Well, we're getting really off topic here, but if you have any knowledge
how Corbis operates with its photographers (which is a Bill Gates
company) you would know that he is not in it for the fun, philosophy, or
love of the art. And as to the limited time... all that was needed was
more scanners
At 06:07 19-08-01 +0200, Thys wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Enoch's Vision, Inc. (Cary Enoch R...) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Have you actually worked with a Nikon LS-4000? It's a very fine piece of
machinery that is easily worth its price. I definitely wouldn't buy on the
basis of
- Original Message -
From: Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It seems crazy to pay $900 for a 2800dpi (Nikon
IV) scanner when there are 4000dpi units available
for the same or less that compares favourably
with Nikon's expensive LS4000.
There is much more to a scanner than
- Original Message -
From: Thys [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2001 12:33 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
- Original Message -
From: Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It seems crazy to pay $900
- Original Message -
True; but tests I've seen so far indicates that the Polaroid SS4000 and
Canon 4000 are on par with the Nikon LS4000 (some rate them actually
better
than the Nikon in some respects) IMO the Nikon is overpriced and people
buy
the name more than anything else.
- Original Message -
From: Enoch's Vision, Inc. (Cary Enoch R...) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Have you actually worked with a Nikon LS-4000? It's a very fine piece of
machinery that is easily worth its price. I definitely wouldn't buy on the
basis of their name as I've had beefs with Nikon in
I'm not Lynn, but hopefully he won't mind me rudely jumping in..
What problem are you having? About the only difficulty I have is with
cardboard mount slides which can catch on the rounded corner at top right
of each slide position.. You can carefully remove that corner with a sharp
blade
Mark wrote:
I'm not Lynn, but hopefully he won't mind me rudely jumping in..
Don't mind at all, Myte. ;-)
Best regards, LRA
_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 20:15:48 -0700
Got question.
I use a couple Leica M6 manual 35mm rangefinder cameras to take color and
black and white slides. I use ISO/200 Kodachome and SCALA
At 01:49 PM 8/16/01 +, Lynn Allen wrote:
Acer Scanwit (either with or without IR) is definitely worth looking at.
Hi Lynn,
Do you have problems loading slides into your ScanWit or is it just
me? I'd been using mine just for negatives for a few weeks and was
thinking that it was the best
Karl Schulmeisters wrote:
So for a 20 year archive, I would print to 2 CDRs and keep the original negs
in a cool-dry place (in essence that is what Corbis is doing with the
Betteman archive).
From what I've read, Corbis actually throwing up their hands and
accepting defeat. The vast
Arthur writes:
Knowing Gates, it is all a money decision and they
likely already scanned the best (most sellable)
images ...
It sounds like you don't know Gates at all. If he just wanted to make lots of
money, buying something like a deteriorating archive of images would be a really
poor
PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 01:26:22 -0700
Karl Schulmeisters wrote:
So for a 20 year archive, I would print to 2 CDRs and keep the original
negs
in a cool-dry place (in essence that is what Corbis
PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Art wrote:
Gates also owns several other collections from
Europe, which unfortunately are also disintegrating.
Which proves conclusively that even Money doesn't solve problems--unless,
of
course, you *use* it!!! ]:(
Best
Got question.
I use a couple Leica M6 manual 35mm rangefinder cameras to take color and
black and white slides. I use ISO/200 Kodachome and SCALA films that I buy
along with mailers from BH in New York.
My computer is 1.5 year old, Windows 98, 450Mz PIII, 256M RAM, and lots of
free hard drive
PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
My long and detailed comments are below.
BK
- Original Message -
From: Mark Edmonds [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 1:01 PM
Subject: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium
: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Respectfully, I agree with much of the below but there are some things I
disagree with. I work for a company that was involved in a major lawsuit.
At the time of discovery I worked for the IT department and watched the
furious scramble
so good - no problem.
Regards, Ron
- Original Message -
From: Andrew Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 7:04 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
What CDRs would be the good quality ones?
Thanks!
Andrew
Ron Carlson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on Wed, 8 Aug 2001 23:33:00 -0700
This was a subject of intense discussion on this list about a
year ago last spring.
And here's a link to tell you everything everyone needs to know about CD-R
http://www.macintouch.com/cdrfailure.html
--
David Gordon
On Tue, 7 Aug 2001 10:19:34 -0700 Winsor Crosby ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
It is not wide spread, but photographers have archived color images
as black and white color separations for years. The longevity of
black and white film is pretty well established.
Oh no it isn't! :) Do a web
We appreciate the importance of leaving a Rosetta Stone though.
If you really want to be understood by an archeologist in a geologically
far future, your stony time capsule needs some Latin or Greek :-)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hersch Nitikman) wrote:
--=_8182482==_.ALT
Hersch wrote:
I believe that Etruscan writings in Tuscany, approximately 2-3000 years old
have still not been deciphered.
So then, we seem to have the additional problem of also keeping Etruscan
scribes alive for 2-3000 years (or perhaps their counterparts). Formidable!
