RE: filmscanners: Profiling, Ilford XP2 and Vuescan.
-- I like to ask you color wizards to tell me if the generic setting scans of the ilford xp2 film show a distinctive color cast on your calibrated monitor or seem black and white enough. I haven't tried XP2, but with the similar TMax400CN, I get pretty much BW. Anything else suggests monitor or monitor calibration problems - try viewing a greyscale step wedge and seeing if that is neutral as it should be. There's one at www.halftone.co.uk/tech/filmscan/compare.htm (the top - synthesised - one, called something like 24step.gif from memory) I also like to know whether it should be black and white if scanned with 'generic color' setting in vuescan, since the film has this purple color (i.s.o. an orange mask) attributed to what is called an anti-halation dye by others in this thread. Bound to come out some sort of funny hue. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Second Hard Drive/Umax scanner
Does anyone have any experience with the Maxtor Diamond Max 81.9 (EIDE) GB 5400 rpm hard drive? Does anyone have any experience with the Maxtor Diamond Max 81.9 (EIDE) GB 5400 rpm hard drive? I've had (still have) quite a few Maxtor drives and all have been good, apart from one 5Gb drive which died after ~2yrs. The 7200rpm versions are significantly faster, though not quite as quick as the IBM 7200rpm Deskstars, which is what I use now, for preference. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Second Hard Drive
I can say the same about my upgrade to 10,000rpm U160 IBM SCSI ...18Gb and 36GB . Photoshop and other I/O bound applications receive a great help in speeding up from I/O ... MORE than upgrading the clock of the CPU. Sincerely. Ezio www.lucenti.com e-photography site - Original Message - From: "OK Photo" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2001 6:44 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Second Hard Drive My last h/d upgrade was from a 5400 to 7200 rpm The access time difference is like night and day. If it's images you're wanting to store and retrieve then I'd highly recommend a 7200 rpm drive. Paul Somewhat off topic: To store my scanned photos I want to add a second hard drive. Does anyone have any experience with the Maxtor Diamond Max 81.9 (EIDE) GB 5400 rpm hard drive? Several of the customer reviews have been less than enthusiastic about this item. Does anyone have any first hand experience? Would the Maxtor 60 GB hard drive (EIDE) be a better choice in terms of quality and functioning properly out of the box? Any experience with their tech support people (also several negative comments regarding t.s.)? http://okphoto.webjump.com P:250-498-2800 F:250-498-6876
Re: filmscanners: Second Hard Drive
Ezio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Photoshop and other I/O bound applications receive a great help in speeding up from I/O ... MORE than upgrading the clock of the CPU. Anyone wanting more IO speed at a reasonable price might want to think about an IDE array. Promise make an IDE RAID card - check their web site and you'll find a link to a comparison of a 2 drive array with a 15K rpm SCSI drive. The array performs pretty well. I find myself constantly frustrated by waiting for scans to load and save. My second hard drive is an old mode 4 5400rpm drive - the CDROM drive actually reads a scan file faster than the old hard drive! Price for an array: 2 x IBM 7200rpm 15GB drives + Promise RAID Controller total cost about US$330 The cost of a SCSI 3 adapter and a suitable SCSI 3 drive would be quite a bit more. Rob
filmscanners: Max Sharpness?
Hello FSD! I've been lurking for quite some time-now for a question. I've been reading everything I can get on scanning and digital manipulation for months. I bought a Nikon LS-30, Epson 870, Vuescan, Photoshop 6.0, etc, etc, everything but the kitchen sink. Despite my best efforts, the sharpness of my scans and prints varies a noticeable amount (to me) on slides I know are tack sharp, and overall I am usually not satisfied with the sharpness and detail. I am wondering if it is my digital manipulations causing the sharpness loss. Here's what I do: Vuescan - 48-bit files, scanned at 64-RGBI - Scour setting (does not seem to effect sharpness at all??) - Adobe RGB color space - Usually 16 passes to maximize detail in dark areas/minimize noise Photoshop (in order) - Adobe RGB color space - Curves/Levels - Color Balance - Any area specific manipulation - Convert to 8-bit - Unsharp mask (170, 1.2, 4) or - Curves/levels - Area specific manipulation - Convert to 8-bit - Test Strip (color balance and everything) - Unsharp mask When I print, the file is sized to 8.5" X 11", and I've tried 360 dpi, 240, 300 dpi and the unchanged 315 dpi if no resolution change is made when sizing. There's no real difference than I can tell consistently. Is there anything else I can do to make these prints as sharp as possible with this set-up, sharper/greater detail than what I am doing? My computer is not a negative contributor, as I've got 256MB RAM and a AMD Athlon 700Mhz processor. Come to think of it, if the list has a specific listing and/or order to this process, please email me your methods. I can consolidate them and post them to the web, or email back to the listing. Any and all advice greatly appreciated! Thanks, Mark Rose
Re: filmscanners: Max Sharpness?
