Re: Science vs. religion (was RE: filmscanners: Re: Print dpi comparison)
Clark Guy wrote: Science is the idea that soneone makes a claim and others strive to independently verify the claim. Given the impossibility of confirmation (there is always an alternate explanation) attempts at disconfirmation are usually the way to go. But even once that is done, it is often possible to fiddle with a theory-revision rather than accept the disconfirmation. Or just ignore the disconfirmation, hoping that it is flawed, if you have faith in your theory. Scientists tend to have big egos and that plays a role in their practice. But you can only hold out so long and eventually (the hope is) the evidence holds sway over the sociology. The evidence is not everything. There are strong arguments that it is better in the long run to have eccentrics who explore theories for which there is not adequate current evidence. Early proposals of continental drift were not currently supported but led to the theory being available when the evidence later developed. Of course, most such oddball theories do not work out. John M.
Re: Science vs. religion (was RE: filmscanners: Re: Print dpi comparison)
Well if you _really_ want things to be on topic, think of the Timo-type linear gamma theories in terms of the last paragraph quoted below. Myself, I try to stay away from these OT threads but sometimes the spirit is willing but the pedant is weak. John M. James Klebau wrote: Uh, what kind of scanners are you talking about? Is this a philosophy chat room? John Matturri wrote: Clark Guy wrote: The evidence is not everything. There are strong arguments that it is better in the long run to have eccentrics who explore theories for which there is not adequate current evidence. Early proposals of continental drift were not currently supported but led to the theory being available when the evidence later developed. Of course, most such oddball theories do not work out. John M.
filmscanners: SS4000 in a scanning loop
While batch scanning a strip of negatives I made the mistake of accidentally checking auto-scan and auto-eject at end of scan in Vuescan rather than just auto eject, as I meant to do. This led to the program looping through the all 6 frames a second time. When I realized what happened I hit abort and eject a number of times until the negative holder it seemed to eject. The scanner scanning without the holder in. I turned off the scanner, but when I turned it on it kept scanning. Then I turned off both the computer and the scanner, but after I booted up it still keeps on going. Could something have gone haywire in the firmware? I've opened insight and Vuescan, hoping that again sending an abort or eject signal would stop it but neither of them recognize the scanner. Any suggestions about what could be wrong? Any solutions? John M.
Re: filmscanners: real value?
You are right on both accounts. As written it makes no sense at all; but a relatively non acrobatic leap to the assumption you suggest would be in order. At 11:53 AM 02-02-01, Laurie Solomon wrote: (3) Inkjets have reached the level where there quality and other features come very close to those, if not in some instances surpass those, of inkjets. Actually, I like the fact that inkjets are somewhat worse and better than inkjets but not that inkjets might be equal to inkjets. John M.
Re: filmscanners: Re: VueScan 6.6.1 problems - long pass
There are so many variables to play with when using VueScan that I always seem to forget at least one of the crucial settings One thing that would be nice would be a more responsive abort button. Right now I keep on clicking it works, which can take a while. John M.
Re: filmscanners: Dust removal, ICE
If you don't go the ICE route and live in a dusty environment (or work with negatives from periods of your life when your storage habits were not the best, as I do) a graphics tablet becomes an extraordinary blessing. Helps in many ways, but makes using the clone tool for spotting so much quicker and easier on the elbow than using the mouse. John M.
Re: filmscanners: GEM, ROC compared to Vuescan
Related: why in general does Ice-based dust removal soften the image. The purpose of the IR channel is to identify the particular spots that are dust / scratches. Shouldn't the software only affect those areas leaving the rest of the image alone and sharp? John M.
