-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Petru Lauric
Hi!
First, does the lamp have an auto shut off feature,
The SS4000 I have received did not have such a feature. There is a firmware
update though that supposedly fixes this problem.
Second, are
. These scanners are put
together by robots and people in clean rooms (in theory, at least) and
whenever they are opened, the risk of new dirt entering exists.
Art
Robert Meier wrote:
I have just purchased a CanoScan 9900. After installing the unit
I realized
that the glass on which the film/document
I have just purchased a CanoScan 9900. After installing the unit I realized
that the glass on which the film/document is placed is foggy. You can see
this best when the scanner light is on and look almost parallel to the glass
plate. The part closer to the back is more foggy then the other side.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Brentley Beerline
The Sony 4x plus minus drive is down to 239 here in
Silicon Valley after rebates and is a good deal. The
plextor will be 299 when it ships.
That seems quite a high price. You can get the
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Julian Robinson
Robert - I am confused. Can you tell me which implementation uses kakadu,
given you know it is fast? I thought the fnord thing was kakadu based, but
obviously I've got it wrong somewhere.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hum. Do you have a source for that? I dont believe that is
true, and will
have to think about your assertion. What is the source of the random
variations? I know there is some randomness in reception of photons,
simply because of
If the brush is dry and free of grease and the same is true for the dirt on
the mirror then it might work. But who knows what kind of dirt is on the
mirror. I would not take the risk of making it worse and possibly requiring
a very expensive trip to the repair center. On a camera it's not that
Here is what I would do. Find a good mini-lab that produces relative
constant results. Then if you have a print that didn't turn out well, need
an enlargment, have film where you know that prints probably won't come out
well in a mini-lab, etc then go to the pro lab.
Rob
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I agree, multistep downsampling can give a better image, than a single
downsample, at least in PS. I've done that for images that are
for the web
(100 PPI is what I target), and I believe they do look better.
Why are you targeting a
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
By
leaving the dpi at 2700 or 4000, is the file size larger than it
would be at
72dpi?
Not really. What your are doing is creating an image with a certain
dimension, i.e. 450x300 pixels. Then you set the dpi to for instance 4000
without
TH,
Firmware is the software that is running inside the scanner to make the
scanner run. It controls all the internal stuff like steper motor, light
source, etc. From a user's point of view the firmware is usually not
important unless you need some bug fixes.
Rob
-Original Message-
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Then Image - Image Size - change the resolution to 1/2 of the Resolution
shown, readjust the Document Size to what you want, click OK. It will be
downsampled by 1/2.
Continue doing this until the Resolution is what you desire.
Excuse
-Original Message-
If you want even a medium-sized
web site, then you'd be crazy to do it in plain HTML, because the
amount of
repetitive typing would be prohibitive, and the number of needless bugs
would be enormous.
Well, I write my own HTML and scripts BECAUSE I want to reduce
Hello All,
I have a Polaroid SS4000 which I did just setup on my new system.
Unfortunately, I have quite some problems. First when the driver for the
Polaroid was installed the system crashed with a blue screen. The second
time it did work, or at least seemed to work. Then when I start
Tom and All,
I am running W2k. My scanner is the SS4000, not SS4000 Plus. The SCSI card
is the one coming with the scanner. I believe it's an Adaptec 2940 or
something. No other SCSI devices are connected to the card. Termination
should be ok as I have used the same setup on a different
version 7.5.37 and with all the new features I
think after you do, you may toss the other two out. Beware the
7.5.37 needs
ASPI also.
Hope this helps,
Owen
- Original Message -
From: Robert Meier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 9:31 PM
Subject
-Original Message-
So, aside of asking for any observation regarding improving my
workflow - why is the sharpening so much more effective on the smaller
image?
In PS there are three parameters for USM. One of them is the radius. The
bigger the radius the more surounding pixels are
I have an i1 from GretagMacbeth for today. I am trying to calibrate my
Epson 1200 but have some questions. I would appreciate if somebody
could give me some input. So here is my question.
First I have to print a test target. I then scan this target in. With
these measurements a new printer
--- Robert Meier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Idealy, I could disable a
profile for printing the test target. Is this possible? If so how?
Is it 'same as source' that won't do any additional conversion? I
believe it is but I am not sure. I always used a standard profile form
my epson1200 and have
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Re-encoding *unchanged* data at the same compression setting
gives
no additional loss.
It does give an additional loss. Nevertheless, the additional loss is
very small, much smaller then what you lose when you store a tiff image
with the highest jpeg quality in
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe you are not correct, here. I have read in several accounts,
both
from people who have tried this experimentally and from people who
understand the theory of JPEG compression
Well, then it's probably because these people don't know how to do an
--- 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
aren't even maximum
--- Colin Maddock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The blacks need to be neutral before the whites are adjusted.
