I would not have responded to your post in the way I did or even replied to
your suggestion if you had only quoted the original poster rather than
citing and quoting a passage from my post. This led me to believe that you
were responding to my post and not the original message. I have no basic
Hi James,
You are speaking of David Hemingway. Some time back, I tried to
reconnect with him, but have not been able to locate him. After he left
Polaroid he stopped communicating with me, so I have no news,
unfortunately. He has a common name and so trying to Google him isn't easy.
Art
Art,
I would also be interested in locating and re-establishing contact with
David - especially concerning the Polaroid Film Recorder that I have and
how one might get or create new lookup files for it that are dedicated
to handling today's batch of films. However, I think that he dropped
out of
Yuk! Carbon tet! We used to kill insects with it for general science class
in the early 60's. Very deadly stuff. But I'm still here
On 5/19/05 3:40 AM, Tony Sleep [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Arthur Entlich wrote:
OK, how about this... maybe the PEC is responsible ;-)
I've never owned
The US effectively banned TCE in the late 1970's. I figured I would just
read the container and relay the ingredients, but they are not listed.
http://www.photosol.com/msds_pec12.pdf
The material safety sheet indicates the ingredients are a trade secret.
Tony Sleep wrote:
Arthur Entlich wrote:
wrote:
I think item 3 might be the culprit.
Nice theory but the mould doesn't seem to show any preference for the film
rebate, which is where handling has occurred.
Regards
Tony Sleep - http://www.halftone.co.uk
We (Tony and I) live in somewhat similar climates. This area (Victoria
BC, Canada), also referred to as the wet coast is a rain forest. Many
Brits feel very at home here. Long soggy gray fall, winter and spring.
Our home is not particularly dry, in fact, quite the opposite, a factor
often
A-ha
You may be onto something...
1) Mold can be found on all surfaces, but especially organic ones, like
hands
2) Enlargers provide heat while in use, probably promoting mold growth
3) handled negs may end us with body oils on the edges which may
encourage growth of mold
4) possibly just the
bob geoghegan wrote:
Conditions are the big variable for mold I've been reviewing
scanning 300+ rolls of 25-year old Tri-X HP5 negs that were well
washed,
stored in mostly good quality plastic pages,
Glassine pages in loose leaf binders here, in a steel storage cabinet
subject to normal
wrote:
There is nothing like BW negatives for longevity.
You think? I'm scanning negs from 20-30 years ago before it's too late.
Mould is a big issue and a swine to try and fix. These were very well
processed and washed but ironically that encourages mould. OK, storage in a
humidity and temp
Interesting comments. I also shoot BW film, scan the negs and print
on inkjet printers. I started out with a simple C84 (now a C86) and the
MIS quadtone inks. Very simple, inexpensive and does a wonderful
job on matte papers up to 8x10. I tend to print 5x7 on this printer though.
I'm also just
My comment is based on the stability of silver versus dye. Is BW more
likely to get mold versus color transparency or negatives?
Tony Sleep wrote:
wrote:
There is nothing like BW negatives for longevity.
You think? I'm scanning negs from 20-30 years ago before it's too late.
snip
Hi lists,
That is interesting since SCSI is a simple thing to add to a PC, you
have to wonder why they went GPIB, which is a rather slow interface used
for electronic instruments. National Instruments more or less owns the
GPIB business. There is a very hidden form on their website where you
Ken McKaba wrote:
I have been out of touch with photography for a few years
and recently dusted off my old Rolleiflex 6x6 to find
myself in the digital age. I am trying to make sense of
how serious photography is done in the 21st century.
I've brought the issue up to various people and
Ken McKaba wrote:
I have been out of touch with photography for a few years
and recently dusted off my old Rolleiflex 6x6 to find
myself in the digital age. I am trying to make sense of
how serious photography is done in the 21st century.
I've brought the issue up to various people and everyone
Hi,
I find ink jet prints look a bit odd in the dark areas as there is more
ink plopped on the page.
Have you seen a quad-tone/Piezography print, as opposed to a black-only
inkjet print?
I haven't seen any BW quads.
