly what you are achieving for density ratio numbers? No. How would I measure it? Don't I need fancy equipment for that?
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Okay, so buy a $100 Broadband router/switch. You plug the internet connection into it, and it does the routing necessary for any computers attached. - Original Message - From: Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2001 5:39 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!! Karl writes: No, just two 100MBit network cards ($10 a piece) and a cross over cable. And what do I do with my Internet connection? _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Moreno writes: I rarely reboot either, but I turn my scanner off when I'm not using it. As long as it's on when you boot, you can thereafter turn it off or on whenever you want. That's what I do. If I want to unplug the scanner and bring it over to another PC, I can do that too, all without shutting down or rebooting the systems. You can do that with SCSI as well, as long as the device ie present at boot time. It's still the biggest problem with SCSI. All of my SCSI devices have a switch to terminate the chain if nothing else follows. Cable length is an issue for me. I need a 3 metre cable for my current setup, which I can't do with SCSI. I'm sure I'm not the only one who appreciates that flexibility. You can have Firewire if you want it; but I don't see why it has to be Fireware or SCSI, but not both. Yes they will. It has been officially announced by Microsoft. Where? Someone might want to clue in companies like HP and Compaq, which are still selling brand-new servers with Windows NT. NT will disappear as older PC's are replaced. Older PCs may not be replaced for many years to come. As I've said, some systems still run MS-DOS. ... every two or three years seems to be the average for corporate desktop users. Corporate desktops are not production systems. I haven't heard of any new NT installations for some time now. You can buy brand-new systems with Windows NT, if you want them. One of the problems with the Pentium Pro was that it was really expensive to manufacture ... They could just trim their 50% margin to cover the difference. And unless a user was running NT, the CPU didn't perform as well as the less expensive Pentiums of equivalent clock speeds. And if a user is running NT, the later microprocessors don't perform as well as the PPro. The Pentium Pro cost two to three times an equivalent Pentium CPU, but certainly didn't deliver an equivalent increase in performance. It was greased lightning on Windows NT. Retooling not only enables a manufacture to introduce newer, faster processors based on new technologies, they can also be built for a lower cost. Then why do the newer ones always cost three times as much as their predecessors? Could it be those 50% margins again? A thousand for what the much slower Pentium Pros used to cost. They don't cost that much now. Yes, but an OS can easily be duplicated for pennies ... A microprocessor can be fabricated for a few dollars, once you have the factory in place. Likewise, an OS is easily to duplicate, but may cost close to a billion dollars to develop. We were discussing current, not obsolete technology. Current technology is the same, if you want hardware that will last. I do it fairly often. All you've mentioned thus far is desktops. Those aren't production systems. Production systems usually take a few weeks to set up. Not in the context of this discussion. Yes, in the context of this discussion. I run such a system myself. I suspect I know who my customers are much better than you do. I recognize the customers you describe. They are not running production systems. Let's keep focused on the topics at hand. I am. You're apparently not familiar with mission-critical production systems; I am. That's why you are confusing them with desktop machines. We are discussing systems as they relate to photography and scanning. When you depend on photography and scanning to pay the rent and buy your meals, the computer you use for the purpose is a mission-critical, production system, and the precautions that apply to operating such systems come into play. How many photographers or press-press houses do you know that are running software from 1968 and are still in business? I haven't polled them. Most of what exists today was not available in 1968, at least in this domain. I do know, however, a great many photographers who are still using cameras and lenses from 1968, or even long before that--unless they use Canon equipment, of course. I have to disagree again. Most professional computer users that I deal with are likely to be running current technology and are the most frequent upgraders. The ones you deal with are not using systems in a production environment. Nobody who depends on a computer for survival can afford to idle it for weeks at a time, any more than he can afford to run his business without electricity.
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Your main machine then has two NICs including the one you already own. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Anthony Atkielski) wrote: Karl writes: No, just two 100MBit network cards ($10 a piece) and a cross over cable. And what do I do with my Internet connection?
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
That's not so hot an idea. It's not good to bring an always-on Internet connection straight onto an internal LAN, you need something running firewall software in the way. Two NICs in the main machine is the way to go. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Moreno Polloni) wrote: No, just two 100MBit network cards ($10 a piece) and a cross over cable. And what do I do with my Internet connection? Perhaps you can buy a $25 hub and save the $5 cost of a crossover cable.
