On 22/04/2008 Bob Geoghegan wrote:
I turned on my SprintScan 4000 for the first time in about a year
today.
The 2 LEDs light up instantly with no flashing from the yellow one
and there
are no motor noises.
Check your SCSI and power cable connectors. I'm not sure the 4000
initialises if the
On 04/04/2008 David J. Littleboy wrote:
I moved the Firewire card
(an Adaptex AUA-3121 HBA) from my previous previous machine and the
8000 now
works.
Shame. I was going to offer you $20 for it.
--
Regards
Tony Sleep
http://tonysleep.co.uk
By the way, I fixed the Nikon 8000 problem. It turns out the Firewire card
in my new machine doesn't get along with the 8000. I moved the Firewire card
(an Adaptex AUA-3121 HBA) from my previous previous machine and the 8000 now
works. Whew! Now I need to disassemble it and clean the mirror.
It's amazing how little compatibility can exist between supposedly the
same protocols and interfaces. What a hassle.
Art
David J. Littleboy wrote:
By the way, I fixed the Nikon 8000 problem. It turns out the Firewire card
in my new machine doesn't get along with the 8000. I moved the Firewire
Anonymous,
Spam filters are inconvenient
Why?
I get a couple of hundred spams a day and I simply use the built-in spam
filter in Vista's Windows Mail; it is the best I have come across. It only
misses about 1 in a 100, and takes out far fewer genuine emails, so a quick
glance through the list
On 03/04/2008 David J. Littleboy wrote:
Agreed. Take it off list.
I'm done with it. It stayed on because of the question of whether or not
list members want their email addresses exposed to other list members,
risking spam. If anyone has a view either way I would prefer it gets
expressed on list
On 3/04/2008 Tony Sleep wrote:
I'll do whichever, it's trivially easy to change the list operation.
Tony, I think you should leave it as it is. It's not broken, as far as I
can see. I think the silent majority appreciate your efforts to keep the
conduit open for the (thinning) discussions, some
Please, keep it the way it's been, Tony. As I stated earlier, I value
that dialog with the friends I've made on this list and future
acquaintances that I'm sure will join.
Jim
Tony Sleep wrote:
On 03/04/2008 David J. Littleboy wrote:
Agreed. Take it off list.
I'm done with it. It stayed
Thank you Tony for explaining why list member email addresses are
available -- it does make some sense for those who are willing to put
up with spam and its natural corollary, spam filters.
I will take some exception to your comment
If you don't want to take any action against spammers but rely
I go one step further to protect accounts, passwords, and sensitive
personal info. I set up the computer that connects to the Internet
with its hard drive in a drawer so I can easily *remove* the hard
drive when I need a secure system.
Say I've been reading email (with the hard drive connected)
I just checked the two registry entries on my system to make sure I
didn't have either of the Srizbi trojan statements, and I don't.
However, in reading from this link, the simple answer seems to be for
people (and I assume, particularly men) to just stop buying on-line
herbal masculine
Dieder Bylsma wrote:
The scams are because we have a subscriber on our list that archives the list
to a public forum...
http://www.lexa.ru/FS/
note how all the most recent postings are on this list too ;)
Thanks for uncovering that archive. It is highly likely that is where our
addresses
I joined a list a while ago that had a quiz to insure I wasn't a robot. This
swiping of mailing lists to create content is pretty common. They also harvest
usenet.
-Original Message-
From: Dieder Bylsma [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 02:46:29
To:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:
On 02/04/2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your implication is that I am relying on others (including you) to do
stuff for me to avoid spam, while in fact you are doing stuff that
*exposes* me to spam. I am doing my bit by having multiple addresses
and abandoning those that have been outed --
Tony, let me preface my remarks with one that I think is important: I
greatly appreciate all you have done with this list to bring together
such a wonderful resource. If I have caused you grief or upset I am
truly sorry.
On 02/04/2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your implication is that I am
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think we are having an unecessary argument
Agreed. Take it off list.
David J. Littleboy
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tokyo, Japan
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with
Sigh -- nobody responded directly to my original question, which is
Why is my email address displayed on the filmscanners board?