Then, I suggest you do ;-)
I'd like to understand why you use Tri-X
Austin, I noticed you use Leafscan 45.
I stepped up into meadium format (6x7) about a half year ago and then
my main headache became the inability of quality scanning at my home
convenience as I used to with my 35mm by Nikon IV ED.
Flatbeds are out of question, I've tried a few of recent machines
(1) Print digitally on matte papers with a matte black. The 2200 class
of printers does
a great job on a good matte paper (EEM or a cotton fiber paper). Good
print longevity
as well. For glossy, try a paper like Epson Semi-Gloss. Ideally, you'll
want glop
(Epson 1800) or a coating spray like
Hi Alex,
Austin, I noticed you use Leafscan 45.
I do.
So I begun to consider selling my leg and arm (and also my wife, car,
house and children) :-) for Nikon LS9000 till encountered people's
recommendation to go Leafscan 45 route instead.
What can you say about this one ? Can it still
Bosko Loncarevic wrote:
Is there a list archive that I could consult before asking a question(s)
that may have been thoroughly discussed in the past?
Hi,
Mail headers contain the archive address, posting and unsubscribe addresses
and instructions. Unsubscribe info also appear in the mail
Roger that.
Scott
LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
All those may be true; but not everyone wants to print on matte. Those
that print on glossy can print with glop if they are using the R800 or
R1800, otherwise, that may not be an option even if it were a solution.
Spraying the prints is also another
Actually that was my post (Gary). I agree that all software isn't alike,
but the RIP is just another way of using software. There is no reason
to believe either method is superior. However, you already own the
computer, and because a PC is COTS, the cost of the hardware is
certainly going to be
Hi,
I know this question has been asked in the past (and slightly
off-topic) but times change so I'd thought I'd raise it again.
I recently read an article about a photographer who started
out with digital (Fujifilm S2 Pro) but then switched to
medium format for colour and to an Olympus XA
Not sure how it works on a Nikon, but on my Sprintscan 120 Vuescan
compensated for the orange mask on color neg by altering exposure
times, rather than just twiddling bits, so scanning BW as raw color
neg gave me three differently exposed channels to combine as needed.
Almost enough to save pushed
I work mostly in color, but I am interested to know where I might find a
comparison of Epson 2200 BW with Quadtone BW. I read a review once that
thought very highly of the 2200 BW. Does anyone think it would be
worthwhile to set up my old 1160 with Quadtone, rather than simply use the
2200?
My brother has the old XA, for many years now, and the Canon 350D, at about
30 oz with lens, must be about 4x the mass, and it isn't going to fit in
anybody's shirt pocket.
Berry
On 4/25/05 7:34 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote
The small-sensor
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So my question is this: have digital compacts reached the stage yet where
they can give film compacts like the XA a run for their money on image
quality? I'd be interested in hearing any experiences list members may have
on this.
The small-sensor cameras have been
So my question is this: have digital compacts reached the stage yet where
they can give film compacts like the XA a run for their money on image
quality? I'd be interested in hearing any experiences list members may have
on this.
As far as I can tell, for pixel counts, yeah, they can. 8.2 MP is
While I do not usually engage in this sort of comparative reviewing of
products nor in the recommending of them, I will make two general
observations from my experiences, which need to be taken with a grain of
salt since they entail my biases and preferences.
First, even at today's stage in
You should check out the PeizographyBW Black and White inkjet printing
system from Jon Cone (and inkjetmall.com). It is really amazing. No
bronzing, no metemerism, no fading, rich deep black and long tonal
scale. It is really, really very good.
LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
snip
First, even at
I am familiar with it and have heard good things about it from users; BUT
that is one of the sorts of things that I consider as the EXTRA WORK
required to remedy the issues I am speaking of. :-) First, I believe that
you almost need to have a dedicated printer for B W printing to use it:
second
I think the solution is to have BW ink in different levels of blackness
(if that is the correct term), but the inkjetmall solution is just too
expensive for me.
I'm not sure how the RIP will solve the problem since you would still be
making BW with color ink.
