Major A wrote:
> Art,
>
> So this is where the German language is now going. I know that this is
> a word that is often misspelt, but only the internet allows people to
> write "entlich" without being corrected. Knowing what the correct
> spelling is (I lived in Germany for 18 years and did mo
And give yourself each 30 paces, a six iron, and wait until high noon!
Art
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Take it off line.
>
> Bill Kennedy
> Austin, Texas
>
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'u
Regarding your inability to get 5.5 to work. Do you have Silverfast on
your system? Some people have been reporting that the system used to
assure you have a valid scanner to authorize your ability to use
Silverfast is causing some conflicts with allowing upgrading Insight or
even causing the sc
I just though I'd mention that a number of used and new Polaroid SS4000
scanners have shown up on ebay. One sold (used) for $450 US. There is
also an Microtek Artixscan 4000T for sale over the next few hours.
Some have SCSI cards and software.
For people seeking these units, you might be able
As a result of your interest in this scanner, I went to have a look at
one last week. I did not have a chance to try it, only to look it over
from a strictly physical standpoint.
There are some things I like about it (based upon the specs) and some I
do not.
The spec that impressed me is that i
I don't know the exact cause of your problem, and you didn't mention the
platform you are using.
Although your crashing is probably not caused by this, I would suggest
you remove Insight 5.0 and upgrade to version 5.5, which has a few extra
features (it is available on Polaroid's website). Also
The Elite is supposed to have better response in the shadows than the
Dual II as a result of the higher bit depth A/D conversion.
When you speak of the dark areas of the neg, do you mean the areas which
are dark in the positive result, or do you mean the areas that end up
light on the positive wh
Earlier versions of Photoshop had quite a few processes which worked in
8 bit/channel (24 bit) mode only.
Later versions included more and more processes that function in 16
bit/channel (48 bit) mode.
I use version 5.5, and it still doesn't allow for filters to work in 48
bit, and several other
Of the three, and yes, they all do provide 2.25x2.25" film scans, the
only one I would consider is the SS120, especially for real B+W films
(as opposed to chromogenic c-41 process films).
Both the Minolta and Nikon have dice (IR cleaning) which does not
function with true silver based B&W films.
Your choice makes "some" sense, because you aren't shooting B&W film,
although the scan times or potential banding and poor DOF still are
there no matter which film stock you use.
Although the person asking didn't state which B&W films his client is
using, if it is true B&W, and not chromogenic C
Just out of interest, how does this compare to the speed when not using
borderless mode (still using the USB 2.0 interfacing)
Art
David J. Littleboy wrote:
> Just a follow up to a previous note in which I complained about Epson 950C
> print times for full-bleed A4. Using USB 2.0, it's blindingl
Hi Jim,
I think your circumstances demand dICE, no question about it!
In fact, dICE was invented with you in mind ;-)
I think you will admit that your situation is more an exception than
rule, but I could not come up with a valid argument against the logic of
your considerations. Get a model w
Hi Vasilis,
You can always try reinstalling the software and the firmware in the
scanner. The film carrier is heavier, and if something is not grasping
the carrier tightly enough, it may slip more easily than the slide carrier.
If there is any slippage, the calibration will be delayed because t
I'm unfamiliar with this problem, but I suspect your neg film carrier
has developed a problem. Make sure the track on the bottom is clean or
grim and grease. If you have not been using the little brush (which
either should have come with the scanner new or should have been offered
to you ages ag
David J. Littleboy wrote:
>
> It seems to be between the Canon 9000 (dye-based inks) and the pigment ink
> Epson 2100, 2200, or 4000 (same printer: the only difference is where you
> buy it). The Canon (as I understand it) doesn't do full-bleed A3. However,
> I'm finding the Epson 950C _very_
27;t yet
> had a chance to check it out.
>
> Is there any documentation available for the plugin version? I did see the
> help files for the standalone version but it seems rather sparse.
>
> Thanks...
>
> Tom
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
&g
Look at it, but don't necessarily buy it ;-)
The Minolta Multi Pro has received overall good reviews, but it does
suffer from the same problems all the Minolta recent scanners seem to...
exaggerated grain, dust and scratches and somewhat less effective IR
clean up.
But ultimately "Ops" is right
I don't know if you are using a Mac or a PC and I don't know how much
dust and scratching you have to deal with.
