On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 11:43:16 +0200 Anthony Atkielski
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
The Polaroid SS4000 has been suggested, so I
am considering that, although I still have some questions about the
dynamic
range, and it is essential that this range be equal to or greater than
the
LS-2000,
On Sat, 25 Aug 2001 17:02:47 +0200 Anthony Atkielski
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Either way your computer will be obsolete at some
point.
Like my Leica M rangefinder, you mean?
Wrong end of the development curve, Anthony. Your wet-collodion field
camera, the one that needed a horse and
On Mon, 27 Aug 2001 11:39:19 +0200 Anthony Atkielski
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I've consistently heard that it isn't as good as the LS-2000, and some
sample
scans I've seen appear to support this. Specifically, it appears to
have a
smaller dynamic range.
Please read my reviews, if
On Sat, 25 Aug 2001 11:16:45 +0200 Anthony Atkielski
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I've considered it--but how would I get the pictures back and forth
between the
two machines? I'd need to buy a router, at the very least, so add a few
hundred
more dollars. And the machine would need at
I've bought neither, my comment about purchasing a Leica was a joke. I
just don't think I could afford to belong to another cult :-)
Art
Austin Franklin wrote:
I have no comments of Leica rangefinders, other than that I've rarely
gotten along well with anyone who tells me they own one ;-)
It is probably the weak point in the process, but it was a matter of
pragmatics.
I did try to minimize the damage by using a Navitar Gold lens, which
is one of the best there are for projection. Still, I would agree it
degraded the images. Trying to see a full image with a loupe,
especially
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 6:08 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
It is probably the weak point in the process, but it was a matter of
pragmatics.
I did try to minimize
The cult membership is purely optional.
I've bought neither, my comment about purchasing a Leica was a joke. I
just don't think I could afford to belong to another cult :-)
Art
Austin Franklin wrote:
I have no comments of Leica rangefinders, other than that I've rarely
gotten
No, I didn't, nor would I. I've yet to have a complaint by anyone about
my use of Nikon lenses.
As I think I've posted before, I did a double blind shoot out with Leica
and Nikon lenses (a 28mm 2.8 wide angle, a 135mm 2.8 tele and the 50mm
1.4 normal). Each image was shot with one of these
I have no comments of Leica rangefinders, other than that I've rarely
gotten along well with anyone who tells me they own one ;-)
Art
P.S. Either you don't get along with your self, or you bought an R, not an
M?
As I think I've posted before, I did a double blind shoot out with Leica
and Nikon lenses (a 28mm 2.8 wide angle, a 135mm 2.8 tele and the 50mm
1.4 normal). Each image was shot with one of these three lenses with
both the Leica and the Nikon, on Kodachrome 25.
After the images were
Anthony,
You've immediately, stoutly and thoroughly discounted ALL of the
advice, suggestions and opinions you've recieved here from perhaps a
couple dozen people. For every point raised, you've dispatched it in
short order as not being helpfull for numerous reasons. As taught in
every law
Brad writes:
As taught in every law school, you've had a counter
argument for any and every point raised, without, as
I remember, ever recognizing that there might be
some validity to the point being made or, as I
can remember, offering a thank you to those spending
their time in trying to
Re: filmscanners: Best film
scanner, period!!!
I am scanning film for output as large images (30x40 40x50) on an Epson
1 printer. I wanted to purchase a Nikon 8000ed scanner. Dealers in the
US, that I have talked to would not quote a delivery date. In the same
price range
I somehow just knew that your response would not disappoint.
Goodby
Brad
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Brad writes:
As taught in every law school, you've had a counter
argument for any and every point raised, without, as
I remember, ever
I'm afraid that here in Oz the word wanker would be starting to be
uttered..
. like we do here about your Rugby team .
Springbok Steve
Austin writes:
You SAID they were not missing on the slide,
which is what I said, and you now deny.
Yes, I just said that I saw detail in highlights and/or shadows that did not
appear in the scan. Where is the problem?
I will answer no more on this, I feel you are
just playing games, and
What the hell is it with Leica owners. I understand Paxil is effective
for obsessive-compulsive disorder. ;-)
Art
Austin Franklin wrote:
Hi Anthony,
Good to see you on here. Presumably things will get a lot quieter on the
Leica list now...!?
Tony, stand by for a lot more mail on
Sometimes, if we are very lucky, we find our soul mates!