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
A more responsive abort button would be nice. Not infrequently I find myself having made a mistake but spending a good deal of time while the scan is occurring waiting for a window when I can abort. Not sure if this might be due to something about my system though. John M.
filmscanners: Polaroid sensor brush
My SS4000 is constantly going through a scan cycle, even without a holder in. I've tried putting holders through a number of times with the machine off, as suggested in the support website. I also ordered the free sensor cleaning brush that David Hemingway sent a message about the other day, but the rep said that I would probably get in in 10 to 14 days, though she would try to expedite without guarantees. Is there anything I might try to solve the problem more quickly? (Might there even be a kind soul in New York who has this item who might lend it to me?) Thanks for any suggestions. John M.
Re: filmscanners: RE: Photo quality printers: Hewlett-Packard
Same happened to me. You need to uncheck the watermark box. "Shough, Dean" wrote: Anybody give me hint on why when I print form Photoshop to my Photosmart printer, I get a cross hatch pattern? Not in all photos. Did these images come from an unregistered copy of VueScan? It's possible that when you downloaded a new copy of VueScan that you forgot to copy over the .ini file or to reenter the registration number. When VueScan is not registered it embeds a "fish net" (let's not go there again :-) ) pattern into the image that might not show up on screen.
filmscanners: Gold star for polaroid!
A couple of days ago my 4000 began recycling eternally. This was a couple of days after David Hemingway announced that a free sensor cleaning brush was available for the problem. When I called up Polaroid the rep said it would arrive in 10 to 14 days, but indicated that she would mark it to be expidited, giving no guarantees that it would be done. It was, however, sent out the next day UPS next day air. Haven't had time to use it, so I don't know for sure that this will solve my problem, but certainly appreciate the support. I did look at the instruction sheet and saw that it was recommended that the brush be used once a month, so SS4000 owners might want to get in touch before the problem develops. John M.
Re: filmscanners: Gold star for polaroid!
A couple of thousand I would guess. I have a feeling that dust is more of an issue here than use. I have both the front and back openings covered with plastic wrap but I work in an unfortunately dusty environment. Unfortunately, the brush hasn't done the job in my case so I'm shipping the scanner off to Massachusetts tomorrow. Happily, it's still under warranty. When it gets back I'll try to design more effective dust prevention. John M. Frank Paris wrote: I'm just curious. Could you give us a rough estimate of how many scans you put through your 4000 before this problem started to develop? I'm guessing I've put 400 or 500 slides through mine, so far working flawlessly. Of course I realize that's not very many. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:ow
Re: filmscanners: 110 film
You may be able to get slidemounts in the appropriate size for individual size. I used to be able to get paper mounts in every imaginable size from Spirotone in NY, which no longer exists in any form I believe. There may be another source. It is also possible that Wess makes an appropriately sized plastic mount; they have a catalog with a very wide variety of mounts, including probably 110 (Wess Plastics, Hauppauge, NY, 800-487-9377, no website). Accurately cutting that small film between the framelines may be a pain. I've had not too great success scanning 16mm movie frames by simply placing a strip into the (SS4000) strip film holder. Will do in a pinch but really can't get the film to stay flat even with tape. John M. Jolene wrote: I have been quietly reading the list for a couple of weeks now, as I am preparing to buy my very first filmscanner. Here is my question. I have a big ol' box of negatives (I think they are 16mm in size) from family pictures. I would really like a scanner that is capable of handling these, but will also do a great job with 35 mm film and slides, which will be my primary use.
Re: filmscanners: OT Nikon 4k ss4k
By the way, my ss4k initialization sequence is broken - it was cycling interminably, so I tried a suggestion from Polaroid techs quoted on the ss4k list pushed my slide holder through it a few times with the power off, and now rather than cycling, its initialization hangup is to run continuously in eject mode. You could ask for a brush that Polaroid is supplying free to clean off the holder sensor. Or you could try very carefully using compressed air along the left side path. The brush didn't help me and the shot of air helped, but only temporarily. So I'm shipping the unit, luckily still under warranty, out.