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Have you tried artificially extending the dynamic range by scanning each slide with two different exposures and combining the results? [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Anthony Atkielski) wrote: Mike writes: Is this true? That has been my understanding from reviews I've read. I was under the impression from reviews the dynamic range of the SS4000 was almost the same as the LS4000 and IV. Almost isn't good enough when you are scanning slides. I cannot afford to sacrifice anything with respect to dynamic range; even the current Nikon scanners don't have enough of it, but they seem to be the best available.
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
It's not good to bring an always-on Internet connection straight onto an internal LAN, you need something running firewall software in the way. I'd normally suggest a router doing NAT, plus firewall software on each PC, but I believe there were some price objections somewhere along the way. Two NICs in the main machine is the way to go. Only if you know how to individually set them up. A router is still a good idea.
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Derek writes: Have you tried artificially extending the dynamic range by scanning each slide with two different exposures and combining the results? No, mainly because of the problems with misregistration of pixels. Additionally, the gain would be very small compared to the overhead of scanning twice. It already takes me from 3-10 minutes per slide, for the scan and Photoshop adjustments.
Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 01:51:13AM +0200, Anthony Atkielski wrote: [ ... ] If you want to learn more about Microsoft's announcement to discontinue NT support ... There has been no such announcement. Actually they have an implicit announcement with the release of every new version of Windows: Their product lifecycle is five+ years. For NT 4.0 they've also released the dates for this to happen: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle.asp -- Karl Heinz Kremer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
If you want to learn more about Microsoft's announcement to discontinue NT support ... There has been no such announcement. Yes there has. From Microsoft. Look it up yourself.
RE: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Anthony, see my site with a few samples that show the LS40 with Nikon Scan 3.1 with difficult slides (Provia 100 F RDP3, Velvia). This combination never clips highlights and gets a lot out of the shadows with little noise. It isn't perfect in highlights because I think it doesn't have quite enough contrast in this range - effectively there is an S-shaped curve in the scanning process which places more emphasis on the middle tonal values at the slight expense of tonality in the shadows and highlights. Unfortunately NS 3.1 blows the highlights in negatives, if those negatives cover a very very wide range (I'm guessing 10 stops+) - NS behaves a bit like a digital camera in its exposure, i.e. it sacrifices the highlights in the name of creating a punchy image - meaning that you don't get such great control. Luckily most negatives (I've shot!) don't contain the range for this problem to arise. Vuescan totally avoids this problem. http://www.cupidity.force9.co.uk/Scanners/LS40/tests.htm I omitted to mention that I had Auto Exposure turned off whilst scanning with Nikon Scan. It turns out, in my opinion, that Auto Exposure OFF is better than on, when scanning slides. The LS40 is not noisy in the shadows. If you use slide film, grain aliasing problems are ameliorated, too, as far as I can tell (by comparison Supra 400 negative film shows enough grain aliasing in shadows that one is almost obliged to chop the bottom off using Levels in Photoshop). I dare say Nikon tuned the LS40 (and NS 3.1) for slide scanning. I've learned that when using Vuescan one should use a higher gamma and greater brightness than I was using. I dare say that as I don't have my own slides to scan I am not interested in optimising this process. I originally posted this site to compare multi-scanning with single-scanning (something that Vuescan supports with the LS40 - but Nikon Scan cannot do multi-scanning). I spent about 10 hours all told creating that site and I think it would have taken me another 10 hours to optimise Vuescan's settings - so I apologise for the introductory nature of the tests. Jawed -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Sent: 26 August 2001 10:30 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!! Austin writes: Why do you consider 3.4 too low, and for what is it too low? I scan slides. I don't mean this to come across snide, but do you actually know what a density range of 0-3.4 means? Yes. It means 12-bit output, which gives a _theoretical_ dynamic range of 4096:1, or log(4096)=3.6, for density range. (A range of 3.4 actually corresponds to about 2500:1.) Unfortunately, actually achieving this with the scanner is much more difficult. My LS-2000 is just barely able to extract most of the detail from a slide, but it is very noisy in the shadows and tends to blow out in the highlights.
Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
I'm quite amused at your assertions at who my customers are. All you've described thus far is desktop users, and desktop systems are not production systems in any mission-critical sense. The company will not fail because a desktop computer isn't working. Most of them are indeed in a production environment, most of them upgrade often and run current technology. A large part of my business deals with 3D animation, video editing, and pre-press graphics. You may call these desktop systems, I call these production systems. See above. Please do. I personally don't know of anyone, other than you, that takes two months to upgrade their system. Spend a couple of decades working with real production systems, and you'll know lots of people like that. In fact, you'll know people who take a year to upgrade a system. I've certainly had to deal with people like this quite often, and in fact I've been one myself, when I was working on that side of the fence. In the context of this scanner newsgroup, I doubt you'll find that anyone takes a year to upgrade their systems, especially if their livelihood depends on it. And when their livelihood depends on reliable systems, they probably won't be saddling them more than 100 applications, as you yourself have done. But they will upgrade often to take advantage of newer, faster hardware and software upgrades. You make the same mistake that many microcomputer companies make, including the big ones like Microsoft. Their employees have never dealt with true mission-critical systems, in the mainframe or NASA sense (for example), and are so completely ignorant of these domains that they refuse to acknowledge their existence. Your are right in that I haven't dealt with NASA and have very little to do with mainframes. Perhaps you can discuss those systems on a more appropriate newsgroup.
Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Talk about 'Mission-critical', I was involved with the preliminary design competition phase of the Space Shuttle. NASA had a criterion for the design of the Shuttle systems. It was, as best I remember it: Fail Operational, Fail Operational, Fail Safe. That meant that after two independent failures (it might have been three) an additional independent failure had to not threaten safe recovery. That is why flights are still cancelled because of bad weather overseas, so that a pre-orbital abort must be able to recover safely at a downrange site. Challenger's destruction taught them that they had not thought of everything, but they tried. Hersch At 08:37 PM 08/26/2001, you wrote: I'm quite amused at your assertions at who my customers are. All you've described thus far is desktop users, and desktop systems are not production systems in any mission-critical sense. The company will not fail because a desktop computer isn't working. Most of them are indeed in a production environment, most of them upgrade often and run current technology. A large part of my business deals with 3D animation, video editing, and pre-press graphics. You may call these desktop systems, I call these production systems. See above. Please do. I personally don't know of anyone, other than you, that takes two months to upgrade their system. Spend a couple of decades working with real production systems, and you'll know lots of people like that. In fact, you'll know people who take a year to upgrade a system. I've certainly had to deal with people like this quite often, and in fact I've been one myself, when I was working on that side of the fence. In the context of this scanner newsgroup, I doubt you'll find that anyone takes a year to upgrade their systems, especially if their livelihood depends on it. And when their livelihood depends on reliable systems, they probably won't be saddling them more than 100 applications, as you yourself have done. But they will upgrade often to take advantage of newer, faster hardware and software upgrades. You make the same mistake that many microcomputer companies make, including the big ones like Microsoft. Their employees have never dealt with true mission-critical systems, in the mainframe or NASA sense (for example), and are so completely ignorant of these domains that they refuse to acknowledge their existence. Your are right in that I haven't dealt with NASA and have very little to do with mainframes. Perhaps you can discuss those systems on a more appropriate newsgroup.
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Rob writes: Not to belittle the problem, but assuming you're talking US dollars you could probably buy a cheap celeron or AMD computer for about $500 and fit the firewire on *that*. I've considered it--but how would I get the pictures back and forth between the two machines? I'd need to buy a router, at the very least, so add a few hundred more dollars. And the machine would need at least 512 MB of memory in order to hold the scans, so add a few hundred more. And I'd need a second copy of Photoshop, and a second top-quality monitor and video board, so add another $2000 or so. We are already into thousands of dollars just for this one chance, and I'm not even counting the scanner!
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Mike writes: The LS40 (IV ED) is close to the LS-4000 and requires USB and half the RAM of the LS-4000. I don't have USB, and Windows NT is not supported for the LS-40. So scratch the LS-40 as well.