Laurie Solomon wrote:
I am familiar
Hi Laurie,
I am familiar with it and have heard good things about it from users; BUT
that is one of the sorts of things that I consider as the EXTRA WORK
required to remedy the issues I am speaking of. :-)
It's not an issue if you do a couple of things...as you touch on...
First, I believe
You should check out the PeizographyBW Black and White inkjet printing
system from Jon Cone (and inkjetmall.com). It is really amazing. No
bronzing, no metemerism, no fading, rich deep black and long tonal
scale. It is really, really very good.
Hi Lotusm50,
Do you have the original, or
I think the solution is to have BW ink in different levels
of blackness (if that is the correct term)
That appears to be one type of solution to some of the issues; another
potential solution is to have not just different densities of black but
different shades of gray inks. However, this
I have no dispute with anything you have said below.
Original Message
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Austin Franklin
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 7:10 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Compact Cameras
Hi Laurie,
I am familiar with it
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm waiting for some company to release a really capable small digicam with
a decent APS sensor, a truly superb lens (maybe a prime in the 40mm equiv.
range) and I guess some kind of deluxe EVF. Optical RF based VF is probably
hoping for too much :-) I imagine something
As for bronzing, just print matte papers and it's a non issue. I have used
EEM and Photo Rag with fine results.
For glossy, folks print with glop or spray the prints with Print Shield
which reportedly does a good job minimizing bronzing.
Scott
LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
I think the solution is to
I had the original plug-in system, but I now have the current ICC system.
Austin Franklin wrote:
You should check out the PeizographyBW Black and White inkjet printing
system from Jon Cone (and inkjetmall.com). It is really amazing. No
bronzing, no metemerism, no fading, rich deep black and
All those may be true; but not everyone wants to print on matte. Those
that print on glossy can print with glop if they are using the R800 or
R1800, otherwise, that may not be an option even if it were a solution.
Spraying the prints is also another option for glossy or even non-glossy
prints;
David,
I am sure that we would all like to know the answer or at least get
additional information as to the difference between RIP and the print
driver. However, I am equally sure that software is NOT ALWAYS
software. Some software is better than other software; some software
has features and
Okay, off topic, but it is my filmscanner mail that is disappearing.
I just read today's new filmscanner email, then checked my deleted items
folder. None of the previously missing emails were there, and I think I had
checked that before anyway. But then I went back to my in box, and the
My solution is to use as little microsoft software as possible. Hence:
http://www.mozilla.org/
Firefox instead of IE, and Thunderbird instead of Outlook. You can
completely get rid of outlook, but you are forced to keep IE if you
expect to download software from the Microsquish website. I have a
Thanks to all for their advice. I've never tried a Vuescan raw scan or
a positive scan, so I'll be giving those a try. Already, Vuescan is giving
me a nice flat scan that I can tweak.
Me'thinks I'll be delving deeper into the myriad options Vuescan's provides
from here on out.
Now I've also got
Actually, I am using Entourage here at home, which is part of the MS Office
suite, not Outlook. Sorry I said Outlook, which I am using at work.
Berry
On 4/22/05 7:40 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My solution is to use as little microsoft software as possible. Hence:
One advantage of chromogenic BW film over the silver stuff ;-) is
that you can use IR cleaning methods on the scan (dICE, etc).
Art
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's been my experience that chromogenic film is even harder to scan
since it has an extremely wide latitude. I guess the problem here
Hi Art,
I use MS Entourage. But I'm guessing it was somehow my mistake, because
only the filmscanner emails were missing as far as I know. Bizarre.
Berry
On 4/22/05 7:19 AM, Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just out of interest what email client do you use? (I think I want to
stay
I only get messages very, very sporadically. Is there traffic on
this list that I'm missing?
I'm desparate for tips on getting better scans of BW film on
a Nikon Coolscan V, understanding Nikon's autoexposure vs.
what I might do myself and so forth.
Scott
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a
Yes, I actually have purchased a license for Vuescan and
haven't given it enough attention, still using NikonScan and
the Coolscan V for most of my work.
I develop my own BW negs and then scan them (no darkroom).
