Julian wrote:
He actually said if you send it back, we'll just send it back
to you the same. He also said I don't know the details of how it was
checked, and you can't talk to the service people directly, you have to
talk to me and I am only a support person as well as It is within
Rafe wrote--
JPG doesn't produce topo maps
Ah, but it does! I'd refer you to the Aniversary picture on Larry Berman's
Compression page. I found (as Larry did) that getting the original image
below 120mb without posterizing was impossible. :-)
Topo maps are a result of extreme posterization
= Original Message From Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] =
Also since the 8000 presumably has a heavier scanning head than
the smaller
scanners (more ccd etc), the mechanical constraints are more
serious and it
may therefore be the most sensitive to such things and which may not
Rafe wrote:
The sky in the Prarie photo looks smooth as silk
on my PC, with 24 bit video. With the screen set
to 256 colors I get topo maps in the sky.
and Bob wrote:
Thanks Rafe. Mine looked smooth as silk too. I couldn't figure out what
I was suppose to be seeing and wasn't. Now I get
Well, this may be what Dan Honemann is up against
on his notebook computer. I told him to ditch it.
That's a little extreme, Rafe. :-) Granted that an LCD is not suited to
*working* on graphics, it's viable for *viewing* them. Still, if Dan throws
out his Dell Inspiron, I hope he throws it in
Dave wrote (re bad repro houses):
It'll get better as more jobs are shot digitally. Then the repro
folks won't have as much incentive to sabotage jobs not scanned in
house since there's no film anyway.
Even with photographer supplied scans this behavior will eventually
backfire on honery and
Dear Mike,
Thanks for the most interesting revelations.
One question... the Minolta DUal Dimage you ar currently using... is it
the SCSI model (I) or the USB model (II)?
Thanks,
Art
Mike Duncan wrote:
I have made some measurements on 4 scanners (Canon FS-4000, Polaroid
SS4000, Nikon
On Thu, 19 Jul 2001 10:20:30 -0400 Austin Franklin
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I understand your point, but...the scanner stops for every line anyway,
it
has to...it's just a matter of how long it stops, so providing there
isn't
some some race condition that this long stopping
On Thu, 19 Jul 2001 09:08:07 -0400 Lawrence Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
I simply don't have enough cash for a $3K scanner and a $5K mac
and the new lumedynes and qflash and Dynalites and $2k 140mm Zeiss lens
for
my 645 that I need.
Sympathy I'm trying to survive the finance payments
On Fri, 20 Jul 2001 01:41:02 +1000 Rob Geraghty ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
I can't think of a meaningful picture of grain
aliasing. It could be described with a drawing, not with an real life
scan
because by nature it is random.
No, I have scans of the same neg showing the effect very
On Fri, 20 Jul 2001 01:21:44 -0400 Dave King ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
It'll get better as more jobs are shot digitally. Then the repro
folks won't have as much incentive to sabotage jobs not scanned in
house since there's no film anyway.
True. These problems have long since been
Julian Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I rang them and complained bitterly, but the level of their insight and
dedication of the first line help desk is not sufficient to match the
nature of the problem. (IN Australia Nikon is sold and serviced by
Maxwell
Photo Optics who don't really have
Lawrence Smith wrote:
Why have I
not won the lotto yet? ;-)
Lawrence
Hey, you're about to be presented with the best prize (wo)mankind has to
offer, a child!
Cherish that gift, cause all the other stuff is just grown-up's toys.
Art
I don't know how heavy the ED 8000 is, but these days most electronics
have minimal heft to them and aren't very solid.
I have found that as a result, using a solid platform for devices like
film scanners might help them to be less likely to create sympathetic
vibration in the shelf or table
At 10:48 AM 20/07/01 +, Lynn wrote:
OK, I'm not exactly sure what's going on here, that one display set to
factory specs (mine) shows posterization in an Internet JPEG, and two
others (Rafe's and Bob's) do not.