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
What is the best car, regardless of budget? Well, that depends if you are driving 4 kids to school everyday or like to impress the ladies (or gents) on a Saturday night, or you want a car that has spare parts easily available in your local. Do you need medium format? Do you need bulk scanning? Are you more concerned with center sharpness and dICE or overall sharpness? Is customer service important (I guess that might depend if you end up with a good one or not...) Does software quality or do features matter? Is it being connected to a Mac of a PC? Are the scans from negatives or slides? Are you willing to remove the slides from their mounts? In general, every device type has relative value depending upon specific needs of the purchaser. If indeed one generic scanner was the best then the only issue would be price and this forum would be 25% of its size as well. ;-) Art Andrea de Polo wrote: Hello, a very direct question.. For top quality purpose, after reading many messages I am still confuse regarding what is considered today, the BEST film scanner around, and which model? SS 4000, Nikon 8000, Minolta Dimage II... Let's forget for now the budget and let's talk just about pure performance, mostly about resolution, max dmax and details, etc, etc.. Thanks for your consideration; Andrea -- Fratelli Alinari Photo Archives and Museum http://www.alinari.com The world's oldest picture library tel: +39-055-2395201 fax: +39-055-2382857
Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've considered it--but how would I get the pictures back and forth between the two machines? I'd need to buy a router, at the very least, so add a few hundred more dollars. Huh? Where did you get that idea? Worst case scenario you could use direct cable networking with a laplink cable for about $20. If you have LAN cards with twisted pair connectors you can use a crossover ethernet cable. If you have coax cards then it's two T-pieces, two terminators and a piece of cable. If you have USB you could do it with a USB cable. All the networking is built into Windows *depending* on which version you're running. If it's NT 4.0 then you're out of luck with USB. If you have NT 4.0 and want to use a laplink cable, check out KB article Q142065. I don't think you can use a parallel port laplink cable with NT 4.0, but it may be possible to buy a parallel port to ethernet adapter with NT drivers. And the machine would need at least 512 MB of memory in order to hold the scans, so add a few hundred more. And I'd need a second copy of Photoshop, and a second top-quality monitor and video board, so add another $2000 or so. We are already into thousands of dollars just for this one chance, and I'm not even counting the scanner! RAM is about US$40 for 256MB in Australia so I can't imagine it would be so expensive in France. Actually you don't need all that RAM to do scans, only to edit them. Why do you need Photoshop and a top quality monitor? AFAIK Vuescan supports the LS4000 so you could dump raw scans from it and port them across to the NT box. If you must use Nikonscan, then you have a problem but you might be able to get a switch for your existing monitor. As I mentioned earlier, if you put a CDRW drive in the new computer you could write the raw scans to CDR and use sneakernet to put them on the NT machine to crop them and edit them. A CDRW drive with burnproof can be had here for about US$110. Or you could buy a Polaroid SS4000 which uses SCSI and you wouldn't have a problem - just no ICE... Rob
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: don't get mad at nikon. Why not? They could have just as easily included an SCSI interface and NT drivers, as they did for previous scanners. I know I'm not alone in running configurations like this. I guess they didn't want our business. I hope they aren't planning to change lens mounts as well. Guess what - the capitalist economy is built on making things obsolete. Microsoft is guaranteed to make the next version of Windows use more RAM and a faster CPU because that keeps Intel and their other buddies in business. Nikon have packaged the LS4000 expecting people to have a certain specification of PC. I understand that you're annoyed because of the hassle of upgrading, but that's your choice. You can buy a cheap new machine to do the scanning as I suggested, or you can take your business to another manufacturer who does provide SCSI. Either way your computer will be obsolete at some point. You just have to decide when to cut your losses. Rob
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't have USB, and Windows NT is not supported for the LS-40. So scratch the LS-40 as well. Actually, scratch all the USB scanners since NT 4.0 doesn't support USB. Even a PCI USB card wouldn't help without changing OS. Rob
