Glad to see us back on the road!!
Austin Smith wrote:
There's been very little traffic on the forum lately. I don't think that
there's any particular reason.
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL
Stan,
Can you post an image somewhere on the web? Or send me an image (not
too big) at
[EMAIL PROTECTED]?
Regards,
Pat Cullinan, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When scanning high contrast Velvia transparencies, I am seeing detail loss
in the shadows along with areas that just look muddy brown
if the lenses are very good quality
Diffraction limitations begins take effect earlier with the design of smaller lenses
for a smaller format.
Kinderst regards,
Pat Cullinan, Jr.
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED
Robert Meier wrote:
--- Pat Cullinan, jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I had been a believer in the proposition that multiple jpeg saves
would
degrade an image, but after reading a notice to the contrary in one
of the
trade mags, I did my own trials and now I save and resave jpegs which
Mark Otway wrote:
This isn't so, Mark. While you're editing an image is PS,
no jpeg processing is performed. Your'e perfectly safe. The
jpeg processing occurs only when you save the image to a jpg
file, and even then virtually no further degradation takes
place, believe it or not
My SS4000 was having that well-known problem where it would grind
away incessantly and refuse to accept any film holders.
I got the free brush from Polaroid, and that kept the problem at bay for
a few weeks, but it came roaring back with a vim, and now I can't get
the
scanner to stop its
hoping Polaroid will take pity on my poor soul and fix it pro bono.
Pat Cullinan, Jr.
New York
Keith Wiley wrote:
This gadget made this forum some time ago. It's name is the SprintScan 4000
Cleaning Brush. The instructions begin with: Maintain peak performance
from your Polaroid SprintScan 4000
to clean whatever needs to
be cleaned. What areas
might be cleaned?
Has anyone had experience with this problem?
Thanks and best regards,
Pat Cullinan, Jr.
.
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED
Is RDRAM a better choice for systems used for scanning and
processing large 2d image files?
The PC mags report recently (maybe Nov-Dec) that RDRAM is only a few
percent faster than DDR. It's no surprise that Dell got off the RDRAM wagon.
RDRAM is much, much more expensive than DDR. A gig