If you are using a PC, may I suggest before you sell your Minolta Dimage
II that you consider downloading Polaroid's dust and scratch filter,
which is currently free of charge and try
Are you sure this isn't a result of the different focal points of
different colors?
You've probably noted that infrared, for instance, has a fairly large
difference in focal point than the visible spectrum (the offset is
indicated on most lenses as a red line or dot). This holds true for the
vis
AIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 4:16 PM
> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Polaroid Dust and Scratch Removal
>
>
>
>>Art, you curmudgeon,
>>
>>I for one read and respect your posts, as they are intelligent if lengthy.
>>But I have to take i
Doesn't Photoshop work with WinNT?
If so, you can surely use the plug in.
Or have we changed subjects and I'm confused as to what the reference is
now... ;-)
Art
Eric wrote:
> Bummer that there isn't a version for WinNT, either. That's one of the
> reasons I went with Polaroid.
>
>
> Eric
>
I have not installed the release version of this software yet, but I
worked with it in several versions in beta for months, and spent many
long nights helping it along to its final version 1.0.
This software is not a replacement for IR cleaning, but then again it
doesn't really need to be on a Po
It would appear Miegapixels is mega not functioning. I'm getting no
connections with either Netscape or I.E. for any of the links Chris has
posted.
Art
Simon Lamb wrote:
> Is this list an advertising forum for Megapixels? It is good that
> contribution can be made regarding comparisons betwee
It is more the other way around. Microtek makes the SS4000 and SS4000+
for Polaroid, and they are basically the same scanner with different
firmware and software.
The Artixscan 4000f was available some months after the Polaroid SS4000.
Same for the SS4000+ and Artixscan 4000tf. Polaroid has deci
I just noticed today (and I have no idea how long it has been there)
that Polaroid UK is advertising a major price reduction on the SS4000
to 599 pounds. I have no idea if that is pre or post VAT, but it seems
cheaper than the price you found, which seems to imply the price
reduction is recent.
I just noticed, for any UK residents, that Polaroid UK is showing the
SS4000 for sale with a 599 pound list price.
It seems to be a still active product there.
Art
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Hi Ed,
To my knowledge, you will be hard pressed finding this scanner new.
Polaroid sold off the stock in their warehouse just prior to the SS4000+
coming out. They also were liquidating them to bring in some money
during their Chapter 11 proceeding.
At that time, the SS4000 scanners were selli
Hi Laurie,
Sorry for the misappropriated quotes. It was bad editing on my part. I
was trying to respond to your questions about the several different
measures being used, but I fear I might have further confused the
matter, as I was trying to convert it all into ppi, rather than lpi.
Am I then
Fair enough. I still tend to believe there is more than 4000 dpi in
medium to low speed films. Or at least that there is more than the 4000
dpi captured by prosumer scanners, which might not be a true 4000 dpi.
Otherwise we wouldn't need drum scans anymore.
Now, don't get me wrong, I think 4000
Austin,
You regularly chastise people for using inaccurate or incomplete terms.
Shall we discuss "depth of FIELD" versus "depth of FILM" as an
example, in spite of the fact that EVERYONE knew what the people were
referring to? Yet you found it necessary to "parrot" out of some obscure
book not
How big?
Bigger than a bread box ;-)
Adobe suggests that you should have at least 3-5 times the amount of RAM
memory in your system as the image size to avoid needing the scratch
disk. SO, a gig of memory should be close to doing that. However, the
use of the history pallet in recent PS versio
As I recall it was someone who was trying to decide if he should now
jump in and buy a film scanner (now that they were at 4000 dpi) or wait
even longer (he had already waited for 3 years watching the film scanner
progression) until they got even higher resolution and better dynamic range.
So, th
Don't ask me why I am refereeing between these two, but I'll make one
stab at it.
Since both people are anal retentive, at least I shouldn't get any sh*t
on me ;-)
I believe what Anthony is saying is that it is rare that a 10 stop
difference would occur in adjacent areas of an image, not that a
If Bill gave everyone who bought all the other garbage OS's his company
has sold them previously a free copy of XP (and maybe compensated
everyone for the wasted hours and days and months of hardship as a
result of those bug-infected vermin he called software) I'd be much
kinder to him. Mr. Gates
Alan Harper wrote:
> I have been thinking of switching to Windows--I can't imagine that it is
> worse than this. (This is one of about 5 similar problems I am having due
> to flakey software and strange interactions between Mac OS X and Classic.)