In a message dated 11/25/2000 6:34:04 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Vuescan - 48-bit files, scanned at 64-RGBI - Scour setting (does not seem to effect sharpness at all??) The Scour setting significantly blurs the image. You should only use it for really dirty slides. Try using the Clean setting. Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: Science vs. religion (was RE: filmscanners: Re: Print dpi
Uh, what kind of scanners are you talking about? Is this a philosophy chat room? John Matturri wrote: Clark Guy wrote: A valid point, which you went and spoiled somewhat by quoting the whole damn message back! Please folks, quote selectively - just the bits that are relevant. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Poor shadows - Monitor limitations?
Yet another of the many issues to be addressed when reviewing a scanner properly...a lot of comments about XYZ scanner's good noise levels really just reflect a monitor that isn't showing deep shadows properly to start with. If this is an oblique comment directed at me, which given our previous differences re Polaroid 4000 noise it probably is, then I refute what you say. I have never carried out evaluations of any scanner merely by looking at what appears on screen: that would be sloppy and idiotic. You will see that several reviews feature comparisons of noise created by increasing contrast and brightness to expose it more clearly, something I do for all scanners. I stand by my conclusions that, for correctly exposed originals and sensible black point settings, the Polaroid 4000 is the lowest noise unit I have looked at so far, albeit with some compression of dark tones. Like all CCD scanners, it produces noise, but nearly all of it is below DMin on most films and can be safely discarded by setting a black point which retains virtually all of the image info. Now if you care to argue with that, please go ahead, as it derives from evidence, not innuendo. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Poor shadows - Monitor limitations?
I am actively looking for a new monitor but am I being too optimistic in hoping that it might resolve this? I am actively looking for a new monitor but am I being too optimistic in hoping that it might resolve this? I think it's normal behaviour for monitors to compress dark tones, even when correctly calibrated. At least I have not used one which doesn't. But it's also a tendency of CCD scanners as well - one of the great advantages of drumscanners is that they maintain dark tone separation. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
RE: filmscanners: Max Sharpness?
Hi, I use a Nikon LS30, mostly with Vuescan. Is there a difference in the way how Nikon software uses the ICE feature? Which software achieves more sharpness when using ICE? Thanks Andi In a message dated 11/25/2000 6:34:04 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Vuescan - 48-bit files, scanned at 64-RGBI - Scour setting (does not seem to effect sharpness at all??) The Scour setting significantly blurs the image. You should only use it for really dirty slides. Try using the Clean setting. Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: Second Hard Drive
Rob Geraghty wrote: Price for an array: 2 x IBM 7200rpm 15GB drives + Promise RAID Controller total cost about US$330 I've been doing upgrades lately, and in addition to going to a 950Mhz Athlon T-bird, I paid an additional US$20 to get the RAID version of the ABIT KT-7 motherboard. It provides IDE RAID to which I connected two 30G Maxtor (sorry) 7200 RPM ATA/100 drives in striping mode (for speed) which gave me a very fast 60GB "virtual-physical" disk. The drives were about US$130 each for a total of US$280 for a very fast 60GB. It's a GREAT deal faster than the previous "ordinary" drive pre-upgrade. Mike K. Rob
Re: Science vs. religion (was RE: filmscanners: Re: Print dpi comparison)
Well if you _really_ want things to be on topic, think of the Timo-type linear gamma theories in terms of the last paragraph quoted below. Myself, I try to stay away from these OT threads but sometimes the spirit is willing but the pedant is weak. John M. James Klebau wrote: Uh, what kind of scanners are you talking about? Is this a philosophy chat room? John Matturri wrote: Clark Guy wrote: The evidence is not everything. There are strong arguments that it is better in the long run to have eccentrics who explore theories for which there is not adequate current evidence. Early proposals of continental drift were not currently supported but led to the theory being available when the evidence later developed. Of course, most such oddball theories do not work out. John M.
filmscanners: Newbie question about film scanner noise??