I shoot mostly HP5+ and FP4+, with occasional TMZ. I dev almost
exclusively with
I've got the Kodak kit to do positives from BW film, but I haven't got
around to using it. I'd like to try the set on Macophot 820C, which is a
very fine grain extended red film.
Vuescan has a raw option. By raw, I mean really raw, i.e .no
correction what so ever. I'd suggest doing a raw scan and
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
First, if you haven't seen this page, take a look: it's got lots of sample
scans.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/
(1) I haven't been so lucky with FP4+, where the highlights are blown
routinely even with extremely conservative development, as in
HC110 dilution H
(3) As I experiment and futz, I wonder exactly what Nikon's auto-exposure
is doing to the raw scan results. I can't find any documentation. In my
film
speed scans, I can see that AE is trying to control the highlights, but
I don't
know how AE is doing this. Is it *only* the equivalent of a curve
When I checked my in box this morning, all of my filmscanner mail for the
last 3 months was gone. Perhaps I did something...maybe just losing it, my
mind, that is. Anyway, just in case someone expected a response from me to
something I haven't seen...
I have a different problem. My last two posts never showed up.
Berry Ives wrote:
When I checked my in box this morning, all of my filmscanner mail for the
last 3 months was gone. Perhaps I did something...maybe just losing it, my
mind, that is. Anyway, just in case someone expected a response
I researched this after getting your email, and it appears you are correct.
It is very misleading when you go to the Kyocera web site. But as you
probably already know, Zeiss quit manufacturing Contax in 1966, then
contracted with Yashica to do that in 1974, to hold down costs. Then
Kyocera
http://www.shutterbug.com/features/0405theevolution/
Jawed
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
This is off topic, but I expect there are some other Contax folks out there.
I was disappointed to hear that Kyocera is quitting the camera business,
including Contax. I read some rumors that Sony might be interested. But I
like the Kyocera/Yashica/Contax/Zeiss association, with their quality
Hi All,
I have just purchased a Bronica SQ body from ebay (after using a Mamiya 645
at college). Wow - seeing those images on the enlarger!
Obviously my Scan Dual will not do MF negs, and I have seen favourable
reviews of the Epson 4180 (which does 120 roll film). Has anyone used this
scanner?
From: Roy Harrington [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A while back I had a similar difficulty with some other scanning
software.
I found that by scanning the film as a positive rather than a negative
the software's notion of black/white points was much better --
especially in
the thin regions of the negative.
From: Austin Franklin
BTW, why would the stepper motor pitch change (if you mean pitch as it
relates to distance, not to sound...if it relates to sound, then, well,
forget I asked ;-), which I assume, means it changes resolution?
I mean audio pitch.
--
Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco
From: Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At this stage, you don't expand anything. You set your setpoint so that you
only USE the valid image data within the overall range. Therefore, say,
your scanner is 10 bits, and therefore gives you 0-1023...and your image
data occupies the range of data
On 25/3/05 17:33, Berry Ives [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Still waiting for the right DSLR for me...
Berry
What will make a DSLR the one for you?
Just curious.
Brad
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL
So, is that full frame 35mm or full frame 645? 25 mp full frame
35mm size is a tall order. How long do you expect to have to wait for
such a thing?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For me, the color mask has to go. Some sort of Foveon like technology is
needed. I'd like to see the pixel spacing
That would be 35mm if I did the math right. I'm guessing more than 5
years and less than 10. When my old 35mm developed a shutter timing
problem which I deemed not worth the money to fix (about a year or so
ago), I looked at the DSLR market and decided I just wouldn't be happy
with the results, so
Hi Brad,
I think I would be satisfied for a while at least with 200ppi on the largest
prints I can make on a 2200 printer, let's say 12 x 16, which works out to
about 8 megapixels. Since Olympus has an 8 megapixel CCD on the E300
Evolt already, I am waiting for them to put it on an E-3, or
A while back I had a similar difficulty with some other scanning
software.
I found that by scanning the film as a positive rather than a negative
the software's notion of black/white points was much better --
especially in
the thin regions of the negative.
Roy
On Saturday, March 26, 2005, at
Hi Roy,
Did you not have the ability to manually set the setpoints with this
software?