Most other participants are identified by
I believe Tony explained that everyone's address is visible. I can
certainly see them.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sigh -- nobody responded directly to my original question, which is
Why is my email address displayed on the
Art,
Here is an interesting article -
http://thetechdon.com/40-of-all-spam-comes-from-just-one-source/ that you
may not have seen.
And note at the end that most spam and viruses come from
.USA!! About 2.5 times more than Turkey - the next worst
offender.
I'm very pleased with
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 10:01:52PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sigh -- nobody responded directly to my original question, which is
Why is my email address displayed on the filmscanners board?
Have a look at this site:
http://www.marshal.com/trace/traceitem.asp?article=567
Then click through to read more about the Srizbi trojan. Scary. I
downloaded Regscanner after reading this, and then check the registry
for the
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\RcpApi\(snip), as
Art,
I have not received anything like this from the filmscanners list, or
from you. I have, however received at least one message, recently, from
a local individual that was several years old - similar, I think, to
what you described. I called the individual to help troubleshoot the
problem
Hi Jim,
I use AVG on all my systems now, and it seems to be working well. I
also do Spybot and Adaware scans every week or two, and use a double
firewall (hardware and software) and I have disabled my email client
address books from the beginning, all in an attempt to keep thing clean
as I can,
Art,
I can't answer your last question but the pranks around here seem to
have lost their appeal over the past few years (Huntsville, AL).
I've heard of the virus that you mentioned and it is worrisome. I do
not store personal information on my computers and I'm working toward
storing my files
Arthur Entlich wrote:
I use AVG on all my systems now, and it seems to be working well. I
also do Spybot and Adaware scans every week or two, and use a double
firewall (hardware and software) and I have disabled my email client
address books from the beginning, all in an attempt to keep thing
I can't directly help you with your request, but I can tell you that as
someone who has several of my email addresses out there in the public,
that the last few months things have gone absolutely crazy with spam. I
do not directly publish my email address in a normally readable format,
but a
On 31/03/2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know why my email address shows on the replies I made to this
board but other people's don't, but the result has been that I am
being inundated with spam.
The sender's email address appears on every message, not just yours, in
the 'from:' header
Thanks, Tony, for doing what you can about the spam problem.
And please feel free to suggest what we might do to help make it less
of a problem.
It's actually only a very minor nuisance for me, but I have no idea
why that is, unless it's because I've been on Mac's and done what I
can to help
I try to steer the Mac users I know to open source multi-platform
programs like Thunderbird for email, Firefox for browsing, etc. It makes
it easier to help them. Thunderbird has a simple filtering scheme
(rules). There was a recent hackers event that broke into a Mac Air in
two minutes using
On 31/03/2008 Sam McCandless wrote:
And please feel free to suggest what we might do to help make it less
of a problem.
Most ISP's offer spam filtering, usually based on Spamassassin or similar,
and that works well. Sometimes free, sometimes an additional low cost.
Always worth asking because
On 31/03/2008 gary wrote:
I try to steer the Mac users I know to open source multi-platform
programs like Thunderbird for email, Firefox for browsing, etc.
Strongly seconded even for us PC victims too :)
--
Regards
Tony Sleep
http://tonysleep.co.uk
Tony Sleep wrote:
On 31/03/2008 Sam McCandless wrote:
And please feel free to suggest what we might do to help make it less
of a problem.
Most ISP's offer spam filtering, usually based on Spamassassin or similar,
and that works well. Sometimes free, sometimes an additional low cost.
Always
I don't know why my email address shows on the replies I made to this
board but other people's don't, but the result has been that I am
being inundated with spam.
This address is used *only* for this scanner forum, and the spam
started immediately after my first reply.