>
Only 5, and you're complaining?
Any OS tha
Laurie Solomon wrote:
>
>>"4K" simply means 4000 (and 96) pixels across the 36mm film chip.
>>Actually, 2889.9ppi.
>>
>
The problem above is the direction of the film being measured.
A film recorder refers to the longer dimension as 4K, so the 4096 pixels
across, represents the approximate
Austin Franklin wrote:
>>
>
> T-Max 100 has a resolution rating of around 200 line pair/mm, that's over
> 10k samples per inch, and would be a file of APPROXIMATELY FOR EXAMPLE SAKE
> (since you are being anal about arithmetic ;-) ~10k x ~15k or ~150M pixels.
>
> Austin
>
The term Austin is l
I would ask Minolta if they have Win2000 drivers, and if so, I'd go that
route. Everything I have read indicates that at least for now, XP is no
deal. A lot of it's structure is based upon the NT OS, which is what
WIN 2000 is as well. WIN 2000, overall got reviews as one of the most
stable OS M
As odd as this might sound for a MS product, that is, in principle, all
that is involved. However, I have found it is usually wise when adding
hardware to a MS OS to rest your vocal cords for several days prior, in
case you require them for a session of screamed 4 letter words, when you
whole sys
atter than the SS120 when scanning it.
>
> There are not many lenses that have the resolving power of the Leica 90 AA
> and Zeiss 180 Sonnar.
>
> Tell mw what is a more valid test than using the exact same image in both
> scanners and I will give it a try.
>
> Simon
>
&
It would be a very large waste of that CCD size. A 10,000 element CCD
could make over a 10,000 dpi/ppi scan (at least in one direction).
10,000 divided by 2.5" (nearly medium format dimension) = 4000 (dpi/ppi)
The SS4000 probably uses a 4000-5000 element CCD.
Art
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> <
It's a good start, but their website needs a lot of corrections. SOme
links are dead ends. Several links for Minolta products point to the
first generation products when the source page indicates the second
generation products. The Minolta Dual II refers to Tony's review of the
original Dual, s
irror is indeed silvered in front. Nevertheless, I've managed
> to clean it without damaging it, as far as I can tell. Besides, what choice
> do I have? If the mirror gets dirty, what else can you do?
>
> ----- Original Message -
> From: "Arthur Entlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTE
This halo-ing is a likely result of hazy residue on either lenses or
mirrors as you suggest.
Streaking is more likely a result of dust on the CCD or calibration
problems.
Art
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
>>Also a general loss in "vibrancy" of
>>images if a general and even haze on it.
>>
>
> The s
I would assume all mirrors used in scanners are front surfaced. Front
surfaced mirrors are VERY delicate and easily scratched and should be
handled with the greatest respect.
Art
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>Rob writes ...
>>
>>
>>>A few months back I wrote asking whether anyone had seen very
>>
I would agree that this sounds like a failure of the calibration process
within the scanner. Was the CCD unit itself cleaned, or can it be
accessed? Is it possible some dirt/dust was transferred from the mirror
onto the CCD unit? Still more likely a calibration issue, especially if
sudden and e
I use Creator 4.0. on a Plextor 8X drive without buffer underrun
protection. I had a rate of failures with version 3.5 and 4.0 both with
this drive of about 25% until I changed to brand name disks. Since then
I have had a ZERO failure rate.
I always shut down all programs in my task bar prior t
This sounds very interesting. Can you step through the process in a bit
more detail? Which version of Photoshop are you using, and how does one
"Apply Image in Darken Mode", what menu items and tools are you using
exactly. I'm new to this approach.
Thanks,
Art
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I n
Hi Ted,
You're welcome.
By the way, I just live a good swim from you -
just outside of Victoria, BC
Art
Ted Bayer wrote:
> Hi Arthur:
>
> Thanks you -- this is very informative... and much appreciated.
>
> I use the Ted in Olalla signature because there is another Ted on the
> Leica Users Gr
Two comments:
1) Epson dye ink based printers always need good quality clay coated or
other specialized inkjet paper to provide the best quality result. If
you are after a printer than gives best results with standard bonded
paper, the HP will win, but the inks are sometimes "Velvia"
oversaturat
Since we are sliding into OT land, I'll just make this last short comment.