Tony Sleep wrote: I stand by my conclusions that, for correctly exposed originals and sensible black point settings, the Polaroid 4000 is the lowest noise unit I have looked at so far, Could some one please tell me how to measure the noise created by a film scanner and why it is so important? What does noise look like? I recently returned a SS4000 scanner and picked up a RFS3600. I like the image from RFS3600 better. I have read post that claim the RFS3600 is noisy (not Tony Sleep by the way). So how does one evaluate this claim for himself. Is it possible to have a noisy scan that looks better? I'll be glad when several people in the know do a comparison to the other scanners so I will know how how this one stacks up. Either way I'm keeping this one because I like it better, I would just like to know the details. Thanks in advance, Dan
Re: filmscanners: Max Sharpness?
I had an LS-2000 and the same may apply. The autofocus is not always as competent as one would wish, and you may need to select the ideal spot to focus on using the manual focus option. You may also find that placing emulsion side uppermost improves the autofocus performance. The real problem is that "affordable" scanners often do not deliver the goods. Do not be misled by the term 'optical resolution' in the scanner specification. It refers only to digital bit resolution: the true optical performance of the lens system may be much worse. Tim Mimpriss Cymru (Wales) - Original Message - From: "ALLM Rose" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2000 11:26 AM Subject: filmscanners: Max Sharpness? Hello FSD! I've been lurking for quite some time-now for a question. I've been reading everything I can get on scanning and digital manipulation for months. I bought a Nikon LS-30, Epson 870, Vuescan, Photoshop 6.0, etc, etc, everything but the kitchen sink. Despite my best efforts, the sharpness of my scans and prints varies a noticeable amount (to me) on slides I know are tack sharp, and overall I am usually not satisfied with the sharpness and detail. I am wondering if it is my digital manipulations causing the sharpness loss. Here's what I do: Vuescan - 48-bit files, scanned at 64-RGBI - Scour setting (does not seem to effect sharpness at all??) - Adobe RGB color space - Usually 16 passes to maximize detail in dark areas/minimize noise Photoshop (in order) - Adobe RGB color space - Curves/Levels - Color Balance - Any area specific manipulation - Convert to 8-bit - Unsharp mask (170, 1.2, 4) or - Curves/levels - Area specific manipulation - Convert to 8-bit - Test Strip (color balance and everything) - Unsharp mask When I print, the file is sized to 8.5" X 11", and I've tried 360 dpi, 240, 300 dpi and the unchanged 315 dpi if no resolution change is made when sizing. There's no real difference than I can tell consistently. Is there anything else I can do to make these prints as sharp as possible with this set-up, sharper/greater detail than what I am doing? My computer is not a negative contributor, as I've got 256MB RAM and a AMD Athlon 700Mhz processor. Come to think of it, if the list has a specific listing and/or order to this process, please email me your methods. I can consolidate them and post them to the web, or email back to the listing. Any and all advice greatly appreciated! Thanks, Mark Rose
Re: filmscanners: Second Hard Drive
Question was: Somewhat off topic: To store my scanned photos I want to add a second hard drive. I recommend the IBM DMA 100, 7200rpm drives (approx. 30, 40, or 70GB): fast, quiet, reliable, sensibly priced. Scored firsts in most reviews. - Guido
filmscanners: Silverfast v5.02 problem
Hi, I have a problem with Silverfast and the Twain Interface. The first time I select Acquire from the host application, the initializing Silverfast manages to find my scanner. After returning to the host application and then re-starting Silverfast by selecting Acquire again, Silverfast bails out with an error that it can not find any connected Scanner. The only cure is to quit and restart the host application. I am using Silverfast 5.02 for LS30/2000. Host applications I tried are Paintshop Pro 6 and IrfanView 3 (both produce the same effect) My OS is Windows 2000, RAM and disk space should not be an issue. The Scanner is a LS 2000. Anybody who can help? - Guido
Re: : Re: filmscanners: Monitor Calibration And Others
Hi Ed. Ed Lusby wrote: My question is, how do I know if adobe gamma is going to set the monitor at 2.2, or if the 3dfx software will over-ride and set the gamma to whatever you set it at? The monitor gamma seems much higher than the voodoo card's default value of 1.00. Adobe Gamma overrides any video card settings in my experience, and doesn't give the gamma that it claims. My personal opinion: ignore Adobe gamma and use the video card software. You can disable Adobe gamma by deleting the shortcut to "Adobe gamma loader.exe" in your Windows startup folder. "Without deviation from the norm, no progress is possible." Frank Zappa "The most common element in the universe isn't Hydrogen, it's stupidity" - FZ. Regards,Pete.