Due to the spam, I will be
Hi Don,
As I have emailed privately to you, I would also like to state publicly
that I really appreciate the time and effort you put into scanning and
photographing the brush from its many angles. Very helpful information,
and admittedly, not how I had conceptualized the positioning and design
Don's PDF showing the brush and instructions for use are now at
http://tonysleep.co.uk/file-area/polaroid-4000-brush
--
Regards
Tony Sleep
http://tonysleep.co.uk
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Sounds good. I think I will try the pipe cleaner approach without the
carrier, to make sure I don't disrupt anything. I can see the area the
carrier goes through around that fin or groove, and I also see some
insulated wires which are probably the connections to the sensor that
needs cleaning,
Art -
I have lurked in this group for years and have always appreciated your posts. I
have
taken a series of shots of the brush assembly and instructions and placed
them in a PDF of about 1 MB. I will send them to you directly, and to anyone
else who is interested--unless there is someplace that
On 25/02/2008 Don Denburg wrote:
I will send them to you directly, and to anyone
else who is interested--unless there is someplace that I can upload
them
for general viewing.
If you want to email them to me I'll park them on a webpage.
--
Regards
Tony Sleep
http://tonysleep.co.uk
Yes, the camera I have was bought for another purpose and I didn't
care that its macro capability is poor.
What comes to mind is a long pipe cleaner that fits well in the
channel. All you need to do is drop the front door and you can see
the channel quite clearly. Choose the appropriately-sized
After fussing around for the better part of an hour trying to take
decent photos of a black bit of plastic stuck onto a black slide
carrier, all the while trying to show the alignment of the brush
bristles with the fin, which is far enough away that it is out of
focus, I gave it up as a bad job.
Thank you for the word description which helps, but as they say, a
picture is worth 1000 words, or whatever...
I look forward to seeing the images.
Thanks again,
Art
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, the brush does not surround the fin, but is placed in front of
the fin, occupying the same
No, the brush does not surround the fin, but is placed in front of
the fin, occupying the same channel as the fin. Think of a snowplow
blade in front of the truck, this is a brush in front of the slide
carrier and in line with the fin. The bristles sweep the two sides
and bottom of the channel
SCANNER STUFF!
A scanner question... does anyone know if there is still a source for
the little dust brush Polaroid designed for their 4000 series scanners,
or is there somewhere I can see what it looked like so I might be able
to fashion one? My scanner has become intermittent in the manner
By America, I'm assuming you main the U.S. If so, you should visit us
up here in Canada. People coming from the U.S. tell us we tend to be
unbelievably polite relative to themselves.
Then again we live on maple syrup and get all our hostility out in the
hockey rink ;-)
OK, enough stereotyping
On 18/02/2008 Arthur Entlich wrote:
A scanner question... does anyone know if there is still a source for
the little dust brush Polaroid designed for their 4000 series
scanners,
or is there somewhere I can see what it looked like so I might be able
to fashion one?
I don't know, but I need
Gee, maybe I'll need to go into 3rd party production on those brushes.
Yeah, the symptoms are assorted irregularities with the film/slide
holders, including the unit not acknowledging the holder, interpreting
the wrong holder, giving a false bumped holder error, and a few more.
Now that I know
On 18/02/2008 Arthur Entlich wrote:
Now that I know there are several people experiencing the same
problems,
I will try to see if I can find a source or if Polaroid still has
anything going.
Info posted to this list a long time back indicates it's part number
CPS546 and available on request
Didn't Microtek make these scanners for Polaroid? If that's the case,
might try them.
Jim
Tony Sleep wrote:
On 18/02/2008 Arthur Entlich wrote:
A scanner question... does anyone know if there is still a source for
the little dust brush Polaroid designed for their 4000 series
scanners,
or
On 18/02/2008 James L. Sims wrote:
Didn't Microtek make these scanners for Polaroid? If that's the case,
might try them.
Yes, they did, the Artixscan 4000 was their version. Both built on the
same production line, but the Polaroids had tighter component spec
selection according to Polaroid (who
I have one of the brushes for my SS4000, and I just now looked at it
to see what it does. It rides/cleans the channel that the LEFT side
of the slide carrier rides in. If you look at the bottom of the slide
carrier you will see the left side has a thin fin as contrasted to
the wide flat surface on
I'll take a run with this. I've been in contact with David Hemmingway a
while back, and he referred me to someone at Polaroid, who never got
back to me. Now that there seems to be a demand for these brushed, I'll
do some research and see if I can track them down. I also thought of
Microtek, but
I will say but one thing one this. For context, I am an American who
lived in London for 5 years.