As compared to drives I've had previously, which were slower, and were
cooler.
The tech support guy mentioned to me that their new 10,000 rpm SCSI
drives run so hot that they had to incorporate heat sink fins into the
cas
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It would just gall me to spend that much on a scanner and still have to worry about
> focus. (I cut my teeth on a Minolta Elite which had fixed focus and yet was sharp
>over
> the whole frame.)
>
>
>
> Al Bond
A fixed focus scanner would likely be such because it
expensive
> scanners, such as the Flextight Photo (3 x 8000 CCDs/3200ppi) will produce
> more grain aliasing than the current crop of 3 x 10,000 CCDs/4000ppi
> scanners. If that is the case, why would anyone buy the Photo for example.
>
> Simon
>
> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
dickbo wrote:
> Just mount in glass and the problem ceases to exist, not only that your
> originals are better protected.
>
Most, if not all, photo archivists will tell you today that glass
mounting of slides is considered to accelerate aging due to chemical
off-gassing getting trapped betwee
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> So far, the only reference to the ss4000 Plus on dealers' websites is
just "coming soon" with a
> guestimate of cost between UKP 900-1000 (inc VAT). The price for the
4000tf is around the
> UKP800 mark, including a (Win98 compatible) Firewire card and Silverfas
Yes, exactly. He used color filters when shooting his exposures, used
dodging and burning, used toners, and at later times, used someone else
to print his work in the darkroom...
Heck, worst of all, he turned most of the world into black and white
Such deceit! Obviously, his prints can't b
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I am starting with a 4000ppi image with the scan being the same size as the
> slide when I scan in Vuescan. When I print in PS I go to Image Size and then
> change the image size to, say 8x10 with image proportions constrained and
> change the resolution to 360 dp
h no joy. Can anyone who has one
> say if a US model has a 230v selection or auto selection switch which would
> make a personal import viable?
>
> Regards
>
> Philip Elkin
> - Original Message -
> From: "Arthur Entlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <
What is the sound of a half joke?
A stifled laugh, perhaps?
Or maybe a hidden tear
We don't need Macs, we just need PCs that run the Mac OS, that all ;-)
Art
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Howard -
>
> I'm only half joking when I suggest that you keep the scanner, dump your Windows XP
> mac
Arthur Entlich wrote:
> Hi Harald,
>
> I expect little isn't written in stone with Polaroid's scanner division
That was supposed to read: "I expect little IS written in stone..."
Hi Harald,
I expect little isn't written in stone with Polaroid's scanner division
at this point. It is in the midst of being sold and the future of
distribution is unclear at best.
What might have been intended by the answers to your questions is that
Polaroid's European distributor might not
Enjoy the extra film rolls and processing you can invest in now.
I've had much worse horror stories with rebates than this.
The winner was a 6 month wait on a rebate that was supposed to take 8
weeks. That one took about 10 phone calls.
Art
Thomas B. Maugham wrote:
> Loyal Scanners:
>
> I re
Hi Tony,
I guess what I am saying is that I DO live right smack in the middle of
a Pacific Northwest Temperate Rain Forest (a highly endangered one, at
that), so yes, about 8 months of the year it is very damp. I use a
dehumidifier to keep the moisture down. One advantage is we get very
little
As I probably mentioned before, HP provides an ear syringe with their
S-10/20 series film scanners. It is a lovely dark blue.
Art
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 06:28:06 -0400 Julian Vrieslander
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
>
>>In practice, I find that my Bausch & Lomb ear s
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> Arthur writes:
>
>
>>The dust, or defect is above the jet streak
>>at the very top of the image. It is a gray
>>smudge, which seems to be dust or a defect in the
>>slide.
>>
>
> So there is. You must have spent a lot of time examining the sky. Remind
> me to shoot
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> Arthur writes:
>
>
>>On my monitor, there is some distinct, what
>>appears to be Newton Ring color distortion in
>>the sky of this scan.