Should Internet picture postings come with the caveat, Warning, This
Picture
At 10:48 AM 7/20/01 +, Lynn wrote:
Rafe wrote:
The sky in the Prarie photo looks smooth as silk
on my PC, with 24 bit video. With the screen set
to 256 colors I get topo maps in the sky.
and Bob wrote:
Thanks Rafe. Mine looked smooth as silk too. I couldn't figure out what
I was suppose
Tony wrote (re grain aliasing):
No, I have scans of the same neg showing the effect very strikingly. You'll
have to wait a while longer though.
I will wait, but since *you're* the one who sent us off in search of this
Holy Grail, it's only appropriate that we see your examples, one day. :-)
Tony wrote:
These problems have long since been resolved in newsprint, for that
reason.
Generally smaller repro houses don't have these problems...
In the US, many (if not most) newspapers are using digital, because it's so
fast. By the same token, the MajorMajors, like Time Newsweek (I've
At 12:03 PM 7/20/01 +0100, Jawed wrote:
Dare I say it, but I suspect a scanner moving the film is less accurate
than
a scanner that moves the scan head.
I disagree, and I'm sure Austin will chime in here too g.
All film scanners I've worked with move the film -- except
for flatbeds with
Also since the 8000 presumably has a heavier scanning head than
the smaller
scanners (more ccd etc), the mechanical constraints are more
serious and it
may therefore be the most sensitive to such things and which
may not show
up as problems on their 35mm scanners.
This scanner
I don't know how heavy the ED 8000 is, but these days most electronics
have minimal heft to them and aren't very solid.
Somewhat true, but power supplies can still be quite heavy. It is 19.8 lbs.
Not really light, but certainly not all that heavy.
Your suggestion of putting it on a solid
At 02:11 PM 7/20/01 +1000, Julian Robinson wrote:
I have reported on this list about the poor focus of my LS2000. I sent it
back for warranty repair and today after 4 weeks I got it back - - -
without trying to encourage Art any more in his campaign, what I got back
is enough to drive me
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 whether the copy is moved or the scanning head is
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 it's resonance, but certainly can't rule it out.
It's curious most of you are doing less modifying in PS from recent scans, I had been
doing little PS modifying, but have had to make the substantial curves adjustment
lately in PS to bring blue down 20-30 points and red up 5-10 points.
I roll I was working on of beach pictures I changed the
Me too. Having a LS-30 I badly need Vuescan as it's the only way to extract
10 bits rather than 8, and it's really a waste of time having to make a real
scan to check if the exposure is correct (no clipping at the high and low
ends), rather than simply looking at the histogram after the preview.
Me too. Having a LS-30 I badly need Vuescan as it's the only way to extract
10 bits rather than 8, and it's really a waste of time having to make a real
scan to check if the exposure is correct (no clipping at the high and low
ends), rather than simply looking at the histogram after the preview.
Has anybody done this successfully? I was impressed with the results I got
from Microtek's DCR Color Cablibration System back when I was still using
my 35t+ (which is available for sale, btw) and while I don't have any
complaint with the performance of the Minolta Scan-Multi that replaced it
(at
Title: OT: David Bernbach?
As far as I know his
name was Willam Bernbach. Perhaps you're thinking of another great
copywriter David Ogilvy? (who past away not very long
ago).
Both Bernbach and
Ogilvy have written a great deal on advertising, which probably
applies to all kinds of creative work
In a message dated 7/20/2001 9:50:04 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Me too. Having a LS-30 I badly need Vuescan as it's the only way to extract
10 bits rather than 8, and it's really a waste of time having to make a
real
scan to check if the exposure is correct (no clipping at the high
Hmm... The last disclaimer in the challenge is interesting: actually, the
reason I work with 16 bits is that every time you apply a curve (which I do
quite extensively in BW images) you stretch a range of values and compress
another: with 16 bits you have a better rounding of the newly generated
Dear Mike,
Thanks for the most interesting revelations.
