At 09:57 AM 7/28/01 +0100, Steve wrote:
I've noticed PS is slow too. Worse still it doesn't compress well either -
try opening a file from Vuescan and then saving it with PS and it comes out
significantly larger.
Sorry, this doesn't sound right. For a given image,
a given file format, and
On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Lynn Allen wrote:
Not that I really want to comment on this at all, but I've found that if I
don't, maybe nobody will (too often, and not often enough). :-)
Given: That the stepper mechanism is accurate, and not just a piece of
trash...
Then: It would not matter
On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Stan McQueen wrote:
Last night my filmstrip holder for my old Microtek Scanmaker 35+ broke.
It's still (barely) useable, but I really need a new one. Does anyone have
any idea where parts for old Microtek scanners might be found?
I might have one or two spares. I
On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Chuck Phelps wrote:
Jeff Weir wrote:
I have a Sprint Scan 45 that is in need of a replacement bulb/tube. Is there
a supplier other than Polaroid that carries this particular lamp. The lamp
is 3.5mm in diameter and roughly 22.5cm long. There is wires connected
On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Austin Franklin wrote:
Can anyone give a reasonable explanation of how resonance can manifest it
self in the actual data from the scanner being incorrect? Resonance
certainly could cause micro distortion, but that is not what I believe we're
seeing. I'm not convinced
On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Lawrence Smith wrote:
Well, just when you think you've made progress the scanner fools you. On
further testing I started getting bands without making any adjustments.
This is one strange machine. One thing is consistent however, the banding
is much worse at 16x. at
On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, [iso-8859-1] Rob Geraghty wrote:
Lawrence wrote:
settings. Heres what I have discovered. If I make individual adjustments
to the RGB channels in Nikonscan the banding appears.
Does the banding occur in Vuescan output?
Vuescan, the cure for what ails you. g
On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, tflash wrote:
on 7/18/01 11:11 PM, rafeb wrote:
I've posted a few small scans from my 8000 ED at:
http://www.channel1.com/users/rafeb/scanner_test4.htm
Rafe,
I looked at your scans in PS, and they are impressive, but one thing I saw
raises a somewhat
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Robert Meier wrote:
Unfortunately, I do not have the email with the scan
anymore but it seemed to me that the banding happens
at constant pixel spacing. Therefore, I do not believe
that it is a problem with the CCD itself because it's
quite unlikely that the sensors
On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Tony Sleep wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001 16:26:51 -0400 (EDT) Raphael Bustin
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Can you honestly say that any one brand is more
or less prone to reliability or service headaches
than the others?
Nope. There's anecdotal reports
On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Lynn Allen wrote:
Oh, well, enough of this. We all know they exagerate.
I believe Minolta has carried this to its logical
extreme with their upcoming medium-format scanner,
claiming a 4.8 dynamic range -- presumably on the
basis of its 16-bit A/Ds. Do they suppose
On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Arthur Entlich wrote:
rafeb wrote:
I don't give a rat's ass about your observations
on this topic,
I stand behind my statements.
Apparently not, Art. You have yet to answer
my simple question.
Even with your nice expensive Nikon scanner, I STILL own a
On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Lynn Allen wrote:
Rafe wrote:
I'd be curious to know, among veteran film-
scanner users, whether there's any brand
loyalty at all. Anybody out there buy the
same brand twice?
I'm every bit as brand loyal as the brands (and suppliers) are loyal to me
and my
On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Stephen Kogge wrote:
So is it possible that your scanner is out running your system,
the scanner stops and has to back up. It could also be a similar
problem that the data rate from the CCD head is higher than what the
Scanner interface can handle and the
On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Dan Honemann wrote:
Is there an online tutorial/FAQ/glossary somewhere that shows image samples
of various digital artifacts (e.g., banding, grain-aliasing, jaggies, etc.)?
You mean, like a Madame-Tussaud's wax museum of
film scanner horrors? Sounds ghastly.
Just
On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Austin Franklin wrote:
Does Nikon have any web based support for the scanners? If so, what's the
URL? I did find NikonNet (real obvious that this is a link to support
;-/ ) and then NikonTech (very buried, and surrounded by a lot of stuff
that has nothing to do with
On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Austin Franklin wrote:
Just a thought. Do you get stop/start motion of the film carrier
because of
spooling, during the actual scanning process?
