Peter wrote:
I have done a few tests with my LS-30 using Julian Robinson's method --
see http://members.austarmetro.com.au/~julian/ls2000-focus.htm
I'll have to try this is I get the time.
My results:
*Mounted slide in Slide Mount Adapter -- OK, all sharply focussed
*Strip of film in
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
offlist
G'day rob.
Being in your neck of the woods (well, at least the same hemisphere!), I
would be happy to share a slide or negative or two, and produce some raw
scans on my Acer 2720S. Let me know if you get any other responses, and
I'll give you a postal address.
I think it would be
Moreno Polloni wrote:
on 8/27/01 2:06 PM, Moreno Polloni at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In fact, after
removal of the $200 US rebate on both sides, our price here is just
double that of the US. Is that silly or what?
Did I really write that?
Don't you even remember what you've
mahimahi wrote:
Looking for suggestions as to the best way keep the film flat while
scanning. Thought about glass mounts but I do not mount my images as
the mounts tent to crop the image.
have both a Nikon LS1000
For most scanners film flatness is not critical due to adequate DOF,
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
Ooops. Apologies to list members for more clutter. It was *meant* to be
offlist..
..old age approacheth!..
mark t
At 07:51 PM 28/08/01 +0930, Mark T slipped up and wrote:
offlist
G'day rob.
etc..
OK, I had a go at scanning some slides on the SS4K at work and scanning the
same slides on my LS30 at home. I had to recrop a photo to get a comparison
of the crop histograms because the brightness on the screen at work is
clearly utterly different to the one at home - which is why the
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
Under Windows 2000 Pro onwards, SCSI drives are PnP.
- Original Message -
From: Ian Boag [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2001 6:50 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Best filmscanner, period!!! (strange title!)
Wotta crusty old bastard. Have to say though
At 00:48 -0400 28/8/01, Andy Darlow wrote:
No more contacts the old fashioned way for me! Now I just need to
figure out how to sort them all digitally and print them on my Epson
inkjets.
And then you'll look at them you won't be able to tell what's sharp
what's nearly sharp.
David Hoffman
Hersch Nitikman wrote:
Challenger's destruction taught them that they
had not thought of everything, but they tried.
Hersch
I think this statement might go down in the annals of understatement of
the century.
Art
This is getting downright silly. How do you know upgrading to an
LS-4000 (even if it had SCSI interfacing) wouldn't bring your system
down? I don't see how you can even risk leaving the room is your whole
livelihood is dependent upon your system being 100% reliable.
I don't have a production
David,
I commend you for revealing the methodology that Polaroid uses in
determining the reported OD of your SS4000 scanner. I think it goes a
long way toward de-mystifying the process, and also provides other
manufacturers with a possible structure to work from.
I have only one question,
Sounds like your scanner just needed a breather ;-)
Art
Rob Geraghty wrote:
I took the case of the SS4000 apart today and used a photographic brush
and canned air on the sensor. I couldn't see anything blocking the sensor
before I started, but the important thing now is that the scanner
Moreno Polloni wrote:
on 8/27/01 2:06 PM, Moreno Polloni at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In fact, after
removal of the $200 US rebate on both sides, our price here is just
double that of the US. Is that silly or what?
Did I really write that?
Don't you even remember what
Moreno Polloni wrote:
The camera store I deal with in Vancouver is selling the SS4000 for $1729,
and that's their regular price.
I suspect the $2199 CAN price is an anomaly due to their not getting
word of the new pricing.
However, even $1729 CAN is almost $1100 US after rebate but
From:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/diginews.html
The software automatically enhances digital images.
Samples of what it can do here:
http://dragon.larc.nasa.gov/retinex/pao/news/
8,10,25,26 are little short of amazing. Some of the others are less
impressive (22 in particular looks wrong)
I have just noticed my lad has been on UT and you have to turn up the
brightness a lot. I have rest the brightness to it's usual point and 22
doesn't look too bad after all.