One question... the Minolta DUal Dimage you ar currently using... is it
the SCSI model (I) or the USB model (II)?
It's the original SCSI model.
Mike Duncan
In a message dated 7/20/2001 10:23:26 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Because I frequently use the 16x multisample option and
always scan in 16-bit mode, this means I sometimes spend as much as an hour
on each image, which is a major PITA. Still, the results I get from it,
despite the
I finally locate the Popular Photography Film scanner review at
http://www.popphoto.com/Camera/ArticleDisplay.asp?ArticleID=33. What is
interesting is how close the LS-40 is to the LS-4000.
Mike Duncan
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
- Original Message -
From: Johnny Deadman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Filmscanners [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 10:16 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Re: Vuescan gripes
| on 7/19/01 9:51 PM, Roger Smith at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|
| I'm inclined to agree with Dean - I
To the best of my knowledge, at least here in Canada, the same division
that handles the camera repairs also handles the digital scanner
repairs. These days, most cameras (including Nikon's) use more
electronic circuitry than mechanical parts, so it wouldn't be a stretch
that both camera and
Actually this is what I experienced: BW film (TMax 100 or 400, don't
remember), auto-exposure, defaults settings: the histogram of the raw file
had almost nothing in the lower half. I rescanned with manual exposure and
got it right, after a couple of trials... I don't remember the exact version
One of the neatest things about VueScan is how easy it makes
setting up a new scanner. I recently switched from a Canon FS2710 to
a Minolta Scan Dual II. I installed the Minolta software and had a
quick look at it. I then opened VueScan, used the same settings I had
been using on the Canon
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?
Thanks,
Stan
===
Photography by Stan McQueen:
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
both ends that travels into a 5 pin connector
It must be me, but I find the Vuescan interface quite good. Initially it
seemed odd but within a matter of a few hours it all seemed rather slick.
Granted it doesn't have some of the normal features found on many
manufacturers software or the ultimate flexibility of Silverfast. Pretty
windows
I'll see what I can do to get a fast turnaround. They will return it by same
method you ship. overnite to Polaroid = overnite back to you etc.
David
-Original Message-
From: Chuck Phelps [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 2:26 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:
PolaColor Insight 5.0 is now posted on the Polaroid support web site
http://www.polaroid.com/service/software/sprintscan/ssfamily.html
In a message dated 7/20/2001 12:25:52 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Actually this is what I experienced: BW film (TMax 100 or 400, don't
remember), auto-exposure, defaults settings: the histogram of the raw file
had almost nothing in the lower half. I rescanned with manual exposure and
At 08:17 AM 7/20/01 +, you wrote:
Has anybody done this successfully?
While I use Silverfast which has that capability as an option of the Nikon
LS-4000, it may also have a calibration option for your scanner as well.
Check with lasersoft http://www.lasersoft-imaging.com/english/ and see if
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
I seem to be missing something. I have an Acer Scanwit 2740S, which
requires multiple passes to do a multiple scan. I thought that this
was the right thing to do to get lower noise when scanning at 16x. so
as to be able to average the input from successive reads. And, I
thought this would help
I seem to be missing something. I have an Acer Scanwit 2740S, which
requires multiple passes to do a multiple scan. I thought that this
was the right thing to do to get lower noise when scanning at 16x. so
as to be able to average the input from successive reads. And, I
thought this would help
Don't know if it will happen to you but Polaroid quoted 10 days when I sent my
4000 in and they seem to have shipped back express mail the day they received it.
j
Turn it on today and set up to do a scan and get the code 6006.
Lamp failure. Poloard tells me about 2 weeks repair time. Since
Ivar, you're absolutely right! That must have been a senior moment on my
part. :-) They were both greats in the ad biz. I do think it was Bill
Bernbach who made the statement.