I understand your point, but...the scanner stops for every line anyway, it
has to...it's just a matter of how long it
On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Ian Lyons wrote:
For those interested, my colleague Michael Reichmann has just published his
initial impressions of the Nikon 8000ED. He compares it to the Imacon Photo.
http://luminous-landscape.com/nikon-8000.htm
Thanks for that link, Ian. Say, isn't Michael
On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Lawrence Smith wrote:
Nikon tech support advised me to send the unit in for service this morning.
They also said that they believed that service has been able 'fix' the
banding issue. They could not tell me however what they believed the issue
really was. They also
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Lawrence Smith wrote:
RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...It's really annoying.
Rafe said his looked different. Do you still have your SS120?
Lawrence
That's exactly the same as the banding I was getting.
Paul Wilson
The banding
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Terry Carroll wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, rafeb wrote:
Yes, but given the dearth of reasonably priced MF
scanners, the Epson 1640 really is a pretty remarkable
value.
Forgive what is probably a stupid question, but what's MF mean?
On this list, it means
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Tony Sleep wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001 08:18:17 -0400 rafeb ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
It's not my job to refute your unfounded
statements. You made the statement; YOU
provide the facts to back them up.
Not wishing to pour petrol on troubled waters, but
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Jawed Ashraf wrote:
May I just jump in here briefly and make an observation about the way Nikon
Scan 3.x works when scanning negatives?:
Negatives plainly have quite a high DMin. The curious thing is that Nikon
Scan doesn't tweak the black point at all when doing a
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Lawrence Smith wrote:
Seems pretty slight to me -
Perhaps but it shows up in prints. As my prints sell for hundreds of $ they
need to be perfect.
What magnification are we looking at in the zoom?
About 66%
Somebody was talking
about making the 8000
On Mon, 16 Jul 2001, Austin Franklin wrote:
I've also questioned Austin before (and agree with
your skepticism) that exposure times can be varied
willy-nilly with no effect on scan quality. This
is quite contrary to my experience with film
scanners and photography in general.
Not
On Mon, 16 Jul 2001, Austin Franklin wrote:
No, I disagree that I misrepresented anything. The conversation wasn't
about resolution, so what was the point of you bringing that up? It was
nit-picking, and not relevant to my comment. You don't need to chime in
with every little point. If
On Mon, 16 Jul 2001, tflash wrote:
on 7/16/01 5:29 AM, rafeb wrote:
You know what I hate most about the Leaf? It's that each stage of the
process before you get to the scan is a separate operation, with too many
dialog boxes.
Todd -- I'm not taking sides in your debate with
On Fri, 13 Jul 2001, Arthur Entlich wrote:
I'm looking over my Nikon lens chart here, which is admittedly a bit
outdated, but other than some very wide lenses (13mm, 15mm, 18mm, 20mm
and a fast 24mm) one 200mm, one 300 mm ED and one 105mm micro, no fixed
focus Nikon lens has more than
I can see where pros might feel that they
can live without ICE, particularly if film
processing is kept under very strict control.
For me, at least until quite recently (knock
wood) that was darn-near impossible.
I have been very impressed with ICE, in just
the few weeks that I've had to
On Fri, 13 Jul 2001, Lynn Allen wrote:
Art wrote:
Many moons ago, I was working on the concept of a system to allow a 35mm
frame to be projected on a flatbed scanner surface. This could, in
theory, allow for even a 600 dpi scanner to record a 35mm frame at about
4800 x 7200 ppi,
On Fri, 13 Jul 2001, Mikael Risedal wrote:
So what can we expect from Nikon LS 8000. Im thrilled to hear from Rafe and
Lawrence what they have discovered about
sharpness, curved film problem on a 6 x 7 cm slide or negative film.
There's no question in my mind that depth of field
(or is
Sorry, I should have made it clearer - from what I have read the Nikons
(2000 and 4000) have more noise than the SS4000.
Don't believe everything you read or hear. g
rafe b.
On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, Johnny Deadman wrote:
on 7/12/01 7:10 AM, Jeffrey Goggin at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think Kodak should buy out Polaroid.
If the two companies merged, what would they call the resulting entity?
Kodaroid? Kodapol? Polak? (ooh...)
er, Kodak
Paranoid?