I hear wedding bells. ;-)
Art
Austin Franklin wrote:
Austin writes:
You examined a 35mm slide on a light table
and concluded that there are no blown highlights
or blocked shadows on it?
No, I saw detail in highlights
oh dear, we are slipping downhill...:-)
- Original Message -
From: Steve Woolfenden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 5:20 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
I'm afraid that here in Oz the word wanker would be starting
Sometimes, if we are very lucky, we find our soul mates!
I hear wedding bells. ;-)
Art
Art,
I am glad for you that luck has finally come your way!
;-)
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
You make the same mistake that many microcomputer companies make, including the
big ones like Microsoft. Their employees have never dealt with true
mission-critical systems, in the mainframe or NASA sense (for example),
Oh my god, we are dealing with rocket
on 8/27/01 5:39 AM, Anthony Atkielski at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've consistently heard that it isn't as good as the LS-2000, and some
sample
scans I've seen appear to support this. Specifically, it appears to have a
smaller dynamic range.
I don't know where you've heard that, Anthony,
Austin Franklin wrote:
Sometimes, if we are very lucky, we find our soul mates!
I hear wedding bells. ;-)
Art
Art,
I am glad for you that luck has finally come your way!
;-)
Please don't tell my wife! If she found out I bought a Leica she'd most
certainly leave me!
;-)
Please don't tell my wife! If she found out I bought a Leica she'd most
certainly leave me!
Did you really buy a Leica? If so, congratulations! Gee, you'll now be
able to see just how good (or bad ;-) your scanner really is!
my new computer is just wonderful. it great to finally get into the modern
age. i have changed over my 20 programs and it is no big deal. the speed
saves so much time. mr underpowered computer mentioned he was having some
problems with things in his system not working well. he must be
what do you do that you need all the applications and networking?
windows 2000 professional addition is an undated version of windows nt and it
works well.
Jawed writes:
Anthony, see my site with a few samples that
show the LS40 with Nikon Scan 3.1 with difficult
slides (Provia 100 F RDP3, Velvia). This
combination never clips highlights and gets
a lot out of the shadows with little noise.
I get my best results with my LS-2000 using
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Anthony Atkielski writes
Derek writes:
Your main machine then has two NICs including
the one you already own.
I have no more slots for another NIC.
Anthony, think about putting the two NICs in the new PC -- current versions
Karl writes:
Their product lifecycle is five+ years. For NT 4.0
they've also released the dates for
this to happen:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle.asp
They've tried that before. They always end up supporting things beyond that
date, as large customers insist on it. Notice
Robert writes:
Since you say it yourself that this is only the
*theoretical* dynamic range then why do you already
exclude the Polaroid without making any actual test.
I've consistently heard that it isn't as good as the LS-2000, and some sample
scans I've seen appear to support this.
Rob writes:
I've done multipass scanning on the LS30
without registration problems.
The VueScan documentation warns that it might not work very well on Polaroid
scanners, though, as I recall.
But judging by Ed's comments about the long
pass feature, I'd say that single pass
multiscanning
Moreno writes:
Yes there has. From Microsoft. Look it up yourself.
I can't look up what doesn't exist. Next time, verify that something really
exists before you assert that it is there.
what do you do that you need all the applications
and networking?
I try to earn a living, as opposed to just playing with the machine. I do have
a few games installed, but they are about the only non-critical applications on
the machine (and, ironically, they are the most likely to reinstall
windows 2000 professional addition is an undated
version of windows nt and it works well.
Can you guarantee that every one of my applications will run on it without
change? How do I support my 1800 Type 1 fonts, for example? How does it handle
dongles? How well does it work with PPTP and
Since you say it yourself that this is only the
*theoretical* dynamic range then why do you already
exclude the Polaroid without making any actual test.
I've consistently heard that it isn't as good as the LS-2000, and
some sample
scans I've seen appear to support this. Specifically,
Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've consistently heard that it isn't as good as the LS-2000, and some
sample
scans I've seen appear to support this. Specifically, it appears to have
a
smaller dynamic range.
Anthony, can I ask *where* you've consistently heard this? What I've
on 8/27/01 5:39 AM, Anthony Atkielski at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've consistently heard that it isn't as good as the LS-2000, and some sample
scans I've seen appear to support this. Specifically, it appears to have a
smaller dynamic range.
