I have a Tak FS78 and quite a few accessories for such antics, but you
can't use them on the fly. This is a panorama I just finished last week,
with the distance varying from 15 to 20 miles.
http://www.lazygranch.com/images/ttr/june2007/ttr_pano_1.jp2
You will need a jpeg2000 viewer such as
Ah, but you're redefined the scope of reach! Just how long is the lens
you used for this project? Or, just how small is your sensor? I can see
that you don't need high spatial frequency, scintillation pretty much
wipes out resolution at that distance. Great job though! I am
surprised and
The focal length is a bit over 600mm. I use a barlow, so the focal
length is around 3000mm effective. The images are from Astia 100f
(35mm), scanned on the Minolta 5400 II, but reduced by two.
Obviously, the image is tweaked quite a bit in photoshop. The raw image
is very blue. I use a long pass
On 07/07/07, Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We recently purchased a Canon S3IS. .. Is it a replacement for a
DSLR?
Not really, but it rocks for size, weight, features, and cost
Do you want to add a live histogram, live flashing overexposure warning and RAW
as well? Plus
This raises some very interesting aspects of digital cameras.
I should mention that the S3IS already offers live histograms, and the
flashing overexposure in review mode, and some customized scripts, but
not raw, which is very interesting.
What's most interesting is that most electronics today
One other detail I'd like to mention is that I really prefer the aspect
ratio of 4/3. A subjective matter, naturally. I think it is really silly,
this craze in movies and television for the very wide screen, which may suit
the sweeping landscape, but very often looks ridiculous and sacrifices
On Jul 10, 2007, at 6:23 AM, Berry Ives wrote:
Does anyone know what is the market share of FF digital among
professional photographers working digitally today?
It seems to me that most working pros are using the 1.3x crop Canons.
I see those more than just about anything else. Of course, the
I simply see no advantage to have a smaller sensor. I don't see how I
spent pixels. This makes no sense to me.
Nikon has an option on some models where you can toss the outer area of
the sensor to save space on the memory card.
R. Jackson wrote:
Sure, but you spend pixels of your total sensor
Some 2006 Japan-only figures put the 5D at a low single-digit portion of
DSLRs overall (and DSLRs are only about 5% of digital camera unit sales).
The 1Ds would be a smaller fraction still. This is just from memory, but
together they'd be 2-3% of the DSLR market, 100,000-150,000 units. (and
Well, yes, but the resolution of the sensor is still the resolution of
the sensor, so unless the FF sensor has an increased resolution
equivalent to the difference in factor difference, the smaller sensor
does provide a greater reach per resolution. Also, the camera is
smaller and likely lighter.
Exactly. I agree. Unless the FF is higher res the main advantage of FF
is lower noise and in the wide angle department.
Art
R. Jackson wrote:
Sure, but you spend pixels of your total sensor resolution to get
there.
On Jul 10, 2007, at 9:37 AM, gary wrote:
A cropped sensor really doesn't
Let's say you have two sensors, each 12 MP. One is FF the other smaller
using 1.3X factor. To get the same multiplication factor with the FF,
you have crop about 1/4th of the area out, which means you have reduced
the resolution by that much. If the FF is about 1/4th higher res to the
smaller
I think you need to strictly define reach.
Arthur Entlich wrote:
Well, yes, but the resolution of the sensor is still the resolution of
the sensor, so unless the FF sensor has an increased resolution
equivalent to the difference in factor difference, the smaller sensor
does provide a greater
On Jul 10, 2007, at 1:28 PM, Bob Geoghegan wrote:
Some 2006 Japan-only figures put the 5D at a low single-digit
portion of
DSLRs overall (and DSLRs are only about 5% of digital camera unit
sales).
The 1Ds would be a smaller fraction still.
Well, the 1Ds is what, about $7000 retail? And the
This makes good sense Art, however I'm curious about pixel density.
(apart from the obvious larger pixel = more photons landing in it
sensitivity advantage which is often the case with the larger sensor)
Can the lenses being used on the cameras in question, satisfactorily
resolve the number of
I'm a person that needs reach, if you define reach as getting shots of
distance objects. Now generally a person who needs reach is using a
telephoto lens and possibly combined with a teleconverter. Such a setup
doesn't put out a lot of light, so the bigger pixels are certainly an
advantage. Also,
Hmmm, 12 MP but in different sizes. Consider the Nikon D2X(s) vs Canon 1D
mkII or 5D.
http://www.naturfotograf.com/D2X_rev00.html
http://www.naturfotograf.com/D2X_rev06.html#top_page
Results may vary, of course.