Re: filmscanners:Focusing film flatness
Or can someone give me a really easy, quick and painless way of transferring a piece of film from a glued cardboard mount into a glass slide Mark T. For getting out of the cardboard pick up a Wess paper mount opener. Should be available in any good camera store. Aside from being quicker it protects against slips of knife. John M.
filmscanners: What's MFT
I got my SS4000 back from Polaroid servicing center a couple of days ago. There was a notation that, among other things, an MFT adjustment was made. Any idea of what that is? I have to praise Polaroid for turnaround speed. They got the scanner last thursday, and estimated that they would send it back in 7 to 10 days; it was returned to me, two day delivery, on tuesday. John M,
Re: filmscanners: SS4000 problems - again
Same thing happened to me. You could try compressed air into the left side of the scanner. There was a report that that worked, but it did for me only very temporarily. Maybe I was too timid. I had no problem with Polaroid. They asked only for month of purchase and serial number, gave me a return number and that was it; not sure if it would have been as simple if I hadn't registered. They got it back to me extremely quickly: they received it on thursday and it was delivered back to me the next tuesday (NY to Mass and back). Their estimate initially was 7 to 10 days so such quick service may not be invariable. John M.
Re: filmscanners: Another Mission Completed
I'm curious how you, or others, store their cds. John M. I'm happy to report that I've scanned and recorded to CD *all* my significant negs and slides from 1949 to 1998--which were the ones I was going for, archive-wise. Bruce
Re: filmscanners: What causes this and is there any easy solution ?
Even better might be a wacom (or other) tablet, which gives the additional benefit of pressure sensitivity. Holding a pen seems much more natural than a mouse for fine movements and raising the pen up and down is much better than clicking the mouse for cloning. Beyond all this I'm not subject to the backaches that used to come from extended photoshop use. With limited space even a 4x5 tablet works well. A better more expensive than a mouse but I think worth it. John M. Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. wrote: Be sure that you are using an *optical* mouse or trackball - it will track much more smoothly.. | Maybe, with practice I will be able to select sections better. Has anyone | tried adjusting their mouse movement settings (slow it down,reduce | accelleration) to make this easier ? | | Steve |
Re: filmscanners: What causes this and is there any easy solution ?
While there maybe some merit to your comments about dust in the air masking flaws in the slide being projected, I had the actual surface texture of the projection screen in mind as well as the actual viewing distance independent of any dust. Laurie Haven't been following this thread all that closely so this may have been covered. But what lens are you using for your projections? If it is a lens supplied with most projectors the poor quality might be a masking factor. The difference between one of these lenses and a Buhl or similar projection lens is pretty substantial.
Re: filmscanners: OK, Vuescan is driving me nuts
It might be nice to have a second crop-like box that functioned something like a spot-meter or a center-weighted meter: the scan exposure and processing would primarily be based on the marked off section. John M. Rob Geraghty wrote: Joel Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yup, works for me. My Crop|Buffer setting is 2% (I think the default) and that seems to work well for my full frame crops. A person could probably increase this to 10% to make sure the black can't influence the auto values. The default 2% often doesn't work for me, so I have increased it to 5% and will check what difference it makes. Perhaps 5% should be the default? Rob
Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street
I wonder if asking for a release could create additional problems; once someone has refused to sign you have an explicit lack of consent for the photograph to be used. Once you ask, might not you be more committed to ceding to the subject's wishes. In any event, unless someone does relatively static 'street portraits' I have a hard time imagining a way of even approaching most subjects of a streetphoto: do you run after a passerby or interupt their conversation? There are times when such photographs include a number of unrelated people moving off in all directions; do you hire crews to run after then with explanations? It would seem that having to get releases would just make classic street photography impossible, so if you are committed to do this type of work you have to take your chances. Does anyone know a case where there has been a successful suit against a published or exhibited streetphotograher on privacy grounds? For what it's worth even Rudolph Giuliani of NY, nor famous for his love of free expressions but a himself a shutterbug, once was quoted that there is a right to photograph anyone one wants in public places. John M.
Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street
Does anyone know a case where there has been a successful suit against a published or exhibited streetphotograher on privacy grounds? There was a mention of a Cartier-Bresson case before. But on reading the Stirling article in turns out that it wasn't the photograph that was at issue but its use as an illustration to an article. According to the court in that context the picture could be interpreted as implying that couple portrayed were only interested in each other for sex, although the picture in itself had no such implication. There is a larger issue that I hope the courts would take into consideration: that documentation of social life is a public good that outweighs the discomfort that might be felt by some subjects (and by many photographers for that matter). The issue especially comes to a head with paparazzi, but I'd probably especially defend them, as long as they act within reason. It would be better if we didn't live in a culture where celebrity was as important as it is, but as long as we do it is essential that celebrities not have total control of their image, as many would like to be. John M.
Re: filmscanners: Wess Plastics - Slide Mounts
I've tried this link a number of times over the past year without success. John M. I found that also Cliff...but it doesn't work for me. Does it work for you Here's a link: http://www.wesspl.com
Re: filmscanners: 24bit - 48bit dilemma Work flow suggestions
I find it a good idea to scan into a 48 bit file, spot with the cloning tool, crop any border, and then archive. That doesn't commit to any approach to the image but means that you never have to do the drudgery of spotting again. In important cases I often save all the changes in order (not the stages of the files themselves but using the save-levels, save-curve (etc.) commands, along with any associated selections), doing as much as possible in 48 bit, then converting to 24 bit for any local adjustments and saving. This makes it possible to go back to any point and make adjustments and then to proceed with the following commands, but keeps the total disk space used for an image not much bigger than the initial and final image. Of course if scanners improve greatly I'll want to rescan the important images anyway despite the archived files. . . John M. Ramesh Kumar_C wrote: This is about 24bits 48 bits: Scanner can deliver 36 bits; So I am in a dilemma whether to store the scanner output in 48bit TIFF file or 24bit TIFF file. I have thought of following 2 methods, let me know which of the following will be good. a) Store 36BIT Scanner output in 24 bit TIFF file. Edit this 24bit TIFF file in 8-bit channel in PS. This is easy solution. b) Store 36BIT Scanner output in 48 bit TIFF file. Edit this 48bit TIFF file in 16-bit channel in PS. Then convert 48bit TIFF file to 24 bits.
Re: filmscanners: image samples of digital artifacts
I had this problem for a while and nothing seemed to fix it until it went away by itself. Doesn't seem to have to do with color bit-depth. Wish I could be of more help. John M. It was set to 16-bit (True Color), so I changed it to 24-bit (High Color) and rebooted. Still see the lines in the sky, but this is only a Dell Inspiron 3500 notebook PC with a NeoMagic MagicMedia 256AV card and a 14 LCD screen. No doubt something in that mix isn't up to snuff. Dan
Re: filmscanners: Polaroid Sprint Scan 45 - Lamp Challenge
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 I make a good part of my living off of this scanner, my income has just gone down. It's being shipped on monday. Chuck
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan:two small requests
There's just two small items that really seem lacking to me and really slow me down and frustrate me every time I use it. 1.) A browse for folder button to locate the folder to save files in. If you click Folder and Default (or whatever) a Browse for Folder box does pop up in VS. John M.
Re: filmscanners: Supra 400 shadows
I've become quite fond of Provia 100F. It is sharp as a tack and a joy to scan. Of course it does suffer in the exposure latitude department. I'm still using negative films but am shifting more to transparency film based on ease of scanning and the knock your socks off quality of Provia. -JimD Yeah, Provia is my usual film, though I was hoping to shift to negative for latitude reasons. Also for some thing I need to go to 400 and Provia 400 is pricey, especially for big shoots. John M.