I don't know where you've heard that, Anthony,
it works fine with some of that stuff as i have it but i am amassed that you
works with that stuff. what you need is a new computer and then eventually a
scanner.
--- 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
Austin writes:
Scanner testing is VERY operator dependant.
Well, if I could feel confident that the SS4000 would indeed give me at least
the same dynamic range plus the higher resolution, I might well spring for it.
How is the software included with it? (I'm mainly concerned about driver
Rob asks:
Anthony, can I ask *where* you've consistently heard
this?
Reviews on the Net and in magazines, and one or two sample scans I saw. The
general opinion of the Nikon scanners seems to be consistently and significantly
higher.
Johnny writes:
The main one seems to be dust on the sensor.
Is all of the optical path readily accessible without disassembling the scanner,
as it is on the Nikon? On the LS-2000, I just brush dust off the mirror and
lens and everything is fine.
The bundled Silverfast software is fine for
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Pat writes:
Well, if ICE isn't a critical requirement, why
not look at the Polaroid (or the Canon, which
has an equivalent to ICE, and scans at 4000
dpi) which several people have suggested?
Because I understand that it has less dynamic range, and since
It was an incidental observation.
- Original Message -
From: Robert Meier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 18:29
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
--- Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
Robert writes:
You have games installed on a mission-critical
system??!!
Yes. I only have one system.
A system that is so important that when it is
out for a day or two would ruin your whole business?!!
Correct.
Does this surprise you? Games are just applications like any others.
Rob asks:
Anthony, can I ask *where* you've consistently heard
this?
Reviews on the Net and in magazines, and one or two sample scans
I saw. The
general opinion of the Nikon scanners seems to be consistently
and significantly
higher.
Specifically, where... as in what's the URL,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Anthony Atkielski) wrote:
Derek writes:
Your main machine then has two NICs including
the one you already own.
I have no more slots for another NIC.
I think mentioning that all your slots were full at the beginning would
have helped...
Use the other machine as
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Anthony Atkielski) wrote:
Derek writes:
Your main machine then has two NICs including
the one you already own.
I have no more slots for another NIC.
I think mentioning that all your slots were full at the beginning would
have helped...
There are
Austin asks:
Specifically, where... as in what's the URL,
what magazine?
I don't remember.
It's not obvious to me why configuring NT routing isn't exactly the same
problem as configuring a bought-in router, just with different syntax.
A simple standalone router offers a few advantages; it's pretty much a plug
and play operation (for basic use), doesn't require any system overhead or
Moreno writes:
If you consider a state-of-the-art $10k Intel-based
workstation a desktop, then what is your old NT box?
A peashooter?
It's not price, it's purpose.
Personally, I don't know any photographers, scanner
operators, or prepress houses that are running
computers more than two
Your main machine then has two NICs including
the one you already own.
I have no more slots for another NIC.
I think mentioning that all your slots were full at the beginning would
have helped...
Use the other machine as the Internet interface then.
Another solution would
Austin writes:
You examined a 35mm slide on a light table
and concluded that there are no blown highlights
or blocked shadows on it?
No, I saw detail in highlights and/or shadows that were missing on the scan.
i have had numerous conversations with nikon about the LS-4000. that scanner
is a very advanced scanner capable of doing fabulous things for the true
professional. the true professional needs an updated computer system designed
for photography and graphics use, not office. i have had to do
Arthur writes:
I also assume Imacon offers much more customer
support for that price (at least I would hope so!)
I doubt it. Usually in domains like that, customer support actually costs
_more_, not less. If they can soak customers for $10K for a scanner, they have
a captive market, and so
on 8/27/01 3:55 PM, Anthony Atkielski at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Austin writes:
You examined a 35mm slide on a light table
and concluded that there are no blown highlights
or blocked shadows on it?
No, I saw detail in highlights and/or shadows that were missing on the scan.
Austin writes:
You examined a 35mm slide on a light table
and concluded that there are no blown highlights
or blocked shadows on it?
No, I saw detail in highlights and/or shadows that were missing
on the scan.
You SAID they were not missing on the slide, which is what I said, and you
]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 5:45 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Apparently the list has been taken over by someone with a problem
and not the one stated. He really does not want a solution to the
stated problem. He just wants you to talk
Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
CD-R is too slow. CD-RW is ten times worse.