Regards,
Austin
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Roy Harrington
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2005 11:11 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:
It's been several years, but I seem to remember that when I got my
Nikon 4000ED filmscanner they were claiming a Dmax of somewhere
around 3.5 to 4.0, but I measured it (by scanning a Kodachrome IT8
target slide and examining the greyscale separation) at around 2.1
to 2.9 (don't remember the exact
Hi Berry,
Austin, with respect to your last sentence, isn't the point
really that the
contrast range of negative film is greater than slide film?
I'm not sure what contrast range is, but I know what density range is.
Slide film has less exposure latitude, and records on a higher density
When you scan negative film, the histogram is narrow. So I would say
negative film has a low dynamic range.[Yeah, I know slide and negative
film is really the same.]
I think I see the confusion here (or specmanship). The dynamic range of
a dataconverter is related to the number of bits, since the
In evaluating a film scanner, one should consider its dynamic range. How
deep can a scanner reach in and pull out shadow details from a very
contrasty slide, for example. What about one that might have been
underexposed a bit as you tried to keep from blowing out highlights?
I've seen some
From: Andrew Skretvedt
In evaluating a film scanner, one should consider its dynamic range. How
deep can a scanner reach in and pull out shadow details from a very
contrasty slide, for example. What about one that might have been
underexposed a bit as you tried to keep from blowing out
subscribe filmscanners_digest
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
this is for movie cameras btw not still images.
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 20:14:36 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://jcs.mil/RCC/manuals/Assessment_Digital_Optics/Assmt_DigOptics.pdf
The Tonopah Test Range is where they film planes and missiles doing
fly-bys for analysis.
Yes, I realize that, but the film analysis does compare still camera
film such as provia 100f, velvia, etc. I gather the DOD does frame by
frame analysis, so think of it more like a series of stills where
failure is not an option. The lack of high resolution digital movie
cameras more or less
try using it without ICE and see what happens
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
Send the scan back to the repair shop (I assume it is Nikon) and ask
them what's wrong.
Peter Marquis-Kyle wrote:
In the hope that someone might still be reading this list, I'll ask a question:
The context: My Nikon LS-30 scanner has just come back from a long stay in the
repair shop, where it
Dieder Bylsma wrote:
try using it without ICE and see what happens
Thanks for the suggestion, Dieder. I just did a test with and without ICE -- it
made no difference to the waves.
Any other ideas?
Peter Marquis-Kyle
Lotus M50 wrote:
Send the scan back to the repair shop (I assume it is Nikon) and ask
them what's wrong.
Thanks, I will be taking the scanner back to the repairer (who is independent of
Nikon, but is authorised and recommended by the Australian Nikon importers) and
ask them to fix it properly.
At 7:58 PM +1000 3/10/05, Peter Marquis-Kyle wrote:
In the hope that someone might still be reading this list, I'll ask
a question:
My Nikon LS-30 scanner [snip] was fitted with new scanning and
focussing stepper motors [and] now produces files with a weird
waviness. [snip] What could be causing
I'm not claiming to be an expert on scanner mechanics and electronics,
but to me this looks like it could come from several sources. From a
strictly mechanical basic, it could be something very wrong with the
mechanism that moves the film carrier, causing it to be shifted from
slide to side as it
I'll go along with the carrier moving the film being the problem. The
stepper motor should be just applying force to a platform that can only
move back and forth. It shouldn't be able to cause a wobble. The stepper
only has 4 unique patterns in how it is energized electronically, so you
would
Peter Marquis-Kyle wrote:
I'm annoyed to find it now produces files with a weird
waviness. See the effect here:
http://www.marquis-kyle.com.au/mt/000689.htm
Throw it back at the service technician, it clearly hasn't been tested or
repaired as properly as they stated. Unless there's a transit
Tony Sleep wrote:
Throw it back at the service technician, it clearly hasn't been
tested or
repaired as properly as they stated. Unless there's a transit screw
done up
somewhere still :)
It's going back to the shop as soon as I can arrange it. No, it's not a transit
screw...
I'd hazard a
I second that emotion - I don't consider myself old at 55, nor a fogie, but
thank you - I just picked up a PS digital for current use, but for fine art
and long term, I'm still using film.