I think it is a mistake, and quite unfair, to apply a behavioural
stereotype to everyone of a particular Nation. All the British are not
one way, and all the Americans are not another way. There
On 17/02/2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think we are much to quick to assign negative behaviours
that we experience as being characteristic or a particular nationality
or ethnicity. Rather than trying to couch this in National or
cultural
terms, we should be counseling the offending poster
Well said: spot-on.
John
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I will say but one thing one this. For context, I am an American who
lived in London for 5 years.
I think it is a mistake, and quite unfair, to apply a behavioural
stereotype to everyone of a particular Nation. All the British are not
one
Just to be clear, I did not apply a stereotype to a nation, or 'all' of
anyone, anywhere. I did apply a theory of cultural bent toward some,
based upon my experience to date. I did not say all brits I have dealt
with did... something. I did say that almost exclusively the people
who have been
Tony,
Ah! ...a breath of fresh air!
Regards
George
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] O
All fair comment.
Now, has anyone done any scanning lately? :-)
--
Regards
Tony Sleep
http://tonysleep.co.uk
I have to say as a Brit. of 62 years old, that manners here have declined
dramatically.
I am always so amazed by most peoples manners when I visit America.
On the last visit, (and this was in a McDonalds) a young man said excuse me
Sir.
Also, stopped by the side of the road reading a map inside
Tony,
I do agree that we should trim posts of older postings; but I also suggest
that some of us participate in many lists and are faced with responding to
more than 100 posts a day which can result in the rush to complete our
responses we may forget to trim the posts. A little reminder like you
Tony Sleep wrote:
Please everybody DO TAKE CARE TO TRIM POSTS. Art has a point that members
of the list can skip messages, but that is not true for 568 members of
this list who are on a daily digest and receive the preceding 24hrs
traffic concatenated into one large message. That becomes quite
On 16/02/2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In
the current case, the reminder reached me after I had sent the
offending
post which appeared later than the message from you.
I thought that may well be the case. No problem. Most email clients don't
handle trimming all that well anyway. The ideal is
On 16/02/2008 Arthur Entlich wrote:
I won't quote it, but George's comment was as clear as the nose on my
face. It was hostile, very directed, and IMHO, very inappropriate.
On a hunch, I just checked, and George is a Brit, posting from a
BTinternet address. There is actually a cultural
On 16/02/2008 John Sykes wrote:
We generally prefer a stab at humour to make a point and avoid
direct insults.
Agreed, but did you see GH's comment as offensive? If I'd been on the
receiving end I'd have taken it as a reference to the scads of
inadvertently quoted text. PgDn to see just how
Before moving on, and to further belabour this point (note both the u
in belabour and in my earlier posting with the word behaviour - I don't
use those spellings, but I figured George Harrison might) I do believe
Tony has hit the nail on the head, in terms of this being a cultural
issue, but it is
Laurie
In the name of god will you PLEASE trim your posts - your lazy verbosity is
offensive.
George Harrison
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe
Although I agree posts should be trimmed, for people who regularly
answer queries, sometime it is just forgotten by the time we hit
'send'. I certainly have been guilty of it.
What is really inexcusable, however, is your tone and the personal
attack. This list has been basically inactive for
On 16/02/2008 Arthur Entlich wrote:
Those are all things you
have control over, rather than asking people to change their behaviour
on your behalf.
Personally I read George's complaint as being about untrimmed posting, not
on Laurie's writing style as such.
Please everybody DO TAKE CARE TO
On 14/02/2008 gary wrote:
This may be an issue how how Vista is marketed in the UK.
PLEASE trim your posts! There is no need to quote the entire thread and it
is agony for people on the digest.
--
Regards
Tony Sleep
http://tonysleep.co.uk
This may be an issue how how Vista is marketed in the UK. In the US,
there is Vista Ultimate, which comes with 64 bit vista.
Ultimate is one of the numerous editions of Vista (it is the top of the line
edition that contains all the components some of which are not included in
the other
On Feb 11, 2008 9:48 AM, Bob Geoghegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While we're talking about SCSI scanners under current OSs, how 'bout Vista?
I'm running an SS4000 on a Win XP laptop through an Adaptec 1480B. The card
is supported under Vista, but I don't know what to expect for the scanner.