Re: filmscanners: Supra 400 shadows
| I've been having good results using Supra 400 (SS4000, Vuescan, current | 7.1.7) except for the noise-like areas in dark parts of the image. At | times I can partially compensate for this by setting the black point but | only at the cost of losing shadow detail that at times is needed for the | image (and often still not really getting an adequately clean shadow | areas). Any suggestions about how best to deal with this problem? Keep the shadow detail and deal with it in post-scan processing with Photoshop or you software of choice. Mark Any suggestions? I do generally set the black and white points in vuescan wide allowing me room to set them in photoshop. I can get rid of some of the problem that way, but lose shadow detail. I've also selected the affected shadows and despeckled, which works kinda ok for backgrounds (as I guess would a gaussian blur) but is not good when you need the shadow image to retain its sharpness. I've also tried to select the affected area and do a replace color on red or other speckeled pixels and then manipulate them into the background. These techniques improve the situation but not really to my satisfaction. Has anyone not had the shadow speckling with this film? It doesn't seem to be ccd noise so is it a grain interaction? (If so, there's up for a hi-res drum scan that might fully resolve the grain, I guess.) John M.
Re: filmscanners: Supra 400 shadows
I have the exact same problem with Supra 400 - red and green speckles in the shadows. Like you, I can't get them to disappear without blowing away a lot of shadow detail. I don't know if a drum scan would solve this or not - I've seen the same problem on both my SS4000 and my new LS-4000, so I have my doubts. This is likely to be grain aliasing. Where exposure is slight, there aren't many dye clouds (grains), and if they are of a size to alias individual pixels or small groups, false colour is the outcome. Regards Tony Sleep This is what my hunch was. I at first thought that the fact that the problem also exists when the scan is 2000 dpi counted against that theory, but given the ccd size is the same at both settings I think that that doesn't hold up. Ed Hamrick asked me to send a raw scan but if it is grain aliasing I'm not sure that there will be much that can be done in software. On the other hand, if push comes to shove I would think that a higher resolution drum scan would resolve the grain and solve the problem (unfortunately at a monetary cost). John M.
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
So getting an archival medium is only a third of the problem. What happens in 10 years when no one uses TIFF files anymore. Preston Earle After a certain level of usage it is unlikely that software formats and even (non-obscure) hardware readers will be impossible to find. There is too much information stored on the internet and elsewhere in standard formats to make it likely that these will become unreadable, at least barring the effects of a major depression, nuclear war, or the odd asteroid hit. People often to refer to scientific data which has become inaccessible, but these were made early on with technologies that had limited use. A couple of times recently I've had to recover data from early versions of wordstar and the not wildly successful (but much lamented) outline processor grandview. Even in the latter case I was able to find a free conversion program in a couple of minutes. Moreover, librarians and others are aware of the potential problems and are working on solutions. But of course your major point is well taken. You want to keep your files as easily accessible as possible and take as few chances as possible. John M.
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: New auto adjust software on it's way
That article may have been concerned with something I learned about at university - inverse fourier transforms. Right. It did involve fourier transforms of some sort (I used to have some idea of what that means) but applied to the image not the lens, if I am remembering right. John M.
Re: filmscanners: New auto adjust software on it's way
(I remember an article in Scientific American 15 to 20 years ago about the improvement of photographic images (I think they were alluding to spy satellite images) to eliminate/reduce blur due to camera motion and lens focus (or lack thereof). I've been meaning to go to the library to look the article up to see if the results were as impressive as I remember them.) Preston Yeah, that article has stuck in my mind also. I remember that the method had to do with mathematically analyzing circles of confusion to sharpen unsharp images (don't remember anything about motion blur, but it might have been there). I onced asked about it on some list or other and someone mentioned that there was some problem or other. Be curious if anyone has any less vague info about the technique. John M.
Re: filmscanners: Dust removal software?