Bob G
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you are using autofocus, that will be the limiting factor in
resolution. IIRC, they quit at about 50lpmm. Then there is the
antialiasing filter, which reduces resolution. The EOS-1Ds Mark II has
an AAF that doesn't filter much, so it is more prone to aliasing
problems, but also produces a sharp
I wish they were a bit more scientific in their analysis. For instance,
Canon makes more than one 300mm lens.
Bob Geoghegan wrote:
Hmmm, 12 MP but in different sizes. Consider the Nikon D2X(s) vs Canon 1D
mkII or 5D.
http://www.naturfotograf.com/D2X_rev00.html
On Jul 7, 2007, at 7:51 PM, David J. Littleboy wrote:
The M7 doesn't get close (without going to heroic efforts),
polarizers are a
pain, it doesn't really do portraits. It's a two-trick pony (43 and 65
(three if you like 80mm))
Actually, my preferences are 65mm and 150mm. The 43mm and 50mm
;-)
Since you mentioned image stabilization, I though I'd give a heads up on
a potential buying opportunity that probably won't last long, for people
looking for a great digicam who are spoiled on DSLRs, in terms of
design and features, but who want to have a fairly small and lightweight
You're right, Olympus is taking forever to bring out the new model, which
has probably cost them some market base, but I'm waiting for it. The leaked
info sounds great. The 14-35mm f2.0 lens is taking even longer, and isn't
expected until next spring, rumor has it. It would seem to me odd that
From: Berry Ives [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You're right, Olympus is taking forever to bring out the new model, which
has probably cost them some market base, but I'm waiting for it. The leaked
info sounds great. The 14-35mm f2.0 lens is taking even longer, and isn't
expected until next spring, rumor
On Jul 7, 2007, at 7:34 AM, David J. Littleboy wrote:
But you are forgetting to take the other aspects of the format
difference
into account.
This seems like an assumption. ;-)
For the same pixel count (to a rough first approximation, 10 is
about the
same as 12.7), a 4/3 camera's pixels
Uh, this should be deeper...sorry. ;-)
On Jul 7, 2007, at 12:08 PM, R. Jackson wrote:
But since DOF is two stops shallower you don't need to stop the lens
down as much to get the same effective DOF.
From: R. Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So a birder, for example, will have a two-stop DOF advantage over a
FF guy right out of the gate just because of his format of choice.
Add in the faster Zuiko f/2.0 lens at ISO 100 and he can use a higher
shutter speed at a lower aperture all day long.
It
On Jul 7, 2007, at 1:29 PM, David J. Littleboy wrote:
It don't work that wayg.
The 5D user shoots at ISO 400 with the same image quality (photon shot
noise) and same shutter speed and sees the same DOF (and same
background
blurring effects) at f/4.0 as the 4/3 user does at f/2.0.
It is
I have been trying to follow this thread, with some difficulty -
probably my old age. But to keep perspective and depth of field equal,
when comparing Full Frame with smaller formats, lens focal length,
circle of confusion, or blur circle, size must be adjusted
proportionately. Control of
On Jul 7, 2007, at 3:59 PM, James L. Sims wrote:
Control of chromatic aberrations become
proportionately more restrictive. Then there's Lord Rayleigh's
Criteria
regarding Diffraction Limit is just as true today as it was when he
published it. Therefore, with today's APO lenses, we can
From: R. Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Again, if you are using a 10MP 4/3 camera, then the comparison is
with the 70-200/4.0 (IS).
I know you like that f/4 comparison, but like you said earlier, with
the A/D converters as they are you aren't seeing a dynamic range
advantage at low ISO, so the
From: James L. Sims [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have been trying to follow this thread, with some difficulty -
probably my old age. But to keep perspective and depth of field equal,
when comparing Full Frame with smaller formats, lens focal length,
circle of confusion, or blur circle, size must be
On Jul 7, 2007, at 5:15 PM, David J. Littleboy wrote:
The 5D doesn't deliver a dynamic range advantage
(at low ISOs), just a two stop sensitivity advantage across
comparable ISOs.