Often Vuescan needs the factory driver to be installed. A few devices Ed
can drive directly.
BTW, Vuescan under X64 is not all that stable. Expect a crash every
other roll. It has to do with how X64 handles USB.
In many ways, X64 is a really good operating system. Remember, it is
Server 2003
A bit OT, but I've been running X64 for about 3 years. Vuescan saved my
arse regarding my Epson 5400II. I got a cheap Canon for document work,
retiring my scsi flatbed.
I understanding keeping an old scanner and playing the scsi game, but I
got rid of all my scsi gear when I upgraded. Well, I
If you can't get scanner drivers, find an O/S where you can, and run
it in a VM. I run an old Agfa Snapscan from a W98 VM under XP.
On Feb 11, 2008 3:48 PM, Bob Geoghegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While we're talking about SCSI scanners under current OSs, how 'bout Vista?
I'm running an SS4000
Laurie,
My plan is to keep a 32-bit machine around for the SS120 and My old
Epson Stylus Photo 1200. Then upgrade my main computer to XP 64. An
Epson tech told me last year that that he could send me the 64-bit
drivers for my Epson 1640 scanner, however, I didn't ask him to do that
and I still
I believe none of the Polaroid scanners are being supported beyond
32-bit Windows XP or the same era Mac OS. About a year ago I contacted
Polaroid, asking them if they would be providing 64-bit drivers for my
SprintScan 120. I had recently upgraded to a 64-bit computer. Polaroid
informed me
On 11/02/2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
USB2 is just as
robust if not more so than Firewire; it was USB 1.1 which was not as
robust
as Firewire.
Yup, nothing wrong with USB2 (so long as it's not plugged and unplugged
too many times). I have lots of USB and no FW in use, never had an issue.
But
Tony,
You may be correct about film scanners using a SCSI-2 interface; but I
believe that my Minolta Dimage Scan Multi (the original version) was SCSI-1.
At any rate, I noted that the specs say that the converter/adapter supported
only a SCSI-2 interface just in case there were film scanners that
On 11/02/2008 Stan Schwartz wrote:
I don't know if the SS4000 is Scsi-1 or SCSI-2.
SS4000 is SCSI-2, definitely. I'm still using mine :)
--
Regards
Tony Sleep
http://tonysleep.co.uk
Unsubscribe by mail to
While we're talking about SCSI scanners under current OSs, how 'bout Vista?
I'm running an SS4000 on a Win XP laptop through an Adaptec 1480B. The card
is supported under Vista, but I don't know what to expect for the scanner.
Bob G
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 11/02/2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Evidently, this adapter/converter still is on the market; but it
works only
with SCSI-2 from what I have been able to determine.
As far as I know, all filmscanners that appeared with SCSI interfaces used
SCSI2 standard, even though they only achieved
It is the old SS4000 without USB. Yes I think I will keep the old PC if there
is no easy solution.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 2/11/08 1:14 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: SCSI support on a Mac Pro
Several questions:
Is it a SprintScan 4000
Gary,
I have not used Vuescan of recent so I do not know if the current versions
require or not the factory driver to be installed; I was under the
impression that Ed did not rely on Twain drivers but developed his own
proprietary driver as a substitute for the OEM TWAIN drivers. As for
Vuescan
I have one by Adaptec that converts SCSI to USB - check on their
website. I also use it with a SS4000 - works pretty well.
- John
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I currently am using my Polaroid SprintScan 4000 on a Windows computer with
an installed SCSI card.
I am about to buy a new eight-core
There use to be a SCSI to USB adapter (XircomR PortGear USB To SCSI
Converter - PGSCSI, U1-SCSI) put out by Xircom (www.xircom.com or tel.:
800-438-4526), which I believe was an Intel subsidiary. I believe it was a
SCSI 1 version of SCSI (the first version of SCSI) that would work for Mac
OS 8.6.
http://www.adaptec.com/en-US/support/scsi_port/usb_scsi/USBXchange/
I think this is the more recent version of what I used. Mac compatible
it seems.
- J
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I currently am using my Polaroid SprintScan 4000 on a Windows computer with
an installed SCSI card.