Re: filmscanners: Poor shadows - Monitor limitations?
- Original Message - From: "Tony Sleep" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2000 4:49 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Poor shadows - Monitor limitations? If this is an oblique comment directed at me, snipped a bunch of defensive paranoia. Keep your shirt on Tony...wasn't even thinking about you. Suggest loosening that death grip you seem to have on your keyboard. In my experience the average person trying to decipher scanner rhetoric isn't aware that getting the monitor profiled (and adjusted) correctly has a big impact on visible deep shadow performance (be it detail or noise). So I pointed that out in an attempt to share my experience...isn't that the point of the list ? Sigh, Byron
Re: filmscanners: Newbie question about film scanner noise??
Dan Kimble writes ... Tony Sleep wrote: I stand by my conclusions that, for correctly exposed originals and sensible black point settings, the Polaroid 4000 is the lowest noise unit I have looked at so far, Could some one please tell me how to measure the noise created by a film scanner and why it is so important? What does noise look like? ... Imagine a clear blue sky, but that if you zoom in on the individual pixels you realize they are all not the same shade of blue. By itself, this variation in blue may not be noise ... it could be the film's emulsion scattering the illumination AND noise ... which of course makes noise a bit difficult to measure noise by itself. However ... you can make your best effort by scanning a fine negative (... in my opinion offering less contribution from the emulsion, but opinions and scanners vary ...). Choose a solid color with absolutely no variation of color due to subject, and select a rectangle within in it ... now choose Photoshop's histogram, and you should see a single peak. PS's histogram will indicate the "average" pixel value and the "standard deviation" of pixel values outside the "average" value ... the std dev is your measure of noise. shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: Noise from 10K rpm discs ... was :Second Hard Drive
Dear Frank, the noise is almost like the one coming from the IDE 7200 and 1 ... it is a matter of manufacturer technology IMHO. IBM makes them very silent (if related to Quantum and Maxtor) ... the real problem I have found is with the 36GB it is a heater !! ... thus I have added a fan below the disk ... it stores itself below the disk in the same bay ... and I have solved the problem to have messages of warning since 3 months ago when I have installed firstly. The 18GB seems to be ''cooler''. The sustained transfer rate benchmarked weekly is for all of them 29MB/s. They are 3 and sharing the same SCSI path. Sincerely. Ezio www.lucenti.com e-photography site - Original Message - From: "Frank Paris" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2000 4:46 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Second Hard Drive How is the noise level of these 10K rpm drives? Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] Julie, female Galah (3 1/2 years and going strong at the moment) Little Birdie, male Splendid Parakeet (13 years) Snowflake, male cockatiel (12 years) http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ezio Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2000 12:04 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Second Hard Drive I can say the same about my upgrade to 10,000rpm U160 IBM SCSI ...18Gb and 36GB . Photoshop and other I/O bound applications receive a great help in speeding up from I/O ... MORE than upgrading the clock of the CPU. Sincerely. Ezio
Re: filmscanners: Profiling, Ilford XP2 and Vuescan.
