Re: 2nd bodies
- From: Roger <Delete-Invallid.stuff.groups@xxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 04:25:19 -0400
On 14 Oct 2005 05:24:10 GMT, dnichols@xxxxxxxxxxx (DoN. Nichols)
wrote:
>According to David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@xxxxxxxx>:
>> dnichols@xxxxxxxxxxx (DoN. Nichols) writes:
>
> [ ... ]
>
>> > Yep. I believe that there was some mention here a while back
>> > about a device which attaches to the camera's eyepiece and displays on a
>> > LCD screen. That would help deal with such problems -- but I don't know
>> > whether it would be sufficiently affordable to make it practical.
>>
>> "Video assist" for still cameras. I do remember reading about this
>> somewhere, and it was remarkably cheap (though not cheap enough to get
>> me to grab it right away).
>
> O.K. I may yet try it.
Many digital still cameras have a video out. You simply plug it into
a monitor.
>
> [ ... ]
>
>> > I suspect so. I really need to scan all of my old negatives,
>> > but it takes forever with the scanner which I have. It is a Nikon model
>> > from prior to the CoolScan models. Very high resolution, but it
>> > requires a GPIB interface, and can only be run on a Windows or a Mac
>> > (with the supplied software). It produces only Targa or BMP images, at
>> > about 72MB for a full resolution scan. My GPIB card is ISA interface,
>> > and it took absolutely forever to scan on Windows 3.11. Part of the
>> > problem was that it insisted on scanning to *memory* and that box
>> > couldn't handle that much memory. So -- it used virtual memory, instead
>> > of scanning directly to disk.
XP, and a good computer will take care of that.
I'm scanning 60 to 120 meg files in less than a minute.
Virtual memory is writting to disk, now if that could just be saved
that way.
>> >
>> > So -- it took about one hour to scan the 72MB image, another
>> > half-hour to save to disk, a quarter-hour to copy over the net to one of
>> > my unix boxen, and perhaps 6-7 minutes to copy between two of the unix
>> > boxen with a 10BaseT network interface. I've not checked the speeds
>> > since most systems have moved to 100BaseT networking. But, I am
100 base T? I've been running a gigabit network for about 6 months.
>> > convinced that the majority of the time burden was thanks to the Windows
>> > virtual memory implementation and disk file system. :-)
This computer has 2 Gigs of 400 MHz DDR RAM. If I drop to one meg I
see no difference on most scans unless scanning 5 at 16 bit color
depth while running other apps.
OTOH if I drop to 512 Megs it's the difference between night and day.
The system starts page file swapping and takes for ever.
>>
>> Now *that's* a slow scanner.
>
> I really think that the majority of the slowness came from the
>combination of the Windows filesystem and the virtual memory in that
It came from an old version of Windows that can't handle enough
memory.
>system. I am interested in seeing how much faster it would be directly
>on a Sun, which deals gracefully with both large files and virtual
>memory.
Just put it on a newer Win machine with one gig of RAM and I'll bet
you'll be surprised, but OTOH if you could hear it scanning line by
line and then slow down when it started page file swapping that was
one slow scanner.
>
> When scanning, I could hear each line being scanned, and after a
>certain point (corresponding with when physical memory was filled), I
>could hear it slow down to a second or so between lines. And, of
>course, it did three lines per position -- one for each color.
>
>> I've been using a Nikon LS-2000 for a while now, can't remember
>> exactly when I got it. But my new LS-5000 arrived today, *with* the
>> slide feeder (and reports I've read indicate the slide feeder actually
>> *works* on the 5000, unlike earlier versions). Haven't even hooked it
>> up yet, but I anticipate hard drives becoming full very rapidly here
>> soon!
The auto feeder depends on how good your mounts are. It will not
handle curved paper mounts, it will not handle paper mounts with edges
that have spread and there are a number of plastic mounts wihich will
only feed one way. So, you learn to iron your paper mounted slides
<:-)) smooth the edges and make sure the slide mounts go in the
proper way, reguardless of what direction the transparencies is
situated in the mount.
They can run for hours with out a fault and they can jam on nearly
every slide depending on the mount and its condition.
I have an LS5000ED and the SF210 feeder. I've put well past 20,000
slides, negatives, and transparency film strips through it. It was
worth the money, but it is not without fault. You do not put 50
slides in the feeder, walk off, and expect to come back and find all
50 have gone through the scanner. You might, but that would be your
lucky day.
>
> Hmm ... what was that one which I have? O.K. -- LS-3500.
>
>> > If I ever get the drivers for my Sbus GPIB cards for my Suns, I
>> > hope to write my own programs to run it, as the full command set for the
>> > scanner was included in the manual. :-)
>>
>> Running it directly off the Sun should simplify the workflow
>> considerably.
>
> It should also speed up the acquisition of the image. (Once I
You are probably goig to be I/O bound by the output speed of the
scanner and unless you have a computer problem there should be no
difference.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com.
>figure out how to turn a truly RAW image from the scanner into some
>format which I can then convert to other formats at will. :-) I figure
>that .ppn would probably be the best bet for output from my program on a
>unix box.
>
> [ ... ]
>
>> > > > I presume that you were exposed to his music interests.
>> > >
>> > > Yes, and still like his work (Smithsonian Folkways records has
>> > > released the albums on his own label on CDs, and done a good job
>> > > reengineering for CD I think, so I have a set in good condition, not
>> > > just old LPs). I never quite dared ask him if he'd ever heard of
>> > > Steeleye Span or Fairport Convention, and if so what he thought.
>> >
>> > It would be interesting to know his thoughts on that. I'm not
>> > even sure what he would have thought of some real source singers. :-)
>>
>> He made a very sharp distinction between "folk singers", who for him
>> were actually "folk", and professional musicians.
>
> As do I. But, unfortunately, the recording companies have
>destroyed the meaning of "folk" these days, and even "traditional
>singer" is getting diluted. The current term seems to be "source
>singer".
>
>> He mostly billed
>> himself as a "minstrel". He certainly thought that professionalism in
>> vocal performance, accompaniment, and such were valuable for the kind
>> of performance he wanted to do.
>
> O.K.
>
>> > I first heard his recordings back around 1962, I think. I guess
>> > that I should get in touch with the Smithsonian to get a set from them
>> > for my own listening.
>>
>> Here's their page for album #1
>> <http://www.folkways.si.edu/search/AlbumDetails.aspx?ID=2406>
>
> Thanks. I'll catch up with them someday soon.
>
> Enjoy,
> DoN.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: 2nd bodies
- From: DoN. Nichols
- Re: 2nd bodies
- References:
- 2nd bodies
- From: Gordon
- Re: 2nd bodies
- From: DoN. Nichols
- 2nd bodies
- Prev by Date: Re: Canon 5D prompts intro of new resolution test
- Next by Date: Re: Nikon autofocus lenses
- Previous by thread: Re: 2nd bodies
- Next by thread: Re: 2nd bodies
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