RE: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Anthony wrote: I've considered it--but how would I get the pictures back and forth between the two machines? There is a very, very good program by LapLink for syncing between two PCs. The USB version will move between 10 and 30 megs a minute with fast PCs. For those who have only serial ports, life will be slower, much slower. But you can leave the machines to work while you watch a movie or each a meal.The interface is like Windows Explorer with one PC on each half (side by side or over/under - your choose) of the screen. Then you have all kinds of options like move, include subfolders, copy, copy only if older, etc. Note cable lengths can be an issue - the length is about 2 meters. LapLink has several different products, so look at which you get. If all you want to file transfers between two PCs, don't get the product that offers network printing. First it costs more, but more importantly installation is a whole lot less fun.BG __ Gordon Potter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nashville, TN 37215 USA
Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Just like to add - get a pair of 100Mbit LAN cards with twisted pair cross-over - it will take ages to transfer TIF files by any other means. I would move the PS to the new machine as this is generally slow to process large TIF files even on my 900Mhz Athlon. Pack the new machine with ram (1GB) - it's cheap at the moment. Most video cards are pretty good today even the cheap ones. If you fancy saving some money and space use only 1 monitor (your current one) by using a switch to swap between machines. Some switch boxes allow you to connect 2 computers to one monitor,a keyboard and a mouse - although they need high quality switching as the mouse and keyboard should not normally be (dis)/connected whilst the machine is running. I am currently using 2 machines with one monitor one via BNC and via the d-sub cable (2 keyboards and mice). One machine is stitching panoramas whilst I do other tasks on the other machine. Steve - Original Message - From: Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2001 12:43 PM Subject: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!! Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've considered it--but how would I get the pictures back and forth between the two machines? I'd need to buy a router, at the very least, so add a few hundred more dollars. Huh? Where did you get that idea? Worst case scenario you could use direct cable networking with a laplink cable for about $20. If you have LAN cards with twisted pair connectors you can use a crossover ethernet cable. If you have coax cards then it's two T-pieces, two terminators and a piece of cable. If you have USB you could do it with a USB cable. All the networking is built into Windows *depending* on which version you're running. If it's NT 4.0 then you're out of luck with USB. If you have NT 4.0 and want to use a laplink cable, check out KB article Q142065. I don't think you can use a parallel port laplink cable with NT 4.0, but it may be possible to buy a parallel port to ethernet adapter with NT drivers. And the machine would need at least 512 MB of memory in order to hold the scans, so add a few hundred more. And I'd need a second copy of Photoshop, and a second top-quality monitor and video board, so add another $2000 or so. We are already into thousands of dollars just for this one chance, and I'm not even counting the scanner! RAM is about US$40 for 256MB in Australia so I can't imagine it would be so expensive in France. Actually you don't need all that RAM to do scans, only to edit them. Why do you need Photoshop and a top quality monitor? AFAIK Vuescan supports the LS4000 so you could dump raw scans from it and port them across to the NT box. If you must use Nikonscan, then you have a problem but you might be able to get a switch for your existing monitor. As I mentioned earlier, if you put a CDRW drive in the new computer you could write the raw scans to CDR and use sneakernet to put them on the NT machine to crop them and edit them. A CDRW drive with burnproof can be had here for about US$110. Or you could buy a Polaroid SS4000 which uses SCSI and you wouldn't have a problem - just no ICE... Rob
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
At 19:53 +0200 24/8/01, Anthony Atkielski wrote: David writes: what's wrong with a scsi card? Nothing at all, but the LS-4000 won't work with SCSI. It requires Firewire. Sorry. Meant Firewire. David Hoffman -- __ David Hoffman Photo Library http://www.hoffmanphotos.com phone +44 (0)20 8981 5041 fax +44 (0)20 8980 2041 The early bird catches the worm but it's the second mouse that gets the cheese.
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
it you don't have USB your computer is ancient and under powered. there are perfectly easy ways to deal with installing the software etc which i am doing. you don't need two copies of photoshop. you can get by with the LS-2000 but very soon you are going to run out of space or figure out how much time you waist waiting for a slow machine and you will end up paying more because you don't or will not research where to find the cheapest computer. epson. iomega and lots of manufactors are only usb so waist more of your time geting mad them also.
Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
For the record, the HP Photosmart Scanner S20 does use USB under Win NT 4. Not that it is a comparable substitute for the LS 4000. Pat - Original Message - From: Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't have USB, and Windows NT is not supported for the LS-40. So scratch the LS-40 as well. Actually, scratch all the USB scanners since NT 4.0 doesn't support USB. Even a PCI USB card wouldn't help without changing OS. Rob _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