;-)
--LRA
Lynn
On Tue, 07 Aug 2001 21:26:05 + Lynn Allen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
That is probably the most unique solution I've heard all day, and
probably all year. :-)
Although a joke, it has actually been seriously proposed and developed as
as a long-term archival medium for data - not as
Thanks for the suggestion, Derek. However, the dominance of
Latin and Greek as unioversal education seems to be waning...
g
Hersch
At 04:30 AM 08/09/2001, you wrote:
We appreciate the importance of
leaving a Rosetta Stone though.
If you really want to be understood by an archeologist in a
On Wed, 08 Aug 2001 22:52:18 +0100 B.Rumary ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
Of course this assumes that anyone will still remember what the barcodes
actually mean!
Reminds me of a sci-fi novel I read years ago called 'A canticle for
Leibowitz'. It's post-apocalypse, a devout religious order
On Tue, 07 Aug 2001 21:04:49 -0500 Andrew Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
What CDRs would be the good quality ones?
Kodak Gold, though their new Silver+Gold seem likely to be as good.
However I have never yet had a read problem with any CDR I've burned on any
named-brand CDR. Of
PC World (I got my copy just 2 hours ago) has some comments on DVD-RW and
DVD-RAM. Not enough info, IMO, but a start. DVD holds a lot of data (up to
14 MB). Down side: if it goes bad, you *lose* a lot of data!
AFAICT, there's no clear-cut winner for storage--maybe the answer is to
Andrew wrote:
What CDRs would be the good quality ones?
Kodak and Sony seem to be leading the pack. I've heard mixed reviews about
Verbatim, and while I use them for CD-RW, I'm hesitant to commit archive
stuff to them. I've had zero trouble with Kodak, but then the discs are only
a year old
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tony Sleep wrote:
Etched on titanium is probably worth a few aeons, at much higher cost.
I understand that someone is working on a method of storing data on
titanium disks. However they don't store it in true digital format. They
etch a microscopic image of the actual
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Lynn Allen wrote:
Best backup medium is probably binary printed on acid-free paper as
barcodes. This is well capable of true Dead Sea Scrolls archival longevity,
if suitably stored.
That is probably the most unique solution I've heard all day, and probably
all
I believe that Etruscan writings in Tuscany, approximately
2-3000 years old have still not been deciphered.
At 02:52 PM 08/08/2001, you wrote:
In
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Lynn Allen
wrote:
Best backup medium is probably binary printed on acid-free paper
as
barcodes. This is well capable of true Dead
safety to professionals.
Just a thought.
Pat
- Original Message -
From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 3:05 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Not to be a smart @ss, but how about film?
I don't
Not to be a smart @ss, but how about film?
I don't know that any of the current storage media will either be around
or will survive 20 plus years from now.
I'm unfamiliar with Iomega's optical drives. I know they make mainly
magnetic drives and rebadge some CD-R drives. DVD RAM and it's kin
Hersch wrote:
He [Mark] wants 20 years. My 20-year-old slides and negatives have degraded
enough that they need Ed's roc, and are generally not as 'good as new.' I
think the digital resource is more reliable, if proper care and storage,
and regular renewal are carried out.
It needs to be
Excellent post, Bob. I think you covered the bases completely. :-)
Best regards--Lynn Allen
From: Bob Kehl - Kvernstoen, Kehl Assoc. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 19:39
]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 12:29:10 +0100
Not to be a smart @ss, but how about film?
I don't know that any of the current storage media will either be around
or will survive 20 plus years from now.
I'm
Hi Bob!
I'm curious, why do you trust MOD more than CDR?
MOD will probably never become standard nor inexpensive.
There are various MOD standards and some of them a older than CDR. All over the world
MOD jukeboxes have been used and are still used to store and archive digital data.
MODs are
On Mon, 6 Aug 2001 19:01:11 +0100 Mark Edmonds ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
Basically, I am looking for a long term (20 years+) storage medium to
archive my scans on. I don't have faith in CDR a
STUFF CUT
Any advice on this matter gratfully received!
Good quality CDR should last a lot
On Mon, 6 Aug 2001 22:52:31 +0200 Florian Rist
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I totally agree, I suppose the best long term back up media are
MODs.
But the continuing existence of suitable drives is the problem there.
Best backup medium is probably binary printed on acid-free paper as
doubt that I could do the same with lost photo-data.
Any questions?
Best regards--LRA
From: Florian Rist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 17:20:06 +0200
Hi Bob!
I'm
Hersch wrote:
He [Mark] wants 20 years. My 20-year-old slides and negatives have
degraded enough that they need Ed's roc, and are generally not as
'good as new.' I think the digital resource is more reliable, if
proper care and storage, and regular renewal are carried out.
It needs to be
- Original Message -
From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 11:05 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Not to be a smart @ss, but how about film?
I don't know that any of the current storage media
Rob wrote:
Presumably you meant 14GB. :) Funny I was just reading about DVD-RAM and
DVD-RW last night and they were only talking a max of 4.7GB per side.
Yes, you're right as usual, Rob. It was a case of Numbers Overload for me.
Too many numbers in the same PC World article, none of which I
First off, my thanks for all the replies and the interesting view points. I
was hoping there might be some de-facto standard out there but obviously
not!