On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, Peter wrote:
No, I've had no need. I've bought nearly $2000
worth of photo gear and accessories on eBay over
the last couple of years -- cameras, lenses, etc. --
and not had any problems with careless packaging
or items damaged in shipment.
To reiterate: I
On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, James L. Sims wrote:
I can't imagine that anyone would enjoy reading about the financial trouble of
an organization.
Unless, maybe, it was Microsoft, Intel, or Apple. g
rafe b.
On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, Lynn Allen wrote:
Art wrote:
It seems to me for some reason that most of the newer medium format
scanners manufacturers decided to forego the zoom lens approach
that Minolta has and continues to use with their Multi models,
and just basically use the same optics for
On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, Arthur Entlich wrote:
Jeez, I just can't win. You complain when I quote information gathered
from what others tell me and post, and magazine and other sources, and
then you complain when I provide information based upon my own
experiences... what's a guy to do? ;-)
On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, Lynn Allen wrote:
Someone has angered the Scanner Gods. I think it was Art. ;-)
Jeez, I thought Art *was* the Scanner God.
rafe b.
On Wed, 11 Jul 2001, Chuck Phelps wrote:
Is anyone using the Nikon 4000 on a mac with a scsi converter. I would
like to use Vuescan with this scanner but Vuescan will not work with firewire.
Is that a fact? I never heard that from Ed
Hamrick.
Vuescan recognized my 8000, over Firewire,
On Wed, 11 Jul 2001, Shough, Dean wrote:
I'd have bought a Polaroid SS4000 in the blink of an eye if it had the
same functionality.
I am waiting for Polaroid (or someone else) to release a 4000+dpi 35 mm
slide scanner with ICE^3. Looking at the current prices on the SS4000 ($950
On Wed, 11 Jul 2001, Lawrence Smith wrote:
Here's the latest. My SS120 is on it's way back to the vendor for a refund.
I am getting another 8000 tomorrow to try. Hopefully the banding issue will
be solved with this new one. It must be said that I REALLY like the SS120.
I was getting
snip
Thanks for the review, Howard. First one I've seen
on the list, other than Ian's.
I have no comments on Silverfast vs. Insight...
pick your poison, as they say.
I will be interested in hearing of any tricks
you come up with to deal with the bowing of
large negatives. Same problem
On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, S. Matthew Prastein wrote:
I'm new to all this, just getting my feet wet, and have a very basic
question about image processing software. It's clear, from all the
content here, that PS, and in particular PS 6.0, is the Rosetta stone,
an essential professional tool for
On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, Claudiu Falub wrote:
Many thanks to all who answered to my request. It seems this is one very
effective list. I downloaded the software and hope to solve my nightmare. I
really don't understand why a famous company (read Nikon) can produce such a
garbage (Nikonscan 3.0)
On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, Lynn Allen wrote:
It's clear to me that ICE nailed a couple of dust motes in the bottle
lettering, and that the Nikon scan is marginally sharper. But if the theme
is Italy, the warmer tones of the SprintScan come closest (even if the
original didn't). This, of
On Thu, 28 Jun 2001, Tony Sleep wrote:
Yes, C41, processed normally. ISO ratings are often a bit optimistic, and
an extra half-stop or so can help reduce grain and add separation in
shadow areas by adding some density. The overlapping dye clouds softens
the appearance of grain
On Thu, 28 Jun 2001, Tomasz Zakrzewski wrote:
snip
Test scans at www.imaging-resource.com also show that only after some
tweaking in the sanning program scans with good tonal separation in shadows
can be obtained. I'm puzzled. Can you comment on this Dmax matter?
In fact I don't care about
On Thu, 28 Jun 2001, Norman Unsworth wrote:
I'd appreciate any suggestions / recommendations for getting print results
that more closely resemble what I see on the monitor.
Here's my $ 0.02
Forget the color management stuff and learn to
look at the RGB numbers a bit while in Photoshop.
I
On Thu, 28 Jun 2001, Norman Unsworth wrote:
For Tony Sleep -
I really appreciated your workflow description, especially the part about
trying to use Vuescan settings that will capture all data on the slide /
negative. It's easy enough to lower the white point to ensure no clipping at
On 26 Jun 2001, Richard Starr wrote:
Leaf scanners occasionally turn up on Ebay for a reasonable price. What's with
them? Are they a good deal or a maintenence nightmare?