Sure. I thought I'd already made that stipulation clear. Yes, a
bigger sensor will get you more high-ISO
From: R. Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So IQ is vital to you unless it isn't. Heh...I guess we could go on
for a couple of days with me saying that 645 isn't a serious format
and you can choose to use an inferior format if it suits your needs,
but that doesn't make it worth using. ;-)
Exactly!
Hi James,
Thanks for the formula. I guess we need to go back to glass plates ;-)
Art
James L. Sims wrote:
Art,
There was a depth of focus formula in the American Cinematographer
Handbook that was gospel until proven wrong. The depth of focus, given
a specific blur circle size, is a
Just a detail, Rob, but the Oly E-1 has a weather-sealed magnesium body.
It's quite solid. I don't know if any of their other models have the
magnesium body, or if that feature is reserved for their pro line.
Berry
On 7/5/07 8:52 PM, R.Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 5, 2007, at
Yeah, I had an E-1. I actually gave it to a friend of mine last year
and he's enjoying it. They've just taken so long replacing it that
there's really no choice in a high-end E model right now, though the
leaked document about the E-1 replacement looks promising.
-Rob
On Jul 6, 2007, at 7:00 AM,
Art,
Well, we've sort of done that with digital cameras. They have also put
my old Pentax cameras out of service, and after all the work I did
fabricating a pressure plate that kept the film reasonably flat. At my
age, I'm also an advocate of image stabilization - I'm taking sharp
pictures,
I don't disagree with much that you stated. A good deal of the extra
file size in a scanned silver halide image is just grain artifacts, and
offers no image information. However, if the same processing that is
done to digital images in camera were done to the film image, a lot of
the grain
Since I have not used VueScan in years, I have to take your word on that;
but white balance/color temp is a very significant element in many cases
along with exposure that I use Camera RAW for which is not available from
within Photoshop. But I think we are on t he same page and not really in
any
David,
Remember that this discussion started with my attempt to explain why Getty
and other high end stock photography houses might insist on professional
drum scans over high end prosumer CDD scanners. The main justification is
that they know the quality that their clients demand but they do
On Jul 4, 2007, at 11:28 PM, Arthur Entlich wrote:
However, if the same processing that is done to digital images in
camera were done to the film image, a lot of the grain could be
suppressed.
Yeah, but would you want to suppress the grain? I did a test for a
video camera manufacturer last
One last point here. Film will probably never be as flat as a piece of
silicon.
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate)
But a pixel is around 6um on a side, so grain is finer than a pixel.
R. Jackson wrote:
On Jul 4, 2007, at 11:28 PM, Arthur Entlich wrote:
snip
Look here:
http://www.imx.nl/photosite/technical/Filmbasics/filmbasics.html
See the 400x magnification? If that level of capture detail existed
On 05/07/2007 David J. Littleboy wrote:
I don't buy it.
AIUI the colour fringing is a combination of chromatic aberration in the
lens and Bayer colour interpolation.
Vignetting is due to the microlenses presenting a smaller effective
aperture to off-axis rays.
You get both together, but
On Jul 5, 2007, at 1:11 PM, Laurie wrote:
While Digital SLRs might know or identify the lens focal length,
aperture
setting, focus, etc., It cannot identify the glass that is used in
any given
lens or the optical properties specific to that particular lens.
Since most
DSLRs allow for
On 05/07/2007 gary wrote:
Seems to me the camera should be able to compensate for the
vignetting.
It knows the lens and the sensor, so it should know the light
falloff.
There are software strategies for dealing with both vignetting and
chromatic aberratuon artifacts, also barrel/pincushion
Rob,
Actually, the Olympus stuff does know what lens is on the camera and
can be set to compensate.
Is that only for Olympus brand lenses or does it apply to third party lenses
like Sigmas and the like?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
From: Berry Ives [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your math is good; I got 26.2 degrees off vertical. But I don't know the
significance of that angle with respect to the sensor tunnels. It sounds
like a rather large angle to me.
You might do the math for, say, the Contax G-series 21mm Biogong. (The
rear
There seems to be two main issues with depth of focus with film. One,
when the image is captured within the camera, and two, when it is then
reproduced, either as a print, or made into a digital file.
