At 23:44 29-08-01 -0700, Henning Wulff wrote:
In general LCD's are quite useless for photoediting as they
color/contrast shift when you move your head. This also means that
even if you don't move your head relative to the LCD, all the
corners will display the same image range with different
On Tue, 21 Aug 2001 19:44:18 +0100 David Gordon ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
Why don't you auto send a FAQs every month or so with the archive address
etc. It's a busy list so I don't think people would mind, would they...?
Good idea! Except I'll have to do it manually.
Regards
Tony
On Tue, 28 Aug 2001 01:30:10 -0700 Arthur Entlich ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
Seriously, if you have only one system
which can never go down you had better be running Linux (;-))...
Er, not necessarily. I am trying to teach myself rudimentary Linux, with
little success. A significant
On Tue, 28 Aug 2001 18:44:04 -0700 Chris Hargens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Nevertheless, I still wonder if there is an advantage to working =
directly with the raw scan file rather than the cropped file.
You can use either, but the raw scan will require a lot more work in PS,
and IME it
On Thu, 30 Aug 2001 03:04:55 -0700 Arthur Entlich ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
Has anyone noted this problem of bad sensors in other than Minolta
scanners? What about with 4000 dpi models?
I've not come across this in any scanner, only TFT screens.
Regards
Tony Sleep
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,
On Tue, 28 Aug 2001 00:48:10 -0400 Andy Darlow ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
I believe that Tony Sleep posted a question regarding how to get good
proof sheets from negs on a flatbed. Well, look no further! The
Epson 1680 does such an incredible job and I'm not easy to impress.
Thanks.
On Tue, 28 Aug 2001 17:31:13 +0100 David Hoffman ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
And then you'll look at them you won't be able to tell what's sharp
what's nearly sharp.
Yerse. My local lab now does colour contacts by some foul scanning process
using a Noritsu piece of junk. You don't need a
On Sun, 26 Aug 2001 11:47:07 +0200 Anthony Atkielski
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Does it really take you two months to reconfigure
a system?
A production system? Yes! Try it sometime.
A 'fundamentally misconceived production system', maybe. The hallmark of
such a system should be an
Web archives for this list may be found at :-
http://www.mail-archive.com/filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
http://phi.res.cse.dmu.ac.uk/Filmscan/
Regards
Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info
comparisons
On Sat, 25 Aug 2001 16:59:10 +0200 Anthony Atkielski
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I currently have a continuous external Internet connection on the NIC.
No firewall then? Aargh! You need two more machines!
Regards
Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film
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
On Mon, 27 Aug 2001 02:00:41 +0200 Anthony Atkielski
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
A production system, in this context, is a mission-critical system,
without
which the business cannot operate, not even on a short-term basis. In
other
words, a failure of this system is a failure of the
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
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
On Wed, 22 Aug 2001 18:45:08 -0700 Alan Womack
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Windows 98SE updated to the nines
an adaptec 2902E which uses the actual 2902E drivers, not the 7800
family windows wants to use.
All I have to due is turn on my scanners and start vuescan, they all
show up!
If
Tony Sleep [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on Fri, 31 Aug 2001 07:46:00 +0100
My local lab now does colour contacts by some foul scanning process
using a Noritsu piece of junk. You don't need a loupe to see that they are
*all* blurry, even from a foot away. Any reasonable flatbed + inkjet would
be
Tony Sleep [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on Fri, 31 Aug 2001 07:46:00 +0100
Why don't you auto send a FAQs every month or so with the archive address
etc. It's a busy list so I don't think people would mind, would they...?
Good idea! Except I'll have to do it manually.
I bet someone here has
Laurie asks:
That's nice; but pardon my ignorance, what is an MTF spec?
MTF is the modulation transfer function: it is a measure of how well small
details are recorded or focused, and is expressed as a percentage for a given
resolution (in line pairs per millimetre, usually) and contrast ratio
Web archives for this list may be found at :-
http://www.mail-archive.com/filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
http://phi.res.cse.dmu.ac.uk/Filmscan/
Regards
Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info
comparisons
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 ;-)
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
LOL! This is the funniest bug in linux I've heard reported yet.
You know as it is my wife thinks I'm nuts half the time, but when I
burst into laughter while reading email in the middle of the night, she
surely has a case.
I blame you, my friend.
Art ;-)
Tony Sleep wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug
(please do not read on if offended by weak humour)
At 01:35 PM 30/08/01 -0700, Dean, then Jawed wrote:
Some of the problems include dividing by zero
So this *doesn't* give an infinitely better image? :)
It definitely isn't rocket science we're seeing here.
..And he said it without a
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:
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
On Thu, 30 Aug 2001 21:46:48 -0400 Jim Snyder ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
Note that I never mentioned powder.
It does exist though, and is (or was) something weird like lycopodium
spores I think. Glycerin is useable as a liquid, but washing and drying
will be required afterwards.
