- Original Message -
From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 5:09 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Dust brush for Polaroid 4000]
Sounds good. I think I will try the pipe cleaner approach without the
carrier, to make sure I don't disrupt
Don's PDF showing the brush and instructions for use are now at
http://tonysleep.co.uk/file-area/polaroid-4000-brush
--
Regards
Tony Sleep
http://tonysleep.co.uk
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Sounds good. I think I will try the pipe cleaner approach without the
carrier, to make sure I don't disrupt anything. I can see the area the
carrier goes through around that fin or groove, and I also see some
insulated wires which are probably the connections to the sensor that
needs cleaning,
: Monday, February 25, 2008 5:09 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Dust brush for Polaroid 4000]
Sounds good. I think I will try the pipe cleaner approach without the
carrier, to make sure I don't disrupt anything. I can see the area the
carrier goes through around that fin or groove, and I also see
On 25/02/2008 Don Denburg wrote:
I will send them to you directly, and to anyone
else who is interested--unless there is someplace that I can upload
them
for general viewing.
If you want to email them to me I'll park them on a webpage.
--
Regards
Tony Sleep
http://tonysleep.co.uk
Yes, the camera I have was bought for another purpose and I didn't
care that its macro capability is poor.
What comes to mind is a long pipe cleaner that fits well in the
channel. All you need to do is drop the front door and you can see
the channel quite clearly. Choose the appropriately-sized
After fussing around for the better part of an hour trying to take
decent photos of a black bit of plastic stuck onto a black slide
carrier, all the while trying to show the alignment of the brush
bristles with the fin, which is far enough away that it is out of
focus, I gave it up as a bad job.
Thank you for the word description which helps, but as they say, a
picture is worth 1000 words, or whatever...
I look forward to seeing the images.
Thanks again,
Art
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, the brush does not surround the fin, but is placed in front of
the fin, occupying the same
No, the brush does not surround the fin, but is placed in front of
the fin, occupying the same channel as the fin. Think of a snowplow
blade in front of the truck, this is a brush in front of the slide
carrier and in line with the fin. The bristles sweep the two sides
and bottom of the channel
On 18/02/2008 Arthur Entlich wrote:
A scanner question... does anyone know if there is still a source for
the little dust brush Polaroid designed for their 4000 series
scanners,
or is there somewhere I can see what it looked like so I might be able
to fashion one?
I don't know, but I need
Gee, maybe I'll need to go into 3rd party production on those brushes.
Yeah, the symptoms are assorted irregularities with the film/slide
holders, including the unit not acknowledging the holder, interpreting
the wrong holder, giving a false bumped holder error, and a few more.
Now that I know
On 18/02/2008 Arthur Entlich wrote:
Now that I know there are several people experiencing the same
problems,
I will try to see if I can find a source or if Polaroid still has
anything going.
Info posted to this list a long time back indicates it's part number
CPS546 and available on request
Didn't Microtek make these scanners for Polaroid? If that's the case,
might try them.
Jim
Tony Sleep wrote:
On 18/02/2008 Arthur Entlich wrote:
A scanner question... does anyone know if there is still a source for
the little dust brush Polaroid designed for their 4000 series
scanners,
or
On 18/02/2008 James L. Sims wrote:
Didn't Microtek make these scanners for Polaroid? If that's the case,
might try them.
Yes, they did, the Artixscan 4000 was their version. Both built on the
same production line, but the Polaroids had tighter component spec
selection according to Polaroid (who
I have one of the brushes for my SS4000, and I just now looked at it
to see what it does. It rides/cleans the channel that the LEFT side
of the slide carrier rides in. If you look at the bottom of the slide
carrier you will see the left side has a thin fin as contrasted to
the wide flat surface on
I'll take a run with this. I've been in contact with David Hemmingway a
while back, and he referred me to someone at Polaroid, who never got
back to me. Now that there seems to be a demand for these brushed, I'll
do some research and see if I can track them down. I also thought of
Microtek, but
Hi All,
Further to my previous messages I have obtained a Scan Dual I on trial. I
have tried it with the Vuescan trial version (and also the Minolta drivers -
so this must be a later model that works on XP).
Although my negatives were clean and visually dist free, there must be a
fair amount of
Hey Art, if you are out there, did you test a Mac version?
