Re: filmscanners: Frustrating NikonScan 3.1 Problem

2001-06-16 Thread rafeb
At 01:05 PM 6/16/01 +1000, Rob Geraghty wrote: Enoch's Vision, Inc. (Cary Enoch R...) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has anyone had any problems with NikonScan 3.1 in Windows 2000? Sounds like Nikonscan 3.1 is worse than 3.0 at least on W2K. Does anyone know whether 3.1 attempts to fix the jaggies

Re: filmscanners: Frustrating NikonScan 3.1 Problem

2001-06-16 Thread Rob Geraghty
rafeb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No problems over here with NikonScan 3.1. Well, at least it works on the 8000. Has anyone tried it on the LS30 or LS2000? Are there jaggies? Rob

Re: filmscanners: Frustrating NikonScan 3.1 Problem

2001-06-16 Thread Edwin Eleazer
- From: Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2001 7:57 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Frustrating NikonScan 3.1 Problem rafeb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No problems over here with NikonScan 3.1. Well, at least it works on the 8000. Has anyone tried

Re: filmscanners: Frustrating NikonScan 3.1 Problem

2001-06-16 Thread Enoch's Vision, Inc. (Cary Enoch R...)
At 13:05 16-06-01 +1000, Rob Geraghty wrote: Enoch's Vision, Inc. (Cary Enoch R...) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has anyone had any problems with NikonScan 3.1 in Windows 2000? Sounds like Nikonscan 3.1 is worse than 3.0 at least on W2K. Does anyone know whether 3.1 attempts to fix the jaggies

RE: filmscanners: Frustrating NikonScan 3.1 Problem

2001-06-15 Thread James Grove
I had exactly the same problem, the only way to fix it was to re-format and re-install, not to much tourble for me thank goodness! I didn`t think it had happened to any one else. I put it down to a program I installed after Nikon Scan V3.1 that messed the TWAIN up? Please let me know how

Re: filmscanners: Frustrating NikonScan 3.1 Problem

2001-06-15 Thread Rob Geraghty
Enoch's Vision, Inc. (Cary Enoch R...) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has anyone had any problems with NikonScan 3.1 in Windows 2000? Sounds like Nikonscan 3.1 is worse than 3.0 at least on W2K. Does anyone know whether 3.1 attempts to fix the jaggies problem, or is it still reading data in 64K