With 35mm frames, in my experience, the second one is not that
significant as long as the
On 7/5/07 5:44 PM, David J. Littleboy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The 4/3 sensor is 1/4 the area of the FF sensors, and not really a serious
format. If one is concerned with image quality.
I think that for you to say this is equivalent, in the film world, of saying
that 35mm cameras are not
On 06/07/2007 Arthur Entlich wrote:
Does anyone know if there is a chart which shows depth of focus at the
film plan versus aperture of lens used?
No, but the plane of focus itself is not flat, it's usually a section of a
sphere that is only part corrected to flatness. This becomes an issue
I thought the lens design has elements to compensate for field
flattening. In any event, the predictably flat silicon focal plane has
to be better than the lottery of film.
Tony Sleep wrote:
On 06/07/2007 Arthur Entlich wrote:
Does anyone know if there is a chart which shows depth of focus at
With respect to lenses, the only lenses that I know of that have adjustable
elements for compensating for field curvature and producing effective,
although not complete, flattening are flat field copy lenses and true macro
lenses. I will not comment on silicon sensors except to say that no matter
That's fine. But there are thousands of professional and serious amateur
photographers out there that do not have that restriction. I shot 4x5 for a
while, and there is no denying the beauty of large format for certain types
of images. I discovered a small spider web once on a barb of a wire
On Jul 5, 2007, at 4:44 PM, David J. Littleboy wrote:
The 4/3 sensor is 1/4 the area of the FF sensors, and not really a
serious
format. If one is concerned with image quality.
Technically, there's merit to what you're saying. Given a the current
10 megapixel 4/3 sensor with a 4.7 micron
Art,
There was a depth of focus formula in the American Cinematographer
Handbook that was gospel until proven wrong. The depth of focus, given
a specific blur circle size, is a trig function of the cone angle Tan
½Angle = .5 x f# ÷ Lens Focal Length. Without special pressure plates
or
On Jul 1, 2007, at 6:00 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes because you are mixing apples and oranges in your comparison.
The D200
and D2X produce a 35mm equivalent first generation capture; it does
not need
to be converted into a digital file after the capture by a second
external
process.
On Jul 3, 2007, at 11:47 PM, R. Jackson wrote:
On Jul 1, 2007, at 6:00 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
... At 4800 dpi a 35mm scan is 6255x4079.
That's over 25 megapixels. I can't really tell the difference between
a 4800 dpi scan and a 6400 dpi scan, so I never go higher than 4800
Thanks, Rob. I might follow along, partly because I also have a lot
of prints - old family photos mostly - to scan.
--
Sam
On Jul 4, 2007, at 6:44 AM, R. Jackson wrote:
I'm using an Epson V700. It's been a pretty nice machine so far. I've
scanned about 500 negatives and slides over the past
On Jul 4, 2007, at 11:35 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Most of the DSLRs mentioned
may be less than 25 megapixels but they shoot in Camera RAW
formats, which
can be adjusted in a number of ways if needed before converting the
Camera
Raw format to an interpreted value standard image format,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Secondly, some artifacts produced in the scanning process by prosummer
scanners operated by layoperators may not be readily remedied or correctable
at all in some cases.
And I'm sure THEY don't want to do any corrections, even if possible.
Mike K.
I have not used VueScan in years and am unfamiliar with its current raw
output. When I used it the raw scan was 16 bit non-linear scan without any
software processing applied at all output as a TIFF file. This is not
exactly the same as Camera RAW which via camera raw conversion programs
allows
You may be right. The commercial drum scanners are much more flexible and
complex allowing for very subtle adjustments and corrections via much more
complicated software that often requires a trained, accomplished, and
experienced scan master to make full use of - sort of like a pressman on an
I sent this message out on July 2nd, but I don't think it got posted, at
least I never received a copy... so I'm trying again.
If it did get posted, I apologize for the redundancy.