Simon
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the
I don't know if the CCD faces down as per David's comments. It'd be easy to
find out from Microtek.
As for the brush that Art mentioned, I suspect it's a Polaroid concept. I
haven't heard of anything similar from Microtek. Again, I could find out.
In all likelihood, I think I'm just being
Dear folks,
My scans have recently been having linear streaks in the direction of
the scan. The
problem is more or less intermittent, with the preponderance of the
behavior being
in favor of the streaks.
There is no evidence of streaking on the original materials, and in any
event, the
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
X-Envelope-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-UIDL: _lHC.uosI8.sulphur
Subject: Re: filmscanners: VueScan dust removal artifacts
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--=_NextPart_000_0003_01C189F0.6FF02510
Content-Type: text/plain
It seems I've been having problems with sending the #1 post ... most
likely my attached JPEG was too large. The previous included an example
which didn't show this artifact, accomplished with Nikonscan ... please take
my word ... you couldn't tell where the defect was ... I'll not include it
At 3:26 PM -0700 9/20/01, Arthur Entlich wrote:
But, is it possible scanner CCDs are responding to some information
which is normally outside of the visual spectrum, or are, due to some
type of lighting or optics issue in the use of separation filters,
emphasizing defects in the emulsion or base
I think we've had this argument before, about two years ago.
Perhaps it is true that Plutonium is not as risky as once reported, but
individual response to ionizing radiation is just that, and therefore a
relative unknown, so I prefer to err on the side of caution, and would
recommend others do
Frank Nichols wrote:
I am using PEC-12 with PEC PADS on dirty negs as a first step.
I found an anti-static brush (StaticMaster) which is plutonium charged. It
seems to work well on my neg strips. But, I was wondering if anyone had any
comments on if it is a gimmick (any soft brush would
Most scratches I have on BW negs are not through the silver image, but
either on the non-emulsion surface, or on the emulsion side, but not
through it, so that light shows through.
That's one nasty type of scratch that literally goes through the silver
image.
Obviously one problem with using
on 6/28/01 4:26 PM, Steve Greenbank wrote:
I have also found that if you scan slides the moment you open the
box for the first time, it takes less than 5 minutes to despot them and you
don't lose any overall sharpness compared to ICE. Usually you can despot
whilst scanning the next slide.
]
Subject: filmscanners: On dust
on 6/28/01 4:26 PM, Steve Greenbank wrote:
I have also found that if you scan slides the moment you open the
box for the first time, it takes less than 5 minutes to despot them and
you
don't lose any overall sharpness compared to ICE. Usually you can despot
whilst
?
/fn
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of tflash
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 3:35 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: filmscanners: On dust
on 6/28/01 4:26 PM, Steve Greenbank wrote:
I have also found that if you scan slides
PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 6:32 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: On dust
| I am using PEC-12 with PEC PADS on dirty negs as a first step.
|
| I found an anti-static brush (StaticMaster) which is plutonium charged. It
| seems to work well on my neg strips. But, I was wondering if anyone had
?
/fn
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of tflash
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 3:35 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: filmscanners: On dust
on 6/28/01 4:26 PM, Steve Greenbank wrote:
I have also found that if you scan slides
Rob's right, of course; since IR won't pass through silver halides, it won't
have much reference for repairing a BW neg. OTOH, it seems like it would
create a perfect mask if the neg were scratched, because the IR *would*
pass through the scratches. It could then be offset slightly to pick up
Silver based black and white film won't pass IR, so there's no way to use
IR dust removal with it.
Granted that it's not going to be effective for *dust removal*, wouldn't
IR
still be extremely usefull for a badly-scratched silver-halide neg?
ICE depends on differences between the
Lynn wrote:
Rob's right, of course; since IR won't pass through silver
halides, it won't have much reference for repairing a BW neg.
Well, let's be more specific about this - scanning a BW neg
in RGB looks the same as scanning it in IR. It's *not* simply
black in IR. I haven't looked at the
Lynn wrote:
Roger wrote:
Silver based black and white film won't pass IR, so there's no way to
use
IR dust removal with it.
Granted that it's not going to be effective for *dust removal*,
wouldn't IR still be extremely usefull for a badly-scratched
silver-halide neg?