>>
>
> Yes, I see it, now that it has been pointed out. I see another ring up near
> the condensation trail in the sky. They are
I'm assured this is just some sort of statistical abnormality, and not a
trend. ;-)
Art
Austin Franklin wrote:
> Art,
>
>
>>Slides have
>>certain advantages over negatives, even if the only one were that one
>>can look at the film and see the image shot rather than an inversion
>>with an orange
film, will you
promise me you won't use it? Being an old, tired issue, and all... ;-)
Art
Lawrence Smith wrote:
> On 4/17/02 5:09 PM, "Arthur Entlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>No it doesn't, and that's the problem, Dicko. Negative stock makes
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> For an example of a recent scan, see
>
> http://www.atkielski.com/Wallpapers/images/EiffelInvalidesPaper1600x1200.jpg
>
> This is a scan of a Velvia 6x6 transparency, ICE set to normal, no GEM or
> ROC, no other adjustments, and then tweaked in Photoshop (slight adju
So they cooked the film for you and then threw cold water on it to cool
it down afterward, eh?
Well, just call it an "artistic filter" permanently etched into the film ;-)
Art
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL
Hi Titis,
I took a look at your two scans (I'm biting my tongue not to make a
comment about the rhyme between "two scans" and your last name.) ;-)
Anyway, from what I can see, these two samples show two different problems.
You'll note the Scanwit lines are somewhat random in position and
densit
Hi Simon,
I am pleased you have brought these issues into the public list because
there are people here who have more experience with Insight than I,
especially in terms of how it functions with the SS120.
Further, I had another thought. It is possible that there are aspects
of the software tha
Hi Lloyd,
I'll ask the question that Simon may have anyway...
What platform are you and your friend using, Mac or PC?
Art
Lloyd O'Daniel wrote:
> I have the SS4000, but I have access to a friend's SS120. Your
> experience does not mirror his or mine. We both actually prefer Insight
> to Silv
Hi Al,
I tried to send this in pribvate mail, but it is claiming an illegal or
unknown alias...
I see you mentioned Insight 5.0. Although there has been mention that
shadow detail isn't improved with 5.5, if you have not done so, you may
wish to try 5.5.1, and also make sure that you have the m
david/lisa soderman wrote:
I saved one @2000ppi w/no ICE...and one @4000ppi
> w/ICE.
Just to clarify, does that mean we are looking at the non-dICE scan that
was scanned at 2000 dpi on the Nikon samples?
>
> Meanwhile... any thoughts, comments, questions or suggestions are warmly
> welcom
Berry Ives wrote:
> I can't obtain the Multi Pro image; just a white image.
>
> Berry
>
My browser (Netscape 6.2) didn't like opening it on a separate page (I
wanted to click between them), so I left the NIkon on the one browser
page and cut and pasted the URL into the other open browser pag
I didn't take the two samples into Photoshop yet and play with them and
do USM filtering, etc., but I did look at them closely.
The Minolta seems to be excessively contrasty, and the shadows block up
quicker than the Nikon. Take a look at the area under the blue-purple
flower, especially right n
Hi David,
Very interesting comparisons.
What I find particularly interesting is that the Minolta shows more
detail (including all the junk (DDSG-dust, dirt, scratches and grain))
than the Nikon does.
Have you attempted defocusing yet? The Minolta claims to be about 20%
higher resolution, 4800
In a word, yes, you get some advantage. For one thing, you get 4 bits
extra per color (RGB) which is a fairly major difference in the number
of colors produced. There are 8 bit, 10 bit, 12, 14 bit scanners, and
beyond. Photoshop uses the standard 8/24 and 16/48 bit. Of course,
Photoshop can't
in PS at 8 bit?
> Or in other words what are the advantages of scanning in 16 bit?
>
> Thanks a lot
>
> Titus
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Arthur Entlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 4:
I hope we are not going to have this same drawn out discussion about
using local processors versus using the processors available when we
travel, again. If so, how about I save you the time and just upload the
whole d*mn argument from last time. (actually I don't have it archived,
but I'm sure so
As Kennedy has been discussing, some defocusing may not be a defect, but
a way to lessen aliasing of high frequency detail. Most 4000 dpi
scanners probably do not need to defocus much to prevent aliasing, but
the Nikon may need a bit more due to the lighting type.
Art
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chest X-rays are some of the lowest used on people. I think they are
even less than an X-ray done for a tooth. In terms of danger to health,
chest X-rays, due to both the location, and the level of radiation
required, are of quite low risk to adults.
