Thanks Austin, I have asked the questions and am awaiting a response.
Simon
Austin Franklin wrote:
Hi Simon,
I strongly suggest when getting a Leaf, make sure it's the latest version,
with both GPIB and SCSI ports. The early ones were only GPIB. Also, make
sure the firmware cartridge is
Looked up ebay at the scanner price and noticed that there is a Minolta multi Scan pro
at a
buy price of $3195.00
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=2006042126
Yet BH Photo in NY has them listed at $2879.00 ( that's even a little high compared to
Aust.)
Just goes to show
I believe some users say they get usable Vuescanned images
straight off their scanners, without much tweaking in
Photoshop.
I've certainly had some excellent results direct from VS.
I'm by no means a professional photographer; the following examples are
holiday shots, all taken with a
I doubt that's a hair on or near the lens. Although you
used a wide angle lens, I'd be very surprised it could focus
that close to the lens or even a filter ring.
I just used a normal lens (the one that came as standard on the Canon).
I don't have any extra lenses yet, although I want to
Hi Mark,
If it is a normal lens I can almost absolutely state it was not on the
lens. There is no way a normal (45-55mm) lens can focus at the lens
surface. I assume this Canon 300 is an SLR with exchangeable lenses,
Your explanation pretty much clinches it. It was a hair stuck between
the
Interesting review for printing from digital cameras. Too bad they only
used lower resolution images than the ones common on this list. There's a
lot of resampling, sharpening, interpolation, etc. going on in the print
drivers when the best source is a 2000x3000 that was already interpolated
in
Bernie Kubiak wrote:
The hair (or whatever) isn't likely on the lens but inside the camera,
somewhere between the lens and the film. Unless you're using a very
small f stop, a hair on the lens likely wouldn't show. The other
prospect is sloppy processing.
As much as some labs are
Just as a final thought, I don't even think the hair could have been on
the back surface of the lens, as that too would not be in correct focus
at the film plane.
Art
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL
Hi,
this is off-topic, but your comment would certainly be of great
value to me.
Im thinking about getting a new display. Im studying
architecture an will uses the display for various work from CAD
to advanced digital imaging and DPT work. It will be connected
to a high end workstation running
Hi Peter,
Austin
Yes, I do have a web site. It's main purpose is pitching my
business -- I'm a
conservation architect (in the US I would be called an historical
architect, or
preservation specialist, or some such thing).
Cool! Do you know much about Gothic Revival Victorian architecture
The review does not seen to address the issue of print longevity. We know
what to expect with the Epson. Does anyone have longevity information for
the Canon, ie; has Wilhelm tested it?
Regards, Ron Carlson
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:
But the Sony is very fuzzy (even at only 1280 x 1024) while the
Mitsubishi is very sharp even at 1920 x 1440 (the highest my card
goes).
I've had similar observations. I don't know what happened to Sony. Their
monitors used to be among the best.
No, Mitsubishi designed and made their own -- I think the Sony patent expired?
Many people have reported that the Mitsubishi version is to be preferred --
but of course they all make their fair share of duds, and the video card
used has some bearing on it too...
Charles
Don't the Sony and
Yes, Wilhelm rates the Canon Photo Paper Pro at 25+ years. This is not as
good as Epson's Archival inks and papers as used on the Epson 2000P, but it
is better than the Epson 1280, which is only rated for 25 years using matte
paper. The glossy Photo Paper for the 1280 is rated at about 7-8
Here's the link for the S9000 which links to the lightfastness tests page.
BK
- Original Message -
From: Ron Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 7:41 PM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Canon S9000 test better than Epson 1280
The review does
The one fundamental thing on choosing a monitor is to buy the demo g
( or
at least have the seller hook up the one he is proposing to sell you, so
you can see the images for yourself). They DO vary from sample to sample.
You want to check a sharp image, and also a screenful of text, at a small
16 matches
Mail list logo