Thanks for setting me straight :-) --LRA
From: Ivar Järnefors [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
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
Rafe wrote:
...our entire job in this listserv sometimes seems to be second-guessing
the manufacturers and telling them what they did wrong. g
Seems to me they give us ample opportunity! ;-)
My personal guess is that the better
way is the one that moves the smaller
mass -- all else being
All other things can be re-done by pressing the Scan mem.
button, making it unnecessary to _ever_ scan the same piece
of film twice.
Including manual exposure adjustments and/or a long exposure pass? With my
shots from Lower Antelope Canyon, I find I get slightly better results by
tweaking the
I think Art may be pretty much right, here, particularly about the top
down management. Recent history (and personal experience) shows that this
type of hierarchy tends to frown on any criticism from below, hence
constructive comments dry up, and the Top becomes not only insulated but
I seem to be missing something. I have an Acer Scanwit 2740S, which
requires multiple passes to do a multiple scan. I thought that this
was the right thing to do to get lower noise when scanning at 16x. so
as to be able to average the input from successive reads. And, I
thought this would help
Been a bad couple of days for film scanners.
I got an email off-list asking for help on
a SS 4000 crash... as if I'd know what to do g
I guess some people get pretty desperate ;-)
Except it's a Firewire connection, not SCSI.
Same issue. If the shield is connected at both ends, that's a source of
ground loops.
Sorry, Lynn-- my pen flew too fast. I assumed that by 16x, _highest
resolution_ was meant No, I do not scan 16 times, only 3, but at
highest resolution. I _think_ I see improvement in noise levels
then, but I can't convince myself that doing more than 3 scans buys me
anything. But Ed Hamrick
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Has anyone ever seen a case where the Device|Auto exposure
option doesn't work optimally?
Yes, but only on images which were generally hopelessly underexposed.
Autoexposure often fails on night photos. It works very well on normal
daylight exposures. To be fair, I'm
OK-- I was just too hasty and slipshod in my reading. Thanks to you
and Lynn for helping me get straightened out and dried off.
On Sat, 21 Jul 2001 11:12:23 +1000, you wrote:
S. Matthew Prastein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I seem to be missing something. I have an Acer Scanwit 2740S, which
I know this is off topic, but since so many members here that produce
photo's commercially I hope you can answer a question for me.
I purchased a set of 4 Landscape Prints at an auction a couple days ago. It
is my intention to sell them on eBay, however, they are un-signed so I am
not to
I can't for the life of me get my 1640 SU
TWAIN driver re-installed on my machine
(Win 98 SE.) It was happily working a
while back, but was deinstalled when I
got the 8000. I had a need for it this
evening and tried to reinstall it, with
no luck.
Strange thing is, the scanner itself is
Technically no; but you can probably get away with it if you make them low
resolution thumbnails, since you are using the images to advertise the
selling of supposedly legitimate original prints or copy prints which the
scans represent and not the scans themselves or prints made from the scans.
Good to hear. I tried it a few times, with Provia 100F and APS neg, and it
seems to be an improvement, with 12 bit scans/Color space embedded. It
allows corrections(but no curves) and so far the scans look good. David, are
the corrections done after or during the scan?
Bill
-Original
and how much more money it would cost..
count me among the vuescan satisfied users group.. I'm not much for snazzy user
interfaces, I want results and quick!..what other program can you get updates
every week or so?.. it just keeps getting better.
Johnny Deadman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
think
Try going to the Device Manager and removing the device. Then reboot and
hopefully the Wizard will show it face asking to install the new hardware,
then show it the path to the new drivers.
/fn
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of rafeb
Rafe,
I had the same problem a while back and I believe I deleted the
folder EPFB5 in the Windows\TWAIN_32 folder but I'm not sure.
About a year ago I had a similar problem with the Epson 1200
scanner and an Epson support tech instructed me to delete an inf
file in the TWAIN_32 folder. With the
I've just joined this maillist because I want to go
electronic with my slides and negatives. Currently I'm
trying to decide which scanner to buy. I was ready to
purchase the LS4000 when I stumbled across a review of
the new Canon which on paper seems to have almost the
same specs, but only costs
70 matches
Mail list logo