-- I like to ask you color wizards to tell me if the generic setting scans of the ilford xp2 film show a distinctive color cast on your calibrated monitor or seem black and white enough. Most scanner software will render any monochromatic negative as fairly neutral black and white when set to colour negative mode, even if it has a strong colour bias - for instance; Tmax with it's purple dye not fully washed out. The reason is that the scanner software automatically adjusts the black level and white level when scanning negatives, bring the three RGB channels to the same end-points. This automatically gets rid of any colour cast. The thing to do is to sample the image with the eyedropper tool, and if the RGB values are within 1 or two of each other, then the image should appear pretty neutral on your monitor. If they are, and it doesn't, then I'd suspect your monitor. Regards, Pete.
filmscanners: Polaroid SS4000 shadow/noise
- Original Message - From: "Tony Sleep" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2000 4:49 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Poor shadows - Monitor limitations? I stand by my conclusions that, for correctly exposed originals and sensible black point settings, the Polaroid 4000 is the lowest noise unit I have looked at so far, albeit with some compression of dark tones. Like all CCD scanners, it produces noise, but nearly all of it is below DMin on most films and can be safely discarded by setting a black point which retains virtually all of the image info. Now if you care to argue with that, please go ahead, as it derives from evidence, not innuendo. Regards Tony Sleep This sounds great but doesn't actually say anything. Too many unquantified caveats. Most people could substitute their favorite scanner without otherwise changing a word. For example, what do the following mean? 1) "correctly exposed original" 2) "sensible black point setting" 3) "some compression of dark tones" 4) "nearly all of it (noise) below Dmin" 5) "on most films can be safely discarded" 6) "which retains virtually all of the image" I see only two facts in your paragraph: a) The Polaroid has visible noise, and b) it compressions shadow detail. So for these actual facts, I agree. The rest is unquantifiable and wholly subjective. Depending on what you mean by "sensible", "correctly", "some", "nearly all", "most", "virtually all" I may agree or disagree. I honestly haven't a clue. Personally, I think the Polaroid is a decent scanner. Most of the current generation are. Hopefully someday they won't need so many caveats. Cheers, Byron
Re: filmscanners: Newbie question about film scanner noise??
Thanks for info. Now all I need is some decent images. I will try to create some soon. Dan =shAf= wrote: Dan Kimble writes ... Tony Sleep wrote: I stand by my conclusions that, for correctly exposed originals and sensible black point settings, the Polaroid 4000 is the lowest noise unit I have looked at so far, Could some one please tell me how to measure the noise created by a film scanner and why it is so important? What does noise look like? ... Imagine a clear blue sky, but that if you zoom in on the individual pixels you realize they are all not the same shade of blue. By itself, this variation in blue may not be noise ... it could be the film's emulsion scattering the illumination AND noise ... which of course makes noise a bit difficult to measure noise by itself. However ... you can make your best effort by scanning a fine negative (... in my opinion offering less contribution from the emulsion, but opinions and scanners vary ...). Choose a solid color with absolutely no variation of color due to subject, and select a rectangle within in it ... now choose Photoshop's histogram, and you should see a single peak. PS's histogram will indicate the "average" pixel value and the "standard deviation" of pixel values outside the "average" value ... the std dev is your measure of noise. shAf :o)
filmscanners: scan artifact
Anyone know what this is? (see attachment) I originally thought it was a problem with my scanner, but it appears the same if I reverse the scan direction. I have my own thoughts as to what it may be, but I'd like to make sure. The image's aspect is misleading ... the long dimension has been cropped off, so the scan direction is perpendicular to the dark streaking. It is negative film (Reala), and what I've presented extremely exagerates the artifact. It is actually barely visible, altho I spotted it ... this image's gamma has been squashed (0.2 relative). Your thoughts are much appreciated ... shAf :o) problem.jpg
Re: : Re: filmscanners: Monitor Calibration And Others