Steve
- Original Message -
From: Steve Greenbank [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 28,
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,
By the way, the polaroid SS4000 is very good
- and cheap too. Why don't you do a couple of
test scans to compare it with Nikon.
How can I test it without buying it?
Polariod was offering a 30-day money-back guarantee?
Is this still in effect, David?
Mike Duncan
From:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/diginews.html
The software automatically enhances digital images.
Samples of what it can do here:
http://dragon.larc.nasa.gov/retinex/pao/news/
8,10,25,26 are little short of amazing. Some of the others are less
impressive (22 in particular looks wrong)
This is a US program and yes it is in efffect.
David
-Original Message-
From: Mike Duncan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 3:10 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best filmscanner, period!!!
(strange title!)
By the way, the polaroid
Just a thought - I don't know the guts of how Photoshop produces histograms,
so this may not work as well as I think it could... Would it be a useful
comparison of scanners to scan the same slide with Vuescan to raw files
and compare the histograms?
I suggest Stouffer gray target from
Has anyone been able to use SilverFast Ai as a Photoshop plug-in with a
Polaroid SprintScan 120 medium format scanner to create large 48-bit files
approximately 500 MB in size? When I try, I get the message, "Photoshp has
caused an error in unknown. Photoshp will now close."
If I crop the
; ^ ) Yes, I can see it might be slow for a Pentium Pro 200!
-Original Message-
From: Steve Greenbank [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 2:30 PM
Subject: filmscanners: New auto adjust software on it's way
From:
Arthur writes:
How do you know upgrading to an LS-4000 (even
if it had SCSI interfacing) wouldn't bring your
system down?
Because I already have all the necessary software installed to address the
scanner.
I don't see how you can even risk leaving the
room is your whole livelihood is
My response to Rob Geraghty's comments on the Nikon SA-20 strip film adapter:
Did the focus using the film strip adapter vary depending on where you were
in the strip?
Yes. Curl in the film (transverse and longitudinal) can throw some parts of the
image outside the zone of sharp focus. The
I'm running a LS 4000 on a Dell Win 2K machine. Can you be more specific
about what is going on? Silly question but you are using Nikon Scan 3.1 aren't
you? Also, if you have Photoshop, try addressing the Nikon software through
Photoshop and see if you don't get further along with your
Is there any info about the problem reported in the
Event Viewer logs?
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Running into major problems installing my new LS
4000 scanner on my PC.
Running windows 2000 professional and cannot seem to
get my scanner to scan
although it does preview the image
When using Vuescan (with SS4000), I notice that I
do not get a crop file if I uncheck the raw compression box. Is this supposed to
happen and, if so, why?
Also, is it customary to work with the cropped
files rather than the raw files?
Chris
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Arthur writes:
How do you know upgrading to an LS-4000 (even
if it had SCSI interfacing) wouldn't bring your
system down?
Because I already have all the necessary software installed to address the
scanner.
Yes, but some of the modules of that software
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!
;-)
Chris asked:
Also, is it customary to work with the cropped files
rather than the raw files?
You can work with raw files if you want, but the main purpose of raw files
is to allow the user to go back and recrop without having to rescan. The
raw file has no embedded profiles, no adjustments
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!
I discovered my error. I had inadvertantly
unchecked the Output TIFF file box for the cropped TIFF. So that was user error
on my part. Nevertheless, I still wonder if there is an advantage to working
directlywith the raw scan file rather than the cropped file. In comparing
the two files, I
What do you mean by a 'crop file', and what do you mean by the 'raw
compression box'? The Files tab has options for outputting a TIFF file
either compressed or uncompressed, a JPEG file, and a raw file.
Maris
- Original Message -
From: Chris Hargens
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday,
By 'crop file', I meant the file that results when you check the Output Tiff
file box. By 'Raw Compression box', I meant the box on the right-hand side
of screen that comes up when you click on the Files tab. This box does not
appear to show up if you are scanning from disk rather than a scanner.
42 matches
Mail list logo