How does the software
I have some vague idea of how infrared scanning is used to remove dust and
scratches from film scans on scanners that have this capability. Is there
any possibility that this method could mistake elements of the actual image
on the film for the undesirable dust or scratch and thereby remove parts
In a message dated 6/25/2001 3:11:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have some vague idea of how infrared scanning is used to remove dust and
scratches from film scans on scanners that have this capability. Is there
any possibility that this method could mistake elements
Darrell wrote:
I have some vague idea of how infrared scanning is used to remove dust
and
scratches from film scans on scanners that have this capability. Is there
any possibility that this method could mistake elements of the actual image
on the film for the undesirable dust or scratch and
Mark wrote:
I thought that ICE used infrared simply to image the dust and other
physical imperfections, and that the normal photographic image is
relatively transparent to IR. Then (I assumed) it lined up the defects
with those on the non-IR scan, and used some sort of 'intelligent
Is this right? If so, I have misunderstood the operation of ICE (which I
don't use, but I'm endlessly curious!)
I thought that ICE used infrared simply to image the dust and other
physical imperfections, and that the normal photographic image is
relatively transparent to IR. Then (I assumed)
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of IronWorks
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2001 3:34 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: removing dust from SS4000
This may be overkill but if anyone you know has an air compressor (e.g.
someone might have bought one
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 14:19:44 -0600 Stan Schwartz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
The discussion of dustcovers lead me to check inside my SS4000. I do have
visible dust on what appears to be the lens.
Is it safe to use Dust-off on this? The can warns about not using it on
camera mirrors.
Yes,
Tony writes ...
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 14:19:44 -0600 Stan Schwartz ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
...
Is it safe to use Dust-off on this? The can warns about not using
it on
camera mirrors.
Yes, but be terribly careful to keep the can upright and vertical.
...
... and hold on to the
When I use Dust-Off, I always blow the first burst on my hand, to make sure
that image ruining liquid won't come out by surprise.
Larry
... and hold on to the nozzle ... you don't want it blowing off
and jetting into the mechanisms. For different angles, bend the
nozzle instead of
Stan writes ...
After doing this a few times, I have removed much but not all of the
dust. I
guess I will have to get one of those mini-vacuums.
I missed your original post ... can I ask what your evidence of
"dust" is? (... just making sure we're not talking about "dust" on
the film ...
Please, before you do this go to this link: Look at bottom of page...
http://polaroid.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/polaroid/solution?11=000321-0047130=095366910814=22715=1815=2716=57=faq58=2900=SPfsOgRVGI
Is it safe to use Dust-off on this? The can warns about not using
it on
camera mirrors.
good moisture trap) expelled from the air hose would be more of a challenge
than the dust.
Bud
- Original Message -
From: "IronWorks" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2001 2:33 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: removing dust from SS4000
This may b
Jim, thanks.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of jimhayes
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2001 2:56 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: removing dust from SS4000
Please, before you do this go to this link: Look at bottom of page
3:03 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: removing dust from SS4000
Stan writes ...
After doing this a few times, I have removed much but not all of the
dust. I
guess I will have to get one of those mini-vacuums.
I missed your original post ... can I ask what your evidence
: Re: filmscanners: removing dust from SS4000
This may be overkill but if anyone you know has an air compressor (e.g.
someone might have bought one for his/her bicycle or car tires, or for a
workshop as I had) it may be helpful - more powerful compressed air to blow
away the dust.
Maris
The discussion of dustcovers lead me to check inside my SS4000. I do have
visible dust on what appears to be the lens.
Is it safe to use Dust-off on this? The can warns about not using it on
camera mirrors.
Stan Schwartz
http://home.swbell.net/snsok
On Tue, 09 Jan 2001 20:13:27 -0600 Stan Schwartz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I have the SS4000 with the Insight software. Is dust removal software
offered for the SS4000?
It's an option within Insight - see the 'Sharpness' tab, Dust reduction. It works
reasonably well on 'normal' at some
Ed writes ...
Interestingly, the cleaning algorithm in VueScan (which is
completely different than ICE) doesn't soften the image
at all, except in the area around actual dust spots. The
ICE algorithm softens the image throughout when used.
And after giving some thought, why should even
53 matches
Mail list logo