Re: "voodoo card's default value of 1.00" As I understand it, this is not the card's gamma, but simply a point of reference from which value is added or subtracted,should you choose to do some tweaking there. Comments anyone? Mike - Original Message - From: "Tony Sleep" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 24, 2000 04:21 Subject: Re: : Re: filmscanners: Monitor Calibration And Others My question is, how do I know if adobe gamma is going to set the monitor at 2.2, or if the 3dfx software will over-ride and set the gamma to whatever you set it at? The monitor gamma seems much higher than the voodoo card's default value of 1.00. Use one or the other! If you use both, there is no knowing what will be happening. Also, why does the adobe gamma software tell you to adjust the monitor contrast to the maximum? Because Adobe Gamma does the attenuation of contrast instead of the monitor control. Obviously, if it isn't set to maximum, there may be insufficient freedom for software adjustment within Adobe Gamma. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: : Re: filmscanners: Monitor Calibration And Others
photoscientia wrote: "Without deviation from the norm, no progress is possible." Frank Zappa "The most common element in the universe isn't Hydrogen, it's stupidity" - FZ. ...and here I thought it was apathy... Jim Snyder
Re: filmscanners: Second Hard Drive
Ezio, If I read you right you're saying testing has shown that the 160SCSI drive outperform an IDE Raid array by more than double. What is the cost of this set-up? Is there an econimical way to get into this type of storage? Bob Kehl - Original Message - From: Ezio [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2000 5:44 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Second Hard Drive Rob , let me please put some doubts on the figures claimed by such kind of vendors ... ;-) .. No FLAME at all , but ... 15 years in hardware sales are driving my behaviour ... a ''raw'' access to a wild animal like a SCSI 160 through a SCSI 160 controller ... TODAY ... is unbeatable specially for LOOONG files like ours (images) . (in our environment) An array can take a lot of advantages from a wise use of caching algorhythms (too many h ???) ... and thus the data claimed can be foolishing a lot ... in facts ... I have demonstrated (at work) how wild beasts like 1rpm SERIAL disks without any cache (buth with many parallel paths) can outrageously outperform mega cached (32GB cache) arrays ... handling files with a SINGLE DATA FIELD of 64GB on a 2 Terabyte sub-set of a huger file system . NO WAY ... in these cases (we are in the same situation if you think we have HUGE files with HUGE records ... and not many files with small records ... and sometimes repetitive !!!) to have arrays going faster than ''raw'' access to fast disks . BTW ... the array made 60MB/s sustained throughput ... the wild serial beasts made 160MB/s sustained throughput ... on the same sub-set of data (2 Tera) . (in this case sustained for almost 4 hours continuously) .. the net result ? ... the customer bought 115Tera of raw wild animals ;-) .. and I won the bet vs. my colleagues ... ;-) Sincerely. Ezio www.lucenti.com e-photography site - Original Message - From: "Rob Geraghty" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2000 12:20 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Second Hard Drive Ezio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Photoshop and other I/O bound applications receive a great help in speeding up from I/O ... MORE than upgrading the clock of the CPU. Anyone wanting more IO speed at a reasonable price might want to think about an IDE array. Promise make an IDE RAID card - check their web site and you'll find a link to a comparison of a 2 drive array with a 15K rpm SCSI drive. The array performs pretty well. I find myself constantly frustrated by waiting for scans to load and save. My second hard drive is an old mode 4 5400rpm drive - the CDROM drive actually reads a scan file faster than the old hard drive! Price for an array: 2 x IBM 7200rpm 15GB drives + Promise RAID Controller total cost about US$330 The cost of a SCSI 3 adapter and a suitable SCSI 3 drive would be quite a bit more. Rob
Re: filmscanners: scan artifact
To double check it's actually in the neg you may want to mount in a slide mount so you can rotate 90 degrees for another scan. Your exaggerated version looks like something referred to as bromide drag in BW film processing. Bromide drag is usually caused by inadequate agitation, but tired/contaminated chemistry can contribute as well. These sort of processing artifacts are most noticeable in blank sky areas, and can be very difficult to eliminate completely! It may be that the unexaggerated version (actual negative) is within the normal range, but you're just noticing it for the first time. Dave -- Original Message - From: =shAf= [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: film scanner list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2000 9:38 PM Subject: filmscanners: scan artifact Anyone know what this is? (see attachment) I originally thought it was a problem with my scanner, but it appears the same if I reverse the scan direction. I have my own thoughts as to what it may be, but I'd like to make sure. The image's aspect is misleading ... the long dimension has been cropped off, so the scan direction is perpendicular to the dark streaking. It is negative film (Reala), and what I've presented extremely exagerates the artifact. It is actually barely visible, altho I spotted it ... this image's gamma has been squashed (0.2 relative). Your thoughts are much appreciated ... shAf :o)