So you're painted yourself into a corner again.
I have always heard that Polaroid scanners are not as good as Nikon
scanners. I
would not want to take a step backwards.
=8^o I've heard quite the
Arthur writes:
... I have to say that your demands aren't
completely reasonable, and you seem to really
be fighting with yourself in your refusal
to make certain changes which ultimately would
save money.
Apply those same words to photographic equipment, and see if they still sound
Pat writes:
Well, if ICE isn't a critical requirement, why
not look at the Polaroid (or the Canon, which
has an equivalent to ICE, and scans at 4000
dpi) which several people have suggested?
Because I understand that it has less dynamic range, and since I scan slides
almost exclusively, I
Pat writes:
Well, the fact is, washing machines are not exactly
a new technology, while computers are still in the
growth phase of their product life cycle.
I've been hearing that for twenty years. It was true in 1980, but it's not true
now. For some years now, computers have had more than
Mike writes:
Is this true?
That has been my understanding from reviews I've read.
I was under the impression from reviews the
dynamic range of the SS4000 was almost the
same as the LS4000 and IV.
Almost isn't good enough when you are scanning slides. I cannot afford to
sacrifice anything
Austin writes:
Why do you consider 3.4 too low, and for what
is it too low?
I scan slides.
I don't mean this to come across snide, but do
you actually know what a density range of 0-3.4
means?
Yes. It means 12-bit output, which gives a _theoretical_ dynamic range of
4096:1, or
Art said:
If my reel to reel player failed and the parts were no longer made, and
my only choice was buying a Revox at thousands of dollars, I might just
decide it was time to buy a CD player, or whatever.
Annoying though that you will have nothing to play your reel to reel archive on?
Colin
Moreno writes:
That's not true. How about plug and play? That's
something that SCSI is not.
Strange--that's exactly how it was for all my SCSI devices (two scanners, a tape
drive, a disk drive, and a CD-R burner).
And firewire, unlike SCSI, doesn't require your
devices to be powered on at
Rob writes:
So you're painted yourself into a corner again.
How so? Everything works for me.
=8^o I've heard quite the opposite. I have an
LS30 but if I could have justified the cost, I'd
have bought a SS4000.
I was thinking of the LS-2000, not the LS-30. The hardware is identical, of
On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 06:43:07PM +0200, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Or you could spend less than $1000 on a completely
new computer with not much CPU but lots of RAM
and a Firewire card to use as a dedicated
scanning station.
That would be the most practical solution, but that is still
Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So you're painted yourself into a corner again.
How so? Everything works for me.
You can't upgrade.
I was thinking of the LS-2000, not the LS-30. The hardware is identical,
of
course, but the firmware is crippled in the LS-30, and one of the
Karl writes:
No, just two 100MBit network cards ($10 a piece)
and a cross over cable.
And what do I do with my Internet connection?
I don't mean this to come across snide, but do
you actually know what a density range of 0-3.4
means?
Yes. It means 12-bit output,
It does not necessarily mean a 12 bit output...
which gives a _theoretical_ dynamic range of
4096:1, or log(4096)=3.6, for density range. (A range of
Rob writes:
You can't upgrade.
The only upgrade that might interest me is to a LS-4000, and that is not
possible. The rest is fine.
I thought you already had an LS2000?
I do. But you mentioned an LS-30.
No, just two 100MBit network cards ($10 a piece)
and a cross over cable.
And what do I do with my Internet connection?
Perhaps you can buy a $25 hub and save the $5 cost of a crossover cable.
Austin writes:
Have you measured your transparencies to see
exactly what you are achieving for density
ratio numbers?
No. How would I measure it? Don't I need fancy equipment for that?
: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Karl writes:
No, just two 100MBit network cards ($10 a piece)
and a cross over cable.
And what do I do with my Internet connection?
_
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http
Moreno writes:
I rarely reboot either, but I turn my scanner
off when I'm not using it.
As long as it's on when you boot, you can thereafter turn it off or on whenever
you want. That's what I do.
If I want to unplug the scanner and bring it over
to another PC, I can do that too, all
Your main machine then has two NICs including the one you already own.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Anthony Atkielski) wrote:
Karl writes:
No, just two 100MBit network cards ($10 a piece)
and a cross over cable.
And what do I do with my Internet connection?
That's not so hot an idea.