Art
Original Message
Subject:Re: [filmscanners] film and scanning vs digital photography
I'll say again something I have stated many times in the past. Humans
are analogue, not digital. We work on a cellular level and most of our
cells aren't lined up in perfect grids, far from it. We, both
evolutionarily and through learning, ignore random patterns in our
vision (and other
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To put it simply, when you capture an image with a DSLR camera, you are in
effect directly scanning the image transmitted by your lens into digital
electronic form; you do not need to go through a second process in order to
convert the analog capture on film into an
On Jul 4, 2007, at 3:39 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have not used VueScan in years and am unfamiliar with its current
raw
output. When I used it the raw scan was 16 bit non-linear scan
without any
software processing applied at all output as a TIFF file.
Correct. You can also save the
I don't have a DSLR, but wouldn't a raw camera image need to be, shall
we say, dematrixed. The output of a film scanner is RGB at every pixel
location, where the DSLR is one color per pixel, with additional post
processing required to get RGB at every location.
R. Jackson wrote:
On Jul 4, 2007,
On Jul 4, 2007, at 4:37 PM, Arthur Entlich wrote:
At some point, the digital image components will be beyond any
human's ability to perceive as discrete components, (other than
with massive enlargement) and then the issue will be moot, and for
some it is so close to that now, that is already
When many people scan film, though, they subject the image to
automated processing that may well result in the kind of irreversible
image degradation you were talking about earlier. By storing a file
directly from the CCD output of the scanner and dealing with all
processing post-capture you
This isn't quite accurate. Digital Sensors actually use analogue
sensors. They then translate the information via an A/D converter, to
a digital entity which is then either saved as is or further processed as
a JPEG.
Technically we are in agreement; I oversimplified in order to avoid
On Jul 4, 2007, at 6:37 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
most of the automatic
processing that is done by the scanning software has to do with
things that
one can already do in Photoshop such as levels and curves settings,
saturation settings, brightness and contrast settings, etc. and not
From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Film grain itself is not actual information. it is the random structure
used to create the image on it's smallest level. Grain occurs in three
random manners. Firstly, each color layer is laid down with the silver
halide grains in a completely chaotic
I do not know for sure; but I do not believe that this is correct. I think
that both DSLR Camera RAW image data values like raw scanner image data
values are just that - raw uninterpreted data values for the various
elements. I do not know if the raw color space that digital cameras and
scanners
I suspect the generations effect is why it takes less resolution in a
DSLR to be equivalent to film. That is, the EOS-1Ds Mark II, at
16Mpixels, is considered to be as good as scanned film, which generally
exceeds 30MPixels.
I saw a website that compared drum to a dedicated film scanner, with the
From: gary [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I suspect the generations effect is why it takes less resolution in a
DSLR to be equivalent to film. That is, the EOS-1Ds Mark II, at
16Mpixels, is considered to be as good as scanned film, which generally
exceeds 30MPixels.
I saw a website that compared drum to a
Laurie,
What does it mean that:
The D200 and D2X produce a 35mm equivalent first generation capture
The film sensor of the D200 is substantially smaller than a 35mm film image,
so I guess that is not what it means. So what is the basis for saying this?
This whole thing about judging
One of the earlier posts in this thread mentioned that Getty
Images , a major stock photography company, posted their
camera/scanner requirements on their website. I went searching
on their website today, and located their standards. Here are
their requirements for cameras:
If you are shooting
The DSLR digital camera's mentioned are all the higher end models of their
respective manufacturers as well as among the more current models in the
pipeline. Their being selected probably has as much to do with the degree
of noise and distortion of their sensors as the number of megapixels that
I was the one that brought up the topic, based on a speech I attended by
Jim Sugar. He uses
http://marketplace.digitalrailroad.net/Default.aspx
rather than Getty, but believes you should meet the Getty standards. As
I also mentioned, the EOS-1ds Mark II seems to be THE standard.
Jim also has a
Hi Tony,
They misinformed you! I have one here and the front does not rotate
on the EF 50mm f1.4 USM, it simply extends and retracts a little.
You are sure? That is good news!
With kind regards,
Henk de Jong
--
http://www.hsdejong.nl/
Nepal and Myanmar (Burma) - Photo Galleries
Tony Sleep
On Jun 17, 2007, at 3:03 PM, Henk de Jong wrote:
Hi Tony,
They misinformed you! I have one here and the front does not rotate
on the EF 50mm f1.4 USM, it simply extends and retracts a little.
You are sure? That is good news!