I am about
http://www.richardcrouse.com/services/scanning.html
As you probably read, they are scanning the old Apollo moon film. The
scanner in the link above is the type of scanner used for this project.
Unsubscribe
On 09/08/2007 gary wrote:
As you probably read, they are scanning the old Apollo moon film. The
scanner in the link above is the type of scanner used for this
project.
Coo. You don't see those on eBay too often. But I bet it's just a
repackaged Panasonic digicam ;)
--
Regards
Tony Sleep
A FAQ is : how do I scan large numbers of slides without spending the rest
of my life doing it?
There aren't too many affordable solutions, but for anyone confronting
this problem this one is worth registering. There is an interesting review
of the Braun Multimag 4000 filmscanner by Jonathan
I think a better comparison would be the Aztek against a dedicated film
scanner, not a flat bed. It is clear to me there is a focus issue with
the Epson.
R. Jackson wrote:
I thought some of you might enjoy seeing this. I went down to
Petaluma today and Lenny Eiger introduced me to scanning with
On Jul 20, 2007, at 11:23 PM, gary wrote:
I think a better comparison would be the Aztek against a dedicated
film
scanner, not a flat bed. It is clear to me there is a focus issue with
the Epson.
Yeah, the Epson's problematic at best. I put up crops from the Epson
here:
I thought some of you might enjoy seeing this. I went down to
Petaluma today and Lenny Eiger introduced me to scanning with a drum
scanner.
http://www.eigerphoto.com/
I essentially got a crash course in the practicalities of drum scans
from someone with a lot of practical experience in making
I also always shoot raw plus SHQ jpeg. The E-1 raw is 14-bit. Very good
insurance, and I always process the raw file for anything I'm going to
print.
Berry
On 7/14/07 9:14 AM, Bob Geoghegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder if the confusion comes from the option for compressed NEF as the
Dpreview.com's review indicates that it is a 12-bit raw format.
~Berry
On 7/13/07 11:27 PM, David J. Littleboy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I was just playing with my new Nikon D200 and discovered
something that surprised me. Unless there is some quality
adjustment
I wonder if the confusion comes from the option for compressed NEF as the
raw format. The D200 default is uncompressed lossless but it's easy to
change to the just barely lossy compressed option. Compressed in-camera
squeezes the 12 bit, 4096 native analog RAW value scale into 683 values,
~9.4
Jim,
Glad the link helps and thanks for telling me about it!
Singh-Ray makes a filter designed by an acquaintance of mine, Tony Sweet, so
there's a small personal connection with the company.
Best Regards,
Bernie Kubiak
-- Original message --
From: James L.
I was just playing with my new Nikon D200 and discovered
something that surprised me. Unless there is some quality
adjustment setting I missed, it's color bit depth apparently is
only 8 bits in NEF Raw. By comparison, my Polaroid SprintScan
4000 scanner has a color bit depth of 12 bits, and
I can't comment on the bit depth of cameras, but scanners need more bits
when processing negative film since negative film has it's dynamic range
compressed. Eight bits was passable for slide film, well, properly
exposed slide film.
Film like Astia is slightly compressed, i.e. it doesn't have the
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I was just playing with my new Nikon D200 and discovered
something that surprised me. Unless there is some quality
adjustment setting I missed, it's color bit depth apparently is
only 8 bits in NEF Raw. By comparison, my Polaroid SprintScan
4000 scanner has a color bit
Most UV filters are just glass, with IR coatings - glass will filter
some UV, I seem to recall less than 20%. Singh Ray did make a real UV
filter but it wasn't cheap and I don't know if he is still in business.
Jim
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The focal length is a bit over 600mm. I use a barlow,
Singh Ray is still around: www.singh-ray.com/index.html but I don't see a UV
filter in their catalog.
Bernie
-- Original message --
From: James L. Sims [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Most UV filters are just glass, with IR coatings - glass will filter
some UV, I seem to
I also think it is not correct to simply use jpeg fine with 'no sharpening' for
the comparison, as the defaults in each camera could well be different. Some
sharpening is likely to be applied in camera to a jpeg even if switched to zero
sharpening.
He explained away the fact that he could
101 - 200 of 17967 matches
Mail list logo
