RGBI would make sense for raw, but I assume you are going do to light IR
cleanup.
I'd would use neutral. It compensates a bit for the dynamic range of the
film.
Personally, if I were to do what you are doing, i.e. batch scanning, I
would do it raw and RGBI TIFF. But if you just want to save RGB,
I'd like to point out that I never had a Seagate product fail. Of
course, that could be luck. They come with 5 year warranties.
Of course, I probably just cursed one of my drives by mentioning I had
no failures. I've built PCs for people that would spend the extra money
for a Seagate and had the
Fortunately got the 1.5Tbytes. Also, they still have 5 years.
The only computer part I have they really seems to be junk are these
Gigabyte Rocket fans. What a pain to replace. One stopped turning, but
the system shut down. The other lost it's speed control. I use Zalman now.
Bob Frost wrote:
The Vuescan IR is pretty good. However, I view film scanning like
playing a LP. At the very least, you need to blow off the dust.
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
The good news is I run a 5400-II with Vuescan. The bad news is I haven't
a clue why yours isn't working.
Did you run that calibration step that the software requests?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yesterday I tried to use Vuescan but it was frustrating. Here's the
situation: my old
Nikon LS4000
I believe Tony explained that everyone's address is visible. I can
certainly see them.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sigh -- nobody responded directly to my original question, which is
Why is my email address displayed on the
I try to steer the Mac users I know to open source multi-platform
programs like Thunderbird for email, Firefox for browsing, etc. It makes
it easier to help them. Thunderbird has a simple filtering scheme
(rules). There was a recent hackers event that broke into a Mac Air in
two minutes using
Often Vuescan needs the factory driver to be installed. A few devices Ed
can drive directly.
BTW, Vuescan under X64 is not all that stable. Expect a crash every
other roll. It has to do with how X64 handles USB.
In many ways, X64 is a really good operating system. Remember, it is
Server 2003
A bit OT, but I've been running X64 for about 3 years. Vuescan saved my
arse regarding my Epson 5400II. I got a cheap Canon for document work,
retiring my scsi flatbed.
I understanding keeping an old scanner and playing the scsi game, but I
got rid of all my scsi gear when I upgraded. Well, I
http://www.richardcrouse.com/services/scanning.html
As you probably read, they are scanning the old Apollo moon film. The
scanner in the link above is the type of scanner used for this project.
Unsubscribe
I think a better comparison would be the Aztek against a dedicated film
scanner, not a flat bed. It is clear to me there is a focus issue with
the Epson.
R. Jackson wrote:
I thought some of you might enjoy seeing this. I went down to
Petaluma today and Lenny Eiger introduced me to scanning with
I can't comment on the bit depth of cameras, but scanners need more bits
when processing negative film since negative film has it's dynamic range
compressed. Eight bits was passable for slide film, well, properly
exposed slide film.
Film like Astia is slightly compressed, i.e. it doesn't have the
resolution to get
there.
On Jul 10, 2007, at 9:37 AM, gary wrote:
A cropped sensor really doesn't give you more reach. If you think
about
it, you could just crop a full size image to get more reach
reach per resolution. Also, the camera is
smaller and likely lighter.
Art
gary wrote:
A cropped sensor really doesn't give you more reach. If you think about
it, you could just crop a full size image to get more reach.
R. Jackson wrote:
On Jul 10, 2007, at 6:23 AM, Berry Ives wrote
.
Considering cost and weight of a FF, may not be as great an advantage as
it first appears.
Art
gary wrote:
I simply see no advantage to have a smaller sensor. I don't see how I
spent pixels. This makes no sense to me.
Nikon has an option on some models where you can toss the outer area
. If the FF is about 1/4th higher res to the
smaller sensor, then you are correct, no disadvantage.
Considering cost and weight of a FF, may not be as great an advantage as
it first appears.
Art
gary wrote:
I simply see no advantage to have a smaller sensor. I don't see how I
spent pixels
I wish they were a bit more scientific in their analysis. For instance,
Canon makes more than one 300mm lens.
Bob Geoghegan wrote:
Hmmm, 12 MP but in different sizes. Consider the Nikon D2X(s) vs Canon 1D
mkII or 5D.
http://www.naturfotograf.com/D2X_rev00.html
One last point here. Film will probably never be as flat as a piece of
silicon.
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate)
But a pixel is around 6um on a side, so grain is finer than a pixel.
R. Jackson wrote:
On Jul 4, 2007, at 11:28 PM, Arthur Entlich wrote:
snip
Look here:
http://www.imx.nl/photosite/technical/Filmbasics/filmbasics.html
See the 400x magnification? If that level of capture detail existed
I thought the lens design has elements to compensate for field
flattening. In any event, the predictably flat silicon focal plane has
to be better than the lottery of film.
Tony Sleep wrote:
On 06/07/2007 Arthur Entlich wrote:
Does anyone know if there is a chart which shows depth of focus at
I don't have a DSLR, but wouldn't a raw camera image need to be, shall
we say, dematrixed. The output of a film scanner is RGB at every pixel
location, where the DSLR is one color per pixel, with additional post
processing required to get RGB at every location.