I suppose an anti-static brush would help. Hersch Anyone have an opinion about what are advertised as natural fiber antistatic brushes as opposed to staticmaster brushes? John M.
filmscanners: supra 400
I have a number of supra 400 images that I will need to get decent scans of. Using my SS4000 I get terrible grain aliasing making the quality unacceptable. I was thinking that I would have to bite the bullet and get drum scans made, but it occurs to me that if aliasing is an interference pattern based on ccd size a smaller ccd cell size might solve the problem. Has anyone had good results with this film with a 2750 (or whatever) dpi scanner, especially the Nikon? j
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan - filenames
I've learned from experience to always keep the number with the plus sign, even when not batch scanning. Easier to remove the number if you don't want it then to have to rescan. Of course some people may not be as stupid or forgetful as me. . . -- John Matturri words and images: http://home.earthlink.net/~jmatturr/
Re: filmscanners: Color Negative Film Poll
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 scanners and others not. Anyone not have the problem with a 4000 dpi scanner? If so, which scanner and which software. I use Vuescan, btw. I have had excellent results scanning Supra 400 on my LS30 using the NikonScan 3.1 software and Vuescan. Is your reference to grain aliasing with Supra 400 related to the scanner or your experience with the film? Simon -- John Matturri words and images: http://home.earthlink.net/~jmatturr/
[filmscanners] Re: VueScan Suggestions Needed
I second this idea, if it is practical. Jawed Ashraf wrote: The Photoshop approach is addictive: up/down arrow increments by one unit shift held down at the same time increments by 10 units. mouse-wheel up down is synonymous with up/down arrow (sorry Mac users, you're *really* missing out with no wheel on your mouse...) Sliders become much less interesting, then. They can retain their function as gross manipulators. Jawed -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Norman Unsworth Sent: 10 January 2002 14:19 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: VueScan Suggestions Needed I'll have to think a bit to come up with my top three, but one suggestion I have has to do with the sliders that were added in recent versions. After working with them a bit I find they're good for making gross shifts in settings but not so good for finer ones, which I frequently need. I find myself resorting back to simply highlighting and entering the setting I want after I get relatively close with the slider. (again, the addition of the histogram has made scanning much, much easier). I would suggest that in addition to or instead of the sliders, having what I believe they call 'spinners'. These are little up and down arrow keys that increment or decrement (is that a word?) the setting, by individual 'clicks' or by holding the arrow key down and spinning through to the setting you want. Is it possible to have both sliders and spinners? If this product gets much better we'll be complaining that it should be loading slides automatically while we're in the bathtub! -- John Matturri words and images: http://home.earthlink.net/~jmatturr/ Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Anyone heard from David?
If I remember right, David doesn't actually work for the scanner division, unless his good efforts got him a transfer. I've no more info than anyone else, but David is a busy man these days. Polaroid made it clear in their Chapter ii filing that they would be actively seeking out purchasers for divisions of the company. That included the scanner division. Polaroid is still planning on new hardware scanner releases, and software upgrades, so that division is pretty busy, I'd imagine. If the SS4000+ is going to be rolled out shortly, David might very well be in Japan or elsewhere in the orient right now, finalizing the production run. -- John Matturri words and images: http://home.earthlink.net/~jmatturr/ Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Sprintscan 4000 broken slide holders
In about two years I've had one slide holder break (the piece that holds the slide in place broke off) with another one seemingly about to break). I'll see if I still have the broken one. -- John Matturri words and images: http://home.earthlink.net/~jmatturr/ Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Re:Computer size: RAID
To carry disk performance to the max, go with a striped SCSI array of 15000 RPM drives! Very expensive, though. Also, one thing tends to lead to another: If you use 15000 RPM drives, you soon have to start worrying about keeping the whole machine from melting down in its own heat. I'm getting a system with 1.5 GB of RAM and 2 80MB 7200 drives (CPU: Athlon 1800+). Aside from possible video-editing, would there be a reason to set the drives up as RAID-0 (which is supported on the motherboard I'm using so doesn't add to the cost). Opening and saving 128MB files might be faster but would PS in general be faster given that I assume there would be little need to go to the scratch disk with that much RAM. Trying to figure out whether any increased performance would be worth the loss of data if one of the drives goes. On my current system I use the second disk for daily incremental back-ups (without full mirroring) which would be useless with the level 0 RAID. How, also, does RAID interact with PS's desire for partitions? As for any future large video editing project it might just be better to dedicate a couple of drives in RAID to the editing at that point. Comments on my reasoning on this (or lack of it)? -- John Matturri words and images: http://home.earthlink.net/~jmatturr/ Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: vuescan problem