Pilots and flight attendants are probably at
Digital Cameras certainly have their place, and you'll get no argument
about it. It is just that an erasable reusable film would have many
advantages digital cameras do not. It is still the cheapest method to
temporarily (assuming it could be reused) storage method. When I go on
a shoot, or a l
Well, if digital cameras fulfilled all the criteria, then film would
have been gone a long time ago. Obviously, it still doesn't.
I haven't yet found a media card that stores the equivalent of 7400
megabytes (36-38 exposures at about 200 megs each), costs under $5, and
fits into a canister that
Arthur Entlich wrote:
That should read:
By the time most of us can afford audio equipment that actually has a
detectable difference from the mainstream, most of us (will) have ears
that can no longer detect it. ;-)
>
Since I inspired this thread by my question, I think I'll jump in here.
I think Jack was simply making a comment about the external most
surfaces (since those are the ones most in question in terms of whether
they would be able to be corrected via dICE). He was not implying that
the inner glass
By the time most of use can afford audio equipment that actually has a
detectable difference from the mainstream, most of us (will) have ears
that can no longer detect it. ;-)
Art
Owen P. Evans wrote:
> I find this to be the hogwash of audiophilia!
> I once was part of all of this snakeoil, smo
David Lewiston wrote:
> Can the customer use the developed film after processing?
>
Yes, to tie up your recyclable newspaper with.
I think I read the machine keeps your film. As I understand it, the
image degrades rather quickly after the "Pixel dust" is applied. I
believe I read that the
Jack Phipps wrote:
>
> You walk up to a kiosk and drop your exposed, undeveloped 35 mm film
> canister into our processor. The processor automatically extracts the tongue
> (not a simple task, a first in the industry we believe),
Can't speak of a fully non-assisted tongue "expressor" but our
Jack Phipps wrote:
> Actually, the Nikon 8000 has a diffuse light source.
>
> Jack Phipps
> Applied Science Fiction
That's one for Nikon, only half a dozen to go, and they'll finally have
it figured out ;-p
Art
--
The few people who still consider me sane are probably going to think me
unbalanced by the end of this posting.
Yes, Jack does indeed sell dICE. He signs his name with Applied Science
Fiction, which is indeed the company that owns the rights to dICE, ROC,
GEM, and a few other acronyms I can't th
Hi Jack,
I think, more than you may realize, I agree with you.
I think any scanner can benefit from the dICE trio, and I was being
quite straight with you when I said I respect what your company is doing
and the ingenuity of the concepts.
However, we seem to be mixing apples and oranges, somewh
Arthur Entlich wrote:
In my haste, I made a few errors which made reading this difficult:
It should read:
> If you can get a SS4000 for a good price, I would grab it. It was,
> and is, a great scanner. Both units are supported by Silverfast,
> both units can use the full fe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 19:14:19 -0500
>>From: "Hemingway, David J" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>>Gees Al, we introduced the 4000 Plus only weeks ago. How elderly can that be
>>
>
> He's referring to the old, now-obsolete, hard-to-fin
Sure, the SS4000+ is a very nice product, and if you're in that market
as a first time purchaser, or upgrading from a 2700 dpi scanner, you'll
be very happy with it. But, the SS4000 is no slouch. People who bought
it at closeout got the best buy in a prosumer film scanner available.
And even peo
ge content.
Art
Art
David Harris wrote:
> Art
>
> Please specify what you require of a sample scan, then
> I'll see what I can do.
>
> David
> --- Arthur Entlich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I
> can't refer to the Minolta Multi Pro because I
>
Simon Lamb wrote:
> I think this is a faulty unit and I am not sure, if this is the quality from
> Minolta, that I want to swap for another unit. I had a Coolscan LS30 for
> four years and never had a problem at all.
>
> Well, thanks for all your help Denis. I think I will give up now and de
I was listening to the news today, but only caught the tail end of this
story... I think someone here in BC was busted with many millions of
dollars (street value) of MS, Adobe and Corel counterfeit software that
he was selling both on line and through local buy and sell papers. He
was "producing
The curvature of film is directly related to the drying technique used.
("Air temperature" dry, force hot air dry, hang dry, loop over and dry,
etc.) Most of my dip and dunk suffer from a curve in the other
direction at the middle of the roll (frame 18-19-20) because the labs I
use all seem to be
301 - 400 of 1406 matches
Mail list logo