That is one thing I was always wondering about. When I use the factory
settings of my Sony 400PS and turn up contrast to 100% the blacks have
a red cast. The factory settings for 6500K are
--- Herm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
After further testing I
found out that
the Pentium had substantally faster memory throughput, but the athlon
was about
40% faster in math operations (integer and floating point
operations).. so
overall photoshop performance is not fully dependant on
--- Jeff Spirer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Having read the entire FAA regulations, I will point out that the
regulations have ALWAYS allowed for immediate suspension of the film
check
provision. The right to suspend is not in any way connected to
9/11.
Jeff,
can you provide a link to
It *IS* more unsafe to use RAID0. And MTBF *IS* additive.
No and no. I designed SCSI controllers and disk subsystems (for the
storage
division of one of the top computer manufacturers) for years, as well
as
tested disk subsystems. I know how MTBF is determined.
Seems like you have
Laurie,
spanning: The drives are cascaded. So if you have a 60GB and 80GB HD
you get a 140GB HD. Except that you are able to see one big HD there is
no advantage regarding speed, etc.
striping: Puts drives in parallel configuration. The smallest HD limits
the capacity. For example if you have a
--- Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just wanted to note that RAID 0 is, in most cases, a bad idea.
The reason
is that if you stripe your data across multiple disks and one
fails, you
lose all the data. It's better to split the files up among many,
smaller
logical drives.
--- Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In an
ideal
world I might go for Contax or Leica, but I have very limited funds,
so
the best choice seems to be get a good lens for the gear I already
have.
You don't need Leica and Contax lenses to see a difference. Most better
brands have good
I want to scan my wedding pictures which of shot on MF. Unfortunately,
I only have an SS4000 so I need to get a MF scanner for a couple of
days. I was looking for a Nikon 8000 or Polaroid 120 but nobody seems
to rent either of them. The only thing I found is a Minolta Scan Multi
for $50/day and a
Does anybody know where I can rent a MF format scanner, i.e. Polaroid
or Nikon for a weekend and how much that would cost? I live in the San
Jose area but would consider going up to SF to rent a scanner.
Thanks,
Robert
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a
--- Pat Perez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Keep in mind that just because a sensor is smaller
than 24x36mm doesn't make your lenses obsolete. It
makes them telephoto, and comparatively high speed at
that. The 200 f2.8 might end up a 300 2.8, which can
costs thousands of dollars. It is all in
--- Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is one good thing about that tough. The CCD require that the
rays
come in at 90 degrees.
No they don't. Different CCDs and different CCD designs have
different
acceptable angles. It is true that with wide angle lenses, you do
get
I would suggest that everybody just sets up a filter that transfers
Anthony's messages directly in the delete folder (there will be a lot
of them from him if you have a peak at the delete folder before
deleting permanentaly). He's not only annoying to the list but he is
plain wrong on most
--- Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
And remember, it only has to be
blasted with
x rays once to be ruined--you might be shooting with film that has
already been
fogged.
Wrong. You don't know what you are talking about. Don't spread rumors
that are not true.
To everybody
--- Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Robert writes:
Wrong. You don't know what you are talking
about. Don't spread rumors that are not true.
You should mention that to Kodak, since that is my source. I thought
that they
knew something about film, but perhaps you know more;
--- Lynn Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This definitely pisses me off, and I wrote and sent corroberating pic
to the
(US) FCC in charge--for whatever good that will do.
snip
I'm just coming on--then dropping off again--to warn you all
to use
the lead bags when you travel (as if that
--- Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've never understood why photographers lug hundreds of rolls of film
around the
world when film and development are available practically everywhere
on the
planet. What's so special about film and development at home?
Because you don't know
--- Dana Trout [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That solution doesn't always work. When we were in Europe (Athens and
Rome) security would not allow us to do anything but run the film
through the scanner. However, I was told that the intensity of the
X-rays of the gate scanner was much less than
--- Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Robert writes:
Because you don't know how well they have
stored the film.
What reason is there to believe that it would be stored any worse
than at home?
And how do you know how well film is stored at home?
Because I've seen it many times
--- Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do have
a few games installed, but they are about the only non-critical
applications on
the machine
You have games installed on a mission-critical system??!! A system that
is so important that when it is out for a day or two would ruin your
--- Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The VueScan documentation warns that it might not work very well on
Polaroid
scanners, though, as I recall.
According to previous messages from you it seems that you wouldn't have
time for multi scanning anyway. So why bother if it does or does
--- Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do image editing all the time. The 2x 200 MHz isn't as fast as
current
systems, but it is _fast enough_, just as it was when I bought it.
You are
falling prey to the misconception that a newer, faster system somehow
makes
older systems
--- Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A 6M pixel camera, assume 2000 x 3000, will give you a very nice
8x10-11x14,
but that's about the limits unless you use Genuine Fractals you won't
get
very good looking images above that. For general reception (candid)
shots,
a digital 35mm
--- Soren Svensson (EUS) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Austin Franklin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Only the color information is shared amongst multiple pixels
NOT the edge information. That does not make the four pixels one
pixel.