PC, Win98 original edition, 128MB Ram, latest Vuescan, it occurs usually after a number, though not a definite number, of scans. The memory theory is quite attractive for me given that in two weeks or so I'll be getting delivery on a new computer with 1.5GB of RAM. This happens on relatively small (20MB) files but I don't release memory after every scan so I guess that could be an issue. But if it's apt to be a computer problem not a software problem at others are having I guess it's best just to hang in for a couple of weeks. Thomas B. Maugham wrote: John: You haven't provided a great deal of information so it's hard to diagnose. Are you using a Mac or a PC? What version of the operating system are you using? How much memory do you have? How large is the swap file on the disk? What version of VueScan are you using? How often does this occur (i.e. once in a strip of 6 negs), when does it occur (i.e. the fifth neg in the strip), etc. On the surface it sounds to me like a memory problem in that you may not have enough memory to store all the scanned images and when it tries to write or read the information to or from the swap file on the disk it fails. I offer this as I use VueScan for both negs and slides and haven't seen this but I have 256mb of memory and a huge swap file on my disk so that may be the solution. Tom -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of John Matturri Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 2:25 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] vuescan problem Ever since I started to scan color negatives with vuescan (on SS4000) I periodically get scans that differ greatly from the preview. Usually with a much narrower range of values and odd casts, often a bright, almost solarized blue cast in white highlights and more recently an overall green cast. This makes batch scanning impossible because somewhere in the strip the scans eventually start having these properties. The only way to get rid of this behavior is to close down the program and rescan. I've raised the problem with Ed once or twice over the past few years but never got a solution. Except for these cases I like the scans I am getting so I put up with this but it is frustrating and time-wasting. Anyone else have this problem, or even better, have a solution to it. -- John Matturri words and images: http://home.earthlink.net/~jmatturr/ Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body -- John Matturri words and images: http://home.earthlink.net/~jmatturr/ Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Vuescan problem
I completely missed your kind offer - thanks. And thanks to everyone who responded. I got zero response form comp.periphs.scanners, and surprisingly, no response from an e-mail to Ed. But I'm sure he's swamped. So you guys are it! Ed's replies tend not to be immediate so you may still hear from him. A couple of days ago I got a note to check out a revision after sending out a log file more than a week ago. John M. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] vuescan cropping
I keep trying to upgrade vuescan but all versions after about 7.6.28 (up to 61) are unable to keep a manual crop, set using the mouse, in the final scan. The crop works fine for a preview but when the scan itself is made it shifts to maximum crop, throwing all values off even with the highest crop-buffer setting. The only way I can take advantage of the later versions is to do a raw maximum scan, bring the image into photoshop and crop out the borders there, and then do a file scan on the resulting file. That's OK, though not ideal for sure, for final scans but obviously not practical for proofing scans. I'm using a ss4000+ on win2k machine with 1gb ram. If anyone has come across this problem and found a solution -- even an explanation would be nice -- I'd appreciate hearing about it. I contacted Ed at least once about this at some point; don't remember the details but obviously nothing was resolved. John M. -- words and images: http://home.earthlink.net/~jmatturr/ Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Advice on scanner settings--Thanks!
Carlisle Landel wrote: Bunch, Wow! The list lives! Thanks to all for the advice. Especiallly, thanks for the reminder that IR filtering doesn't work for Kodachrome. I've got the bulk slide feeder, so the plan is to simply drop a box of slides in and start it up, then go away and drop another in when I get to it. I figure if I do a couple of boxes an evening, it'll eventually get done. I'm going with the memory is cheap theory and will use the 4000dpi TIFF settings. Best regards, Carlisle My memory seems to be that in some circumstances -- involving generations of KC or generations of IR or a combination of the two -- allowed for some success. Sorry to be so vague but it may be worth a try to see what happens. j Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