I'd just like to answer some suggestions:
1. Use Film
Yes, fine if your film was developed properly in the first place but I have
some
Hi Lynn!
On a MOD the data is stored by changing the magnetic orientation of a
ferro magnetic meterial. This will not fade. To change it very high
temperatures and high magnetic fields are needed.
Cautionary note: I have a (ferro)magnetic tape cast-recording of Chicago
that somehow got
There was an interesting article in Scientific American magazine six or
eight years ago about the problems of storing digital data. They cited, as
I remember, three challenges: The permanence of the storage medium, the
availability of media-reading hardware, and the availability of software to
Could you not combine the scanned black and white separations as
layers in PhotoShop? Don't astronomers do that sort of thing all the
time?
Before CD-R came along, I was advocating people use separations for
Wedding Photos, and other similarly precious images. However, I was
taken to task on
A good question. I can believe people will not be using Tiff
files any more in 10 years. However, for longer than that you can
probably expect that there will be shareware (and commercial) conversion
programs to translate Tiff files to Jpeg5 format, or whatever. You just
have to go with the
Before CD-R came along, I was advocating people use
separations for Wedding Photos, and other similarly precious images.
However, I was taken to task on that on the grounds that reproducing
color images from separations is quite expensive. I have no reason to
doubt that iut is inmappropriate as a
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
Tony wrote:
Best backup medium is probably binary printed on acid-free paper as
barcodes. This is well capable of true Dead Sea Scrolls archival longevity,
if suitably stored.
That is probably the most unique solution I've heard all day, and probably
all year. :-)
If one could transcribe the
So getting an archival medium is only a third of the problem. What
happens
in 10 years when no one uses TIFF files anymore.
Very good point!
One possible solution would be to keep a version of Photoshop 6, or whatever
application you created your archived images with, on your computer.
Winsor Crosby wrote:
It is not wide spread, but photographers have archived color images
as black and white color separations for years. The longevity of
black and white film is pretty well established.
That's a redundancy that I vaguely knew about, but didn't consider.
Haven't even heard
Winsor Crosby asked
Could you not combine the scanned black and white separations as
layers in PhotoShop?
Yep. See this interesting example: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/
Peter Marquis-Kyle
What CDRs would be the good quality ones?
Thanks!
Andrew Robinson
Tony Sleep wrote:
On Mon, 6 Aug 2001 19:01:11 +0100 Mark Edmonds ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
Basically, I am looking for a long term (20 years+) storage medium to
archive my scans on. I don't have faith in CDR a
digital archive medium for scans?
| What CDRs would be the good quality ones?
|
| Thanks!
|
| Andrew Robinson
|
| Tony Sleep wrote:
|
| On Mon, 6 Aug 2001 19:01:11 +0100 Mark Edmonds ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
| wrote:
|
| Basically, I am looking for a long term (20 years+) storage medium
Hello folks,
Although this isn't strictly a scanning issue, I suspect other list members
have thought about this as well and adopted solutions.
Basically, I am looking for a long term (20 years+) storage medium to
archive my scans on. I don't have faith in CDR and tapes are also prone to
long
Hello Mark,
on Mon, 6 Aug 2001 19:01:11 +0100 you wrote:
Basically, I am looking for a long term (20 years+) storage medium to
archive my scans on. I don't have faith in CDR and tapes are also prone to
long term problems so the only solution I can see is a magneto optical
disk.
I totally
-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 19:01:11 +0100
Hello folks,
Although this isn't strictly a scanning issue, I suspect other list members
have thought about this as well and adopted solutions.
Basically
Tried and tested - archive the films or slides.
Maris
- Original Message -
From: Mark Edmonds [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 1:01 PM
Subject: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
| Hello folks,
|
| Although this isn't strictly
I think that anything magnetic has a questionable archival
life. In any event, the real solution, IMO, is to put the stuff on
quality CD-R media, double back up, and plan on renewing the material on
whatever is the best solution every 5 years or so. As long as you live,
and/or your heirs care,
Lynn wrote:
DVD-RAM. Not enough info, IMO, but a start. DVD holds a lot of data (up
to
14 MB). Down side: if it goes bad, you *lose* a lot of data!
Presumably you meant 14GB. :) Funny I was just reading about DVD-RAM and
DVD-RW last night and they were only talking a max of 4.7GB per side. But
:
Tried and tested - archive the
films or slides.
Maris
- Original Message -
From: Mark Edmonds [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 1:01 PM
Subject: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
| Hello folks,
|
| Although this isn't strictly a scanning
My long and detailed comments are below.
BK
- Original Message -
From: Mark Edmonds [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 1:01 PM
Subject: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Basically, I am looking for a long term (20 years+) storage
on 8/6/01 6:13 PM, Lynn Allen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PC World (I got my copy just 2 hours ago) has some comments on DVD-RW and
DVD-RAM. Not enough info, IMO, but a start. DVD holds a lot of data (up to
14 MB). Down side: if it goes bad, you *lose* a lot of data!
AFAICT, there's no
65 matches
Mail list logo