With kind regards,
Henk de Jong
--
http://www.hsdejong.nl/
On Jun 17, 2007, at 3:03 PM, Henk de Jong wrote:
http://www.hsdejong.nl/
Nepal and Myanmar (Burma) - Photo Galleries
Dear Henk,
Your photos are beautiful. I love South Asia and have been to India and
Pakistan several times but last time was 25 years ago. Too much has changed.
I
Hi People,
I can verify that the front of the 50 1.4 does not rotate. Very nice
optics for the money, however don't count on or even bother using it at
F1.4, it's a mess. Stopping down to 1.8 improves things out of sight.
Mark.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I know people out there have will opinions /or informed speculation about
this:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0706/07061401kodakhighsens.asp
The short version is that by replacing 1/2 of the sensor elements of a bayer
pattern with panchromatic elements, Kodak claims a 1-2 stop boost in
On 6/14/07 7:57 AM, Bob Geoghegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know people out there have will opinions /or informed speculation about
this:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0706/07061401kodakhighsens.asp
The short version is that by replacing 1/2 of the sensor elements of a bayer
pattern with
From: Julian Vrieslander
Not exactly a new idea. The retina in human eyes uses a
somewhat similar scheme. Cone cells are selectively tuned to
red, green, and blue light. The brain integrates the outputs
of cones to produce our sensations of color. Rod cells are
optimized for low light
Bob Geoghegan wrote:
I know people out there have will opinions /or informed speculation about
this:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0706/07061401kodakhighsens.asp
The short version is that by replacing 1/2 of the sensor elements of a bayer
pattern with panchromatic elements, Kodak claims a
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message
title or body
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with
Want to know how to unsubscribe?
READ THE FOOTER OF EVERY LIST EMAIL PLEASE, FOR INSTRUCTIONS. IE
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe
Thanks Tony, for the link.
US$ 175 (without shipping costs) for an adapter ring is not cheep.
English is not my native language, so some explanations on the website are
difficult to understand.
Am I right that when you apply the adapter ring you focus by hand with
maximum aperture and that the
I just noticed your postings, else I'd have weighed in earlier.
Your problem may well just be that you have a SCSI adapter that isn't
supported by Vista not all that many are, apparently, and if Vista can't
run the card then obviously it won't run anything that's attached to it
either.
I'd
There are, at least, three different SCSI types with each having its own
connector. There is SCSI I, which I believe yours is, SCSI II, and SCSI
III. At one point you use to be able to get adapters that would go from
SCSI I types of connectors to SCSI II types of connectors; but I am not sure
if
SCSI connectors have been ever a can of worms no two devices ever seem to
match.
Over the years I've used at least four types ranging from the Mac adapter
(DB25)and 50-pin Centronics to tiny things (Honda connector, for instance)
you were always terrified of breaking.
I don't think I ever had
My memory isn't want it used to be (whose is), but I do recall there was
some problem with some SS4000 with a cable harness which wasn't allowing
for proper movement and could resolve in a wire or plug becoming loose.
I seem to recall it relating to the light source or sensor (although
that might
Can you use Vuescan, which seems to have gotten around the SCSI api and
OS issue?
Art
David wrote:
I'm pleased to see the list has come to life again.
I wonder if anyone has been able to get a Nikon LS30 working with NK scan
and Vista.
There are no drivers for the SCSI card.
Has any one
I am going to raise a different issue regarding the film versus digital
issue for consideration. It has little to do with image quality, but
instead environmental quality.
For years Kodak and others told us that photographic materials
manufacturing processes, photo chemicals and lab film and
On 10/06/2007 Arthur Entlich wrote:
However, the evolution in digital is rapidly reaching the
point where the current technology is more than adequate for most
people
until that camera fails to work.
I read this week that the leading 8 mfrs of digital cameras expect to sell
89m cameras during
I don't disagree that most compacts are designed to last 2-3 years.
Then again, toward the end of the compact film camera market, they also
were designed with the same lifespan.
Not only has the cost of production of these cameras become cheap but
so has the environmental impact of the
Thanks Tony and Arthur for the replies,
I e-mailed Ed. and according to him also, it should work. I had no luck.
Even though I've tamed Vista to my liking, this is the only thing I can't
do.
As the Scanner plugs into the SCSI card it presumably has to have a driver
to work.
I've googled and seems
201 - 300 of 17967 matches
Mail list logo