Do the geometry. Each of the four sensors is
--- Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Third, the 6 megapixel resolution is an interpolated resolution.
That is not true. The luminance information in one shot digital
cameras is
NOT interpolated (except in the Fuji cameras), only the chrominance.
Color
information is not near
--- Robert E. Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...The digital camera gives you only 6M*8bit/channel=6Mbytes...
6Mpixels *8bits/channel *3channels = 144Mbytes. This assumes 3
bytes/pixel
it may be higher if bit deepth
--- Robert E. Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Robert Meier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...The digital camera gives you only 6M*8bit/channel=6Mbytes...
6Mpixels *8bits/channel *3channels = 144Mbytes. This assumes 3
bytes/pixel
it may be higher if bit deepth per
--- Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can repeat it all you like, but what you say is not entirely
accurate.
The data is two dimensional. Each pixel has position (an XY
coordinate)
as one dimension and color information as the other.
I don't follow you. I didn't talk about
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, my Photoshop 6.0 (on a PC) doesn't offer any compressed TIFF
file
formats. When doing a Save-as for a 48-bit file, I was given three
choices: TIFF(*.TIF), Ras(*.RAW), and Photoshop(*.PSD,*.PDD)
Hm, I have many more choices o PS6.0 on a PC. Maybe you
Same problem here with the epson list. My emails just don't get
through.
Robert
--- Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If anyone else is on the scan@leben list... are you having problems?
All my messages to it bounced yesterday and I got no mail from it
today.
Code red strikes?
--- Barbara White [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Where does one find information on the LS40? It's
not on the Nikon website.
I think that was a typo. It's LS4000 vs. Coolscan IV.
The later has 'only' 2900dpi vs 4000dpi for the
LS4000. Also Nikon does not mention a Firewire
interface for the IV.
--- Tony Sleep [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
new flatbed I noticed that a
frame
exposed
in tungsten lighting is totally lemon yellow on the scan. Is it
coorrectable
as in standard photographic process?
Yes, only better. And flourescents. Wonderful! :)
The best thing is still to use
--- Hemingway, David J [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
be sure to
order the free brush to
clean the sensor.
Are you saying that there is a brush to clean the
sensor=CCD? How would you do that? Opening the
scanner? Wouldn't you do more damage then any good?
Robert
--- tflash [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The blue channel of the pad lock image shows what
appears to be jpeg
artifacts, but none of the other channels do. I know
the blue channel is
typically the noisiest channel of a scan, but I
forget why. Isn't it because
the CCD elements are least
--- Pat Perez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a wild-ass guess, but maybe memory at the
byte level isn't being
accessed or allocated or released properly, and what
appears as a band is
the result of regular 'overflows'.
I don't think that is the problem. If there would be
overflow you
--- Dan Honemann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One thing I've always been curious about is what
causes the topographical
map type of lines you see in the blue sky portion of
this image:
The old JPEG (not JPEG 2000) does code three channels
Y, Cr, Cb. The channels Cr and Cb are downsampled.
Then
--- Norman Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm surprised that there was X-ray fogging, unless
the camera went through
the machine with exposed film in it.
If you do not use high ISO film you can let it through
the X-ray for HANDBAGGAGE safely a few times. But
NEVER leave film in checked
--- Hemingway, David J [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The following link will give the details of the $200
end user rebate for the
Sprintscan 4000. The coupon can be downloaded via
this link.
David
David,
You do a really great job on this mailing list. Too
bad I haven't joined it any earlier
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's another value that has to do
with how many dpi the
printer actually prints on paper, such as 1440 dpi.
But that value is
printer specific.
Good to point that out.
My Epson 2000P doesn't even let
me set that value. It
gives me a choice of
David,
The review mentions PolaColor 5.0. Is this software
available for download on any of Polaroid's webpages?
I still can find PC4.5 only.
Robert
--- Hemingway, David J [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A couple of Sprintscan 120 reviews have been posted
on the Polaroid UK web
site.
Frank,
Memory has increased at a rate of about 2 every 1.5
years. There is good reason to believe that this will
not change a lot during the next few years to come.
Even with new technologies being developed (if it
succeeds and can be used for imagers) it takes years
to get it ready for
--- Hersch Nitikman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just went back to the Popular Photography issue
that reviewed the new
scanners, and what I saw was very different from
what was said here earlier
today. They rated the LS-4000 Very highly. In fact,
maybe too highly...
Well, PP seems to write
--- Frank Nichols [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Based on the advances in RAM technology over the
past 10 years I am
predicting a 1Giga Pixel camera in the not too
distant future (5 years or
less). The significance of this camera will be a
drastic reduction is the
required size of lenses by
64 matches
Mail list logo
