So there is a program that listens to the bus and logs everything that
goes
through it?
Vuescan has a mode which dumps SCSI commands. don't know what other tools
Ed may use.
Do they make any basic sense or are they like assembler or
machine language, if those terms are still in use?
I've
Hi all,
See enc. scanned from Nikon 8000 (I'm still testing it, it certainly has
potential, but it also has limitations...). I rescanned it (without taking
the film holder out, same params, i.e., not fine mode) and the problem
went away. Any ideas???
Asael
attachment: Nikon8000.jpg
Hi Jack,
Ive been offline for a while, and the Filmscanners
archive is functioning even though I no longer work
at the location of the server
The archive exists at:
http://phi.res.cse.dmu.ac.uk/Filmscan/
Its got 20,000 messages
Why are you sending attachments to the list?
Lawrence
Hi all,
See enc. scanned from Nikon 8000 (I'm still testing it, it
certainly has potential, but it also has limitations...). I
rescanned it (without taking the film holder out, same
params, i.e., not fine mode) and the problem
At 02:59 AM 11/24/01, Arthur Entlich wrote:
Pre 9/11 there was an FAA regulation which required all reasonable
requests for hand inspection of film to be carried out by personnel, as
long as you gave adequate time prior to boarding for them to do so.
This is/was a requirement. And please, don't
On Sat, 24 Nov 2001 19:09:52 -0600, Tom Scales [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Me too, with the Sprintscan 4000. I don't like the film at all.
Tom
I have had the same results as John with Kodak Supra 400 on the Nikon
LS-30 - grain aliasing.
Maris
Same here with the SS4000 and the LS-4000. It
--- Jeff Spirer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Having read the entire FAA regulations, I will point out that the
regulations have ALWAYS allowed for immediate suspension of the film
check
provision. The right to suspend is not in any way connected to
9/11.
Jeff,
can you provide a link to
FAR 108.25
http://www.faa.gov/avr/AFS/FARS/far-108.txt
Note that (b)(3) says that rules can be suspended fairly arbitrarily,
although it is couched in language that makes that a bit obscure, as it
states everything in terms of certificate holders rather than the
public. However, this is the
As I read it, this section says only that the Administrator which means the FAA
administrator (and ONLY the FAA Administrator) can, if (s)he finds it necessary revise
any of the rules by issuing a notification to certificate holders (i.e. the companies
handling security screening - airlines
At 02:54 PM 11/25/01, Doug Segar wrote:
Since the Administrator has issued no such notice regarding the hand
checking film provision, the rule does apply WITHOUT exception.
It is in no way clear that the Administrator has not done this. It is
difficult to find information on where the changes
Lawrence asked
Why are you sending attachments to the list?
Relax Lawrence, it's OK. Here's a quote from Tony Sleep's mailing list
instructions: Posting encoded images is permitted if they are relevant, but
please keep file sizes below 80k. Use JPEG image encoding, and MIME attachment.
The
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bill Fernandez
Sent: 18 November 2001 20:57
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: pushing dynamic range on the nikon 4000ed
Excellent posting Bill. Pity I don't
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bill Fernandez
Sent: 21 November 2001 11:32
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: pushing dynamic range on the nikon 4000ed
Hi Wayne--
I set auto-exposure OFF to
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rob Geraghty
Sent: 24 November 2001 12:00
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: VueScan clipping flat
images
Jawed Ashraf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[so much I can't
On 11/25/01 7:29 PM, Peter Marquis-Kyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Relax Lawrence, it's OK. Here's a quote from Tony Sleep's mailing list
instructions: Posting encoded images is permitted if they are relevant, but
please keep file sizes below 80k. Use JPEG image encoding, and MIME
attachment.
At 07:47 AM 11/20/01, Bernie Ess wrote:
Someone who has the SS120 told me that one cannot really use the whole
negative because near the border or the film holders there were reflexions.
I don´t know which borders exatly he means but he speaks of 2-3mm which is
IMO quite a lot and would make of a
It occurred to me to wonder whether some of the softness in the use of ICE
or infra-red cleaning may be due to the difference in focus needed. If
you take photos with IR film, you have to set the focus differently to visible
light. If the difference is significant in a scanner light path, maybe
Jawed wrote:
An 8-bit A/D really would struggle.
I agree but it was as I mentioned, an artificial example. Maybe I should
have worked with what I actually have, which is a scanner with a 12 bit
A/D that the firmware drops out the 2 LSB from to return 10 bits per channel.
It doesn't matter how
It seems to me the question is whether the suspension of the rule is
reserved to the FAA and whether, in fact the FAA has suspended the rule as
opposed to rule being ignored by local security inspectors. I would feel a
lot better about not being able to have my film hand inspected if I could
Fed-X apparently no longer guarantees x-ray free travel for film, either.
That maybe because Fed-X has an arrangement with the US Postal Service
whereby it carries all the USPS's airmail (which is virtually all the USPS
mail) from destination to destination; thus, they are obliged to impose the
This could make sense. As I understand it, grain aliasing
involves an interference pattern between grain size and ccd
size. If 2750 dpi have larger ccds (do they?) the
interference might not exist. But that still leaves the
problem of some people reporting grain aliasing problems
with these
At 12:52 AM + 11/26/01, Jawed Ashraf wrote:
o By the way, a cool trick for comparing a scan displayed on the
screen to the original slide is to open an empty window with a white
background and hold the slide up to it, using the monitor as a light
table that is perfectly matched in
- Original Message -
From: Jeff Spirer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 3:53 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS120: reflexions at the borders of the neg
It's not quite what you state, it is only along the
film carrier edges, so your 57x57 neg would
John wrote:
interference might not exist. But that still leaves the
problem of some people reporting grain aliasing problems
with these scanners and others not. Anyone not have the
problem with a 4000 dpi scanner?
Tony Sleep said in the past that he had far ferwer problems with the SS4000
and
Hi folks -
I have two questions. One is I'm having a very hard time scanning
Superia 400, and there's no setting for it in Vuescan. Colors are
coming out all wrong even on the scan, and it's very hard to even know
where to start fixing. What Vuescan settings can I tweak?
in some cases I've
So... now that we are all past this... what about the problem with the scan!
Any ideas?!
Thanks,
Asael
- Original Message -
From: Lawrence Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: filmscanners halftone.co.uk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 6:38 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon
26 matches
Mail list logo