Maris
Peter Marquis-Kyle wrote:
And thanks (again) for keeping
this list
going -- the dwindling crew of
I hope everyone considers this a positive opportunity and not spam...
If in doubt you should delete now.
We had a special promotion we were using at trade shows. Anyone who
bought at least three of our professional Photoshop plug-ins got a
Nikon LS-2000. So I'm extending the same offer to our
Hi Simpy
Very nice input, thanks for giving your time this way
I don't have much time by the moment, but I'll think about your workflow
I'm also a Minolta (Multi pro) / Vuescan / color negs user
At first glance your PS8 plugin/workflow combo must be a real
improvement, first for all Fuji films,
Happy New Year to Everyone!
I have learned a lot from this group and I enjoy monitoring the
traffic. In addition to scanners I need some information on Photoshop
compatible plug-ins. Can anyone recommend a forum that is comparable
to this one relating to plug-ins? I've found quite a few with an
Hi Chris,
I used to load my black and white reels in a closet with a towel
blocking the light from the floor gap. Sometimes it got hot and my
hands would get sweaty and then the film would get sticky. Worse was if
the reel wasn't fully dry because I was running a bunch of film through,
or
Hi,
I have just seen an ad for the Microtek Scanmaker i900.
I have two questions: Has anyone actually used this scanner or heard
anything definitive about it for scanning 35mm slides?
Does the included Silverfast Ai6 work with BOTH reflective and transparency
scans?
Thanks,
Frank
Hello
to get the new year going...
I have lots of transparencies that have been scratched at the printers
in the past, what are the best programs/techniques for cleaning these
up, post scanning with a Nikon Coolscan LS-2000.
happy new year.
--
Paul Roberts
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello
to get the new year going...
I have lots of transparencies that have been scratched at the printers
in the past, what are the best programs/techniques for cleaning these
up, post scanning with a Nikon Coolscan LS-2000.
All depends upon how many 'lots' are and how fussy you are willing to
Happy New Year All,
I have finally got round to developing my first B+W films - an Ilford FP4+
an HP5+.
I have viewscan, and many webpages recommend different ways of scanning B+W
negs. Does anyone here shoot Ilford B+W, and scan regularly? What settings
do you use?
I intend to shoot a lot of
Polaroid still has their free dust and scratch remover software (DSR) on
their website:
http://www.polaroid.com/service/software/poladsr/poladsr.html
I've found it to be pretty effective. It won't work with compressed
.tif files, though, so you need to resave those files with the
compression
Congratulations on developing your first BW film. I hope it was fun.
I can't do it anymore due to a sulfite allergy, but it was usually an
enjoyable part of the photographic process, especially once I figured
out how to load the reels correctly in the dark ;-)
Some of the nature of the answer
Hi Art,
I sat there for most of the christmas break practising loading a film onto a
reel in the changing bag. The pressure seems to double when you know it
isn't a test film in there anymore (but a real one!).
I'm using a Minolta Dimage Scan Dual (original ~2400ppi) dedicated film
scanner,
Laurie Solomon wrote:
Art,
Bob clarified what he was referring to in a later post, which you may have
seen. The gist of it was that the post on this list was a repost of a
response he made on another list where the original poster said that they
were essentially cropping a smaller
PD drives were a precursor to the RW technology. They both read CD-ROMS
and could read and write to PD disks. The name came from Phase-change
Disk and was invented by Panasonic. I still own two drives and too many
disks. The disks held up to 650 megs, and were the same size as CD-ROMS
or other
Maybe it should have been called larger file scanning or Larger format
output scanning?
It would be nice to know which scanners did what when lower resolution
modes are selected.
My UMAX Astra 1200S (Flatbed) definitely, at least in the direction of
the scan head, doesn't scan full optical if
Art,
Bob clarified what he was referring to in a later post, which you may have
seen. The gist of it was that the post on this list was a repost of a
response he made on another list where the original poster said that they
were essentially cropping a smaller portion of an image from a larger
601 - 700 of 17967 matches
Mail list logo