It's not good to bring an always-on Internet connection straight onto an
internal LAN, you need something running firewall software in the way.
Two NICs in the main machine is the way to go.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Moreno Polloni) wrote:
No, just two 100MBit network
Have you tried artificially extending the dynamic range by scanning each
slide with two different exposures and combining the results?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Anthony Atkielski) wrote:
Mike writes:
Is this true?
That has been my understanding from reviews I've read.
I was under the
It's not good to bring an always-on Internet connection straight onto an
internal LAN, you need something running firewall software in the way.
I'd normally suggest a router doing NAT, plus firewall software on each PC,
but I believe there were some price objections somewhere along the way.
Derek writes:
Have you tried artificially extending the dynamic
range by scanning each slide with two different
exposures and combining the results?
No, mainly because of the problems with misregistration of pixels.
Additionally, the gain would be very small compared to the overhead of
On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 01:51:13AM +0200, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
[ ... ]
If you want to learn more about Microsoft's announcement
to discontinue NT support ...
There has been no such announcement.
Actually they have an implicit announcement with the release
of every new version of
If you want to learn more about Microsoft's announcement
to discontinue NT support ...
There has been no such announcement.
Yes there has. From Microsoft. Look it up yourself.
nature of the tests.
Jawed
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski
Sent: 26 August 2001 10:30
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
Austin writes:
Why do you consider 3.4 too low
I'm quite amused at your assertions at who my
customers are.
All you've described thus far is desktop users, and desktop systems are
not
production systems in any mission-critical sense. The company will not
fail
because a desktop computer isn't working.
Most of them are indeed in a
Talk about 'Mission-critical', I was involved with the
preliminary design competition phase of the Space Shuttle. NASA had a
criterion for the design of the Shuttle systems. It was, as best I
remember it: Fail Operational, Fail Operational, Fail Safe.
That meant that after two independent
Rob writes:
Not to belittle the problem, but assuming you're
talking US dollars you could probably buy a cheap
celeron or AMD computer for about $500 and fit the
firewire on *that*.
I've considered it--but how would I get the pictures back and forth between the
two machines? I'd need to
Mike writes:
The LS40 (IV ED) is close to the LS-4000 and
requires USB and half the RAM of the LS-4000.
I don't have USB, and Windows NT is not supported for the LS-40. So scratch the
LS-40 as well.
What is the best car, regardless of budget?
Well, that depends if you are driving 4 kids to school everyday or like
to impress the ladies (or gents) on a Saturday night, or you want a car
that has spare parts easily available in your local.
Do you need medium format? Do you need bulk scanning?
Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've considered it--but how would I get the pictures back and forth
between the
two machines? I'd need to buy a router, at the very least, so add a few
hundred
more dollars.
Huh? Where did you get that idea? Worst case scenario you could use
Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
don't get mad at nikon.
Why not? They could have just as easily included an SCSI interface and NT
drivers, as they did for previous scanners. I know I'm not alone in
running
configurations like this. I guess they didn't want our business. I hope
Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't have USB, and Windows NT is not supported for the LS-40. So
scratch the
LS-40 as well.
Actually, scratch all the USB scanners since NT 4.0 doesn't support USB.
Even a PCI USB card wouldn't help without changing OS.
Rob
Anthony wrote:
I've considered it--but how would I get the pictures
back and forth between the
two machines?
There is a very, very good program by LapLink for syncing between
two PCs. The USB version will move between 10 and 30 megs a
minute with fast PCs. For those who have only serial
other tasks on the other machine.
Steve
- Original Message -
From: Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2001 12:43 PM
Subject: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best film
scanner, period!!!
Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL
At 19:53 +0200 24/8/01, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
David writes:
what's wrong with a scsi card?
Nothing at all, but the LS-4000 won't work with SCSI. It requires Firewire.
Sorry. Meant Firewire.
David Hoffman
--
__
David Hoffman
it you don't have USB your computer is ancient and under powered. there are
perfectly easy ways to deal with installing the software etc which i am
doing. you don't need two copies of photoshop. you can get by with the
LS-2000 but very soon you are going to run out of space or figure out how
For the record, the HP Photosmart Scanner S20 does use USB under Win NT 4.
Not that it is a comparable substitute for the LS 4000.
Pat
- Original Message -
From: Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't have USB, and Windows NT is not
1 - 100 of 138 matches
Mail list logo
