Lynn wrote:
Lawrence wrote:
The top of the SJ6300 can be removed easily if you pry out the oval
shaped
screw covers near the front (beside the glass panel). I had to do it when
the new scanner arrived with a layer of paper dust on the inside.
Thanks, Lawrence--that's the answer HP
On Wed, 23 May 2001 17:51:41 EDT ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
12,000 ppi is definately not what they send to the image setter.
Ah well, there you go then: further proof that repro men will tell
outrageous porkies in defence of their bread and butter. I merely repeated
what I was told.
While trying to find some info on Prince2, I came across http://www.ilearn.to/ . I
noticed some online training for Photoshop but nothing on Prince2 :(
Has anyone used this or any of the other training on offer from this organisation? It
seems that you can get a year's worth of training
On Wed, 23 May 2001 17:51:42 EDT ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
If I got a 4000 desktop scanner of my own it would need to produce
about ten fully finished scans per hour to be worth considering. Is
this possible considering the amount of time that dust busting might
take?
IME with the
Joel Wilcox wrote:
Right, but also don't use Velvia, or probably Provia F, or many other
more saturated films in such light either. I would use Astia or plain
old Elitechrome in those circumstances.
Joel W.
_
Many
Phil,
The scanwit 2720 and 2740 have both received good reviews as good value
products. The speed is something I was not fully aware of and is an
extra bonus.
They are fairly ruggedly built, and considering their market niche, that
is an extra.
In terms of purchases, you might consider
Lawrence wrote:
So yes, high end HP printers tend to be good, but avoid the low end ones.
Hope that sets the record straight.
Same with most of HP's divisions. For example, I've heard bad horror stories
about HP Pavilion (low-end home PC) support, but I've had nothing but
excellent experiences
Paul,
I can't help on the firewire issue.
The question everyone is going to ask, so I might as well do so is:
Is the Nikon sharper than the SS4000, and if so by about what percentage?
Does the shallow DOF become an issue? How bad is it, how does DOF
compare to the SS4000, and have you found
With the LS4000 this *might* be achievable - that scanner is faster than the Polaroid
(by a whole bunch) and you have ICE to at least help deal with the dust. Maybe the
bulk slide feeder would help too. I'd still bet that 6 slides per hour would be the
limit, especially if you're
Lawrence wrote:
Manufacturers don't normally provide instructions for opening up their
stuff :-). They prefer you to return it to an 'authorised service centre'
otherwise the warranty is void. In our case, there was no warranty, so I
had nothing to lose.
Contrary to the impression some of my
On Wed, 23 May 2001 13:00:23 -0400 Phil ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
For making fast, decent low res scans, the Kodak 3570 Plus seems like a
dream. From QA on the Kodak site:
This is nice. The problem is that the best price I've found so far in
the
US is $8200
Phil:
If you go this route, buying a second or third film holder would speed things up for
you also.
Using MiraPhoto you will have to save each file individually in the twain running
program, e.g. photoshop. If you used VueScan the files would already by written to
disk sequentially
I was reading an ad for this scanner in the BH catalog...and they called it
a drum scanner! I found that rather misleading!
Ok, if that is the case then I stand corrected; but I was under the
impression that the Coolscan 8000ED has been is continues to be on backorder
such that no one has actually been able to get their hands on one or has any
idea when they will be really available. :-) I must admit that when I
I've just started down the LS4000 road, and I have yet to do any side-by-side scans
with the two scanners. However - I have rescanned a couple of slides, and my first
reaction is that believe the LS4000 is marginally sharper in the center (10%?), but
degrades more in the corners, at least
E-Cost is showing both the Nikon 8000 and Polaroid 120 in their product list.
Jim
Tony Sleep wrote:
On Wed, 23 May 2001 20:04:57 -0500 Laurie Solomon ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
I believe you may be mistaken or misinformed. The new 4000 ppi
scanners are
35mm film scanners and not
Ten perfect pictures per hour seems an unreasonably high expactation to me,
too--that's as many as I've *ever* done, without correcting for dust or much
of anything else--i.e. not perfect! If I could do that consistently with any
kind of quality, I'd either have an imaging system for sale (having
Ed
Are you planning to support the LS4000 on the Mac?
I really hope you will. I currently have this scanner and your Vuescan and
I can't use the software. sad
Regards
Tan
At 08:20 AM 5/23/01 -0400, you wrote:
I just released VueScan 7.0.22 for Windows, Mac OS and Linux.
It can be
Dear Lalle
Converting to dollar sums for universal simplicity. UK prices for system
time vary between $75 - $125. Apparently New York is slightly cheaper than
even the UK provinces.
If I get a 120 scanner I will also need a Computer to plug it into, a table
to put it on and by many
Paul Chefurka wrote:
If I got a 4000 desktop scanner of my own it would need to produce
about ten fully finished scans per hour to be worth considering. Is
this possible considering the amount of time that dust busting might
take?
IME with the Polaroid 4000, absolutely not. I achieve
On Wed, 23 May 2001 17:51:42 EDT ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
If I got a 4000 desktop scanner of my own it would need to produce
about ten fully finished scans per hour to be worth considering. Is
this possible considering the amount of time that dust busting might
take?
IME with
I could not concur more about Norton. It was a total system hog when I had
it installed. I could hardly open two more application without running out
of Window's 'fabled' system resources.
For the last several years I have been using Fix-It Utilities (2000 in my
case though there is a version
Hey Rob
Finally Installed my new scan dual II and Epson 860.
--Scanner seems fine except for very dark scans that are seemingly properly
exposed slides. With the SDII software when I hit over-expose or lighten, it
seems to fall into line with what I "think" I took a picture of.
--Also, I am
Bob makes many reasonable points, in terms of the real time costs of
film scanning. It is not a greatly differing argument from that of
whether photographers should waste their time in the darkroom have
someone else do it for them.
To some extent the scan produced by the photographer has the
I would hope that Lynn was writing tongue-in-cheek or that he has based
comments on out-dated information. Most of the places that I know in my
local area are charging $15 for a high resolution flatbed or non-drum film
scan. Of course, if one considers the current cost of living as being
pricey,
Lynn Allen wrote:
Todd wrote:
I've heard bad horror stories about HP Pavilion (low-end home PC)
support
I can confirm that, having returned one to the seller. They're possibly OK
for the Web-user, but as a work-station they don't come close to doing a
job.
Overall, HP
Lynn Allen wrote:
As a former Art Director, I don't think that Stock is an appropriate
medium--it never was for my uses. Almost is not good enough in today's
competition to stake one's career on. You
need a photographer you know, who can get the results you need. While
stock
If you think that was expensive, I was quoted A$25 and A$35 respectively
from two bureaus in Melbourne, Australia yesterday.
- Original Message -
From: Laurie Solomon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 1:02 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: What is 4,000
Yes Tony, I was already informed of that and retracted my statement, placing
my tail between my legs while scurrying of. :-) However, thanks for keeping
me honest.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tony Sleep
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001
29 matches
Mail list logo