Best
On Thu, 30 Aug 2001 23:50:36 -0600 James Gaa ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
Except that when I run the
cursor over the image and into the area of the scan that is outside of
the
image (presumably the unexposed film base), the Nikonscan software shows
an
RGB reading of 0,0,6. It seems to
On Thu, 30 Aug 2001 08:04:39 -0400 Austin Franklin
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
What do people have to say about the differences in sharpness between
same
ASA, same brand chrome vs color negative film? My experience shows that
the
chrome films are not as sharp as the negative films.
I
Tony writes ...
On Thu, 30 Aug 2001 08:04:39 -0400 Austin Franklin
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
What do people have to say about the differences in sharpness between
same ASA, same brand chrome vs color negative film?
My experience shows that the chrome films are
not as sharp as the
I've recently installed a Nikon IV scanner. After some fiddling, it seems to
be working OK, and I'm happy with it so far. Except that when I run the
cursor over the image and into the area of the scan that is outside of the
image (presumably the unexposed film base), the Nikonscan software shows
If people on this list don't know who I work for !! :0)
Sorry, I probably should not have responded to the original post - it just
struck me as funny and obvious that the review would be favorable to
Polaroid. I have seen enough of David Hemingway's post to know that,
although he works for
Have my new scanner less than a week and have a couple of serious problems
that I'd like help with. Up until now, I've scanned all of my slides using
Photo Cds and had anticipated a vast improvement in quality. I keep my
slides as clean as possible. When I scan using Digital Ice, I get clean
At 07:31 PM 8/30/2001 -0400, David Hemingway wrote:
This months MacWorld scanner review was done by Bruce Fraser.
I think his comments on Optical Density are absolutely
right on and also his comments on effects of
multi-scanning. This subject was recently discussed on this list.
Do you
Martin,
There is a roller manufactured by a UK company called TekNek. They have a
Chicago office in the US. These rollers are mainly used by companies coating
or processing wide web sheets. Polaroid uses them in some of their coating
operations.
They also have a small hand held version that is
I would image it will but delayed. But so you don't have to suspencefull
time. The Sprintscan 4000 was Editors Choice with 4 1/2/ mice.
And for less than half the price than brand x, imagine!!
David
-Original Message-
From: Stan McQueen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, August
Please download image 8 and follow my instructions, using Photoshop. There
is no selective gamma going on.
Jawed
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mark T.
Sent: 31 August 2001 13:35
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: filmscanners:
Seriously, if you have only one system
which can never go down you had better be running Linux (;-))...
Er, not necessarily. I am trying to teach myself rudimentary Linux, with
little success. A significant delay occurred when I forgot the root
password I had assigned and was unable to get
Are you using ICE Normal or ICE Fine? ICE Fine blurs the whole image
whereas ICE Normal only blurs areas of damage.
I say this as an LS40 owner (not LS4000).
Have you downloaded version 3.1?
http://www.nikon-euro.com/nikoneuro2/download/Download_107d.htm
I'm not going to suggest it will
I think Martin *needs* ICE . I hope he can get it working the way he wants.
Jawed
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Hemingway, David
J
Sent: 31 August 2001 19:15
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Nikon Super
ICE is what it is. It gets rid of dust at the cost of image sharpness. If
that tradeoff is acceptable it will work for him.
David
-Original Message-
From: Jawed Ashraf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 2:46 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: filmscanners:
Jawed
I am using Ice on Nomal and using Nikon Scan 3.1. My slides are very clean
and exposures on slides I scan are all excellent. With Photo CD scans, I
easily cleaned up spots with the Photoshop rubber stamp. Clearly, there is
a problem with dust in the scanner. I am getting the impression
Fuji does provide MTF for both their positive and negative film, Provia 100
and Superia 100. There is also additional information besides the MTF
provided, like resolving power and diffuse RMS granularity value. The
problem I am having with the numbers provided, is I must not be
understanding
That's exactly my findings as well. I have had my Nikon 8000 for about a
month and I was anxious to try it with ICE. The first negative I scanned
without ICE and I scanned the exact negative with ICE. The only changes
that I made was the ICE portion. In my opinion there was noticeable quality
If David's suggestion doesn't work, you could always ask for a volunteer.
I'm sure someone here would be willing to manually send out an admin notice
on a regular basis and free you up to take care of other problems.
Don't ask me to volunteer, though. I'm busy trying to get SilverFast to
work.
I have used the demo of vuescan with the canon fs4000 and it works! It's
better than the software that came with the scanner.
Dave
On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Enoch's Vision, Inc. (Cary Enoch R...) wrote:
At 14:49 31-08-01 -0400, Hemingway, David J wrote:
ICE is what it is. It gets rid of dust
Thank You
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 3:20 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Sharpness of color chrome vs color negative.
Laurie asks:
That's nice; but pardon my
Ah well, it seems the combination of crappy lenses in the cameras I've used
plus the LS40 means that the softening due to ICE I suffer is negligible in
the grand scheme of things - try Vuescan Martin - I don't like Vuescan's ICE
as it leaves more obvious damage visible (unless it's recently got
48 matches
Mail list logo