Consider that it's a 12-year old design,
and it originally cost well in excess of
$10K. That suggests (to me,
Austin wrote:
Do you think it would cost more to repair than, say, one of the new 4kSPI MF
scanners (like the Nikon of Polaroid) after warranty is up, that is? How
long is the warranty on the new scanners anyway? Can you get an extended
warranty?
Jeez, I haven't checked the warranty --
On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Victor Landweber wrote:
Filmscanner List --
I see that the latest PC Connection hard-copy mail-order catalog shows a
new, lower price of $2279 for the Nikon Super Coolscan 8000 ED (phone
800-986-2305). Their on-line catalog price is still $2989.
I saw this also
On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Hemingway, David J wrote:
[re: apparent LS-8000 price drop]
I checked as well, a misprint.
Whew, that's a relief. Hate to think I could
have saved $500 by waiting three weeks.
At that rate of decline, they'd be giving them
away by Christmas. g
I assume both the
On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Todd Radel wrote:
Or, at the very least, to at least have laid eyes on the product they're
supposed (alleged?) to be supporting! Case in point: the Acer techs who have
never seen a 2740, had no film scanners on their desks (or even in a nearby
lab) in which to
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Austin Franklin wrote:
My guess is you are not an electrical engineer, or you would know that LEDs
do have a life span. Because you haven't heard of them burning out, doesn't
mean they don't burn out. In fact, their typical MTBF is rated for 1000
hours.
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Julian Robinson wrote:
Hey let's keep this clean and vaguely accurate even if it is OT...
Austin went just a bit over the edge with that 1000
hour MTBF figure.
Having designed many circuits and systems around HP
LED displays, optocouplers, fiberoptic transceivers,
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Tony Sleep wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 04:58:54 -0400 rafeb ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Yeah, I've got it. What do you suppose I've been
raving about for these last couple of weeks ?? :-)
It hasn't gone unnoticed - you seem to be the only person in the world
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Stan McQueen wrote:
Fluorescents flicker at the AC line frequency--60 Hz in the US. This is
because, as you say, the fluorescent light is a plasma device. The
discharge turns on and off at the line frequency. It is not a continuous
discharge (either in time or in
I did a bit of google-searching on this topic and
came up with some interesting hits.
Unfortunately I can't cut/paste URLs into this
email program, but the search phrase was
scanner LED illumination.
Some interesting points...
1. A white paper from Kodak describes a scheme with
LEDs of
On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, Dan Honemann wrote:
Take a look at the Leafscan 45 sample vs. the Nikon ED 4000 about halfway
down the page at this site:
http://www.pytlowany.com/nikontest.html
One of us is hallucinating, or one of us is blind. I sure
don't see the astonishing difference
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, John C. Jernigan wrote:
I may be jumping into water over my head here, but I don't understand the
issue. What differences are we talking about here? Excellent output can be
obtained via either procedure. Personally, the only difference that seems
still unresolved (to
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Alessandro Pardi wrote:
Mmh... I think we're talking about different things: the red channel has
often the best contrast in *color* images, given the high percentage of blue
(skies, water) and green (grass) in nature, but that's not inherent to the
scanning process. If
On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, Arthur Entlich wrote:
You don't directly mention the size of the prints you wish to produce,
although you allude with the 870 printer something like 8 x 12 or
smaller. Unlike silver images, which simply have larger grain making up
the components of the image, without
On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, [iso-8859-1] Rob Geraghty wrote:
Rafe wrote:
Fuji Reala is beautiful. Kodak Royal Gold 100 isn't
bad, either. But Supra (100) is my current favorite.
I was under the impression that there was little if any
difference between the current generation Superia 100
and
On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, Yuri J Sos wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 06:47:38 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:
First off, Supra is a C41 print film. Superia,
as I recall, as an E6 positive film. Fuji's
equivalent to Supra might be Reala, perhaps.
Not so. Superia is a C41 colour negative film. Fuji
On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Tony Sleep wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jun 2001 10:20:40 -0400 Dave King ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
If the film
terms for the SS4000 didn't give you this, either the terms weren't
accurate, the scanner wasn't calibrated well, or your system's CM
wasn't set up
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, Shough, Dean wrote:
more specific method? I have the same problem when trying to extract the
most from some high contrast slides, and have not been really happy with
some of my multiple exposure scans for this reason.
Regards,
Julian
It's not too difficult
67 matches
Mail list logo