R. Jackson wrote:
On Jul 4, 2007,
I suspect the generations effect is why it takes less resolution in a
DSLR to be equivalent to film. That is, the EOS-1Ds Mark II, at
16Mpixels, is considered to be as good as scanned film, which generally
exceeds 30MPixels.
I saw a website that compared drum to a dedicated film scanner, with the
I was the one that brought up the topic, based on a speech I attended by
Jim Sugar. He uses
http://marketplace.digitalrailroad.net/Default.aspx
rather than Getty, but believes you should meet the Getty standards. As
I also mentioned, the EOS-1ds Mark II seems to be THE standard.
Jim also has a
I'm not familiar with that scanner. However, it may pay to install the
latest ASPI for your OS (assuming you have a PC). Check both adaptec and
Microsoft websites, and use the latest software.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have been having a problem with my Polaroid SprintScan 4000
scanner.
snip
Could you crop a piece of the image where you see the problem? That is,
a full resolution scan, but a small piece where the problem occurs.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anyone have any thoughts or suggestions on the following issue:
I just did a scan of a Fuji Astia 6x7 slide It is about
preserved in the tiff format and unadjusted, just in case you want to
look further. It's about a sixth of the size of the original, but since
the original was a 563 MB file, this one is about 101 MB.
boncratious.info/CherryBlossomDining-lrg-crop.tif
gary wrote:
Could you crop a piece of the image
, is an indication of
something else like the feeder not being inserted into the slot correctly or
in a straight and level manner.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of gary
Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 12:22 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] Re
be hard to come by.
This is where I got mine a few months ago:
http://www.hotbuyselectronics.com/item_detail.php?item_id=110129
Gary-
hotbuyselectronics.com is still advertising the Dimage 5400 II as
available, and I ordered one last sunday. At $489.00 the price
is very reasonable for a scanner
experience with Nvidia chipset
drivers - I was ready for anything else, given my experience with VIA.
I may go back to Gigabyte, sooner than later.
Jim
gary wrote:
I guess I should say Asus mobos anymore. It used to be my mobo of choice.
http://www.iometer.org/
To some degree you can measure
FWIW, I don't build PCs using Asus mobos. I find I get a better bang for
you buck with Gigabyte. I've built two systems using the GA-k8n Ultra-9
(x64 and Suse 10.0)
If you are using onboard raid (often known as FRAID for fake raid), it
won't be blazing. I use the onboard raid myself as I really
I guess I should say Asus mobos anymore. It used to be my mobo of choice.
http://www.iometer.org/
To some degree you can measure disk i/o with the program, though it
really flogs your whole system.
gary wrote:
FWIW, I don't build PCs using Asus mobos. I find I get a better bang for
you buck
http://www.sysinternals.com/utilities/bluescreen.html
I have no first had knowledge of this program, but I can vouch for
sysinternals.com in general. See if it capture your BSOD.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for this. I downloaded the expanded scanners.inf file and used
it to load the
Just a note. Vuescan doesn't work well with the Dimage 5400 II. IIRC, it
looked banded. Fortunately, the KM software is excellent.
Now perhaps if the internal commands were put in the public domain, Ed
H. could do a good job with it.
Tony Sleep wrote:
On 31/05/2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://konicaminolta.com/releases/2006/0119_03_01.html
It is not clear if they have abandoned the scanner business from reading
this press release.
I see a real problem here in that Windows will be going to Vista in a
year and there will be no drivers for Minolta scanners.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or if the manufacturer goes out of
business.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of gary
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 11:28 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: large scanning project
I run X64 (a precursor to Vista) and have to boot to XP to use
, or some enterprising programmers would start a
company to support 64 bit drivers. This can mean a lot of money for a
one or two person software company.
Tony Sleep wrote:
On 30/05/2006 gary wrote:
I run X64 (a precursor to Vista) and have to boot to XP to use my 5400
II. Dual booting is never
Pec pads and fluid are pretty much the standard for film cleaning. This
is some random (as in I never used that mail order company) link:
http://www.slidescribe.com/pcld.shtml
You shouldn't have to mail order the Pec pads and fluid. It is generally
a bit cheaper to get a Pec kit that has both the
One idea might be to host in the US, which I assume is cheaper. I use
www.lizardhill.com
I will say about ever 4 months they get a DOS attack. I don't know how
typical that is.
Paul Roberts wrote:
On 5/25/06, Tony Sleep [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
www.halftone.co.uk - the home of Tony Sleep
I think the lack of activity in the list is due to the lack of new
hardware coming on the scene. The writing is on the wall I guess. [If
that phrase doesn't work in the UK, maybe the fix is in will do.] The
trouble is it takes a really good digital camera to equal a film camera
plus scanner.
Tony
BTW, list is Gary. I got off my arse and hopefully changed the username
field.
My gut feeling is scanning or even film developing is the low profit
part of the business since many companies can provide scanning services.
[Custom Labs in Berkeley being the only one to bite the dust as far as
I
mystery for me to solve about this scanner.
Thanks for any help!
-Gary
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message
41 matches
Mail list logo
