[PLUG] SANE not quite easy - Resolution

Thu Jun 28 13:43:13 UTC 2018

In the sixties, the only way I could afford taking pictures was doing my
own processing.  Much better than the commercial shops.

Ken

On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 9:45 PM Russell Senior <russell at personaltelco.net>
wrote:

> Some film processing is better than others.  I have some excellent prints
> (and negatives) from early 1950s Germany, taken with a Leica by my dad and
> processed by a local camera shop there.  He reported that the processing in
> the US was so bad when he got back to the States, that he sold the camera.
>
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 5:44 PM, Tomas Kuchta <
> tomas.kuchta.lists at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I would encourage you to scan a few negatives/transparencies, measure the
> > time it takes and extrapolate to cover all your negatives/positives.
> >
> > When I did that years ago, I quickly realized that scanners are just too
> > slow for what I wanted to do in a time given to me by mother nature - by
> > couple of orders of magnitude, actually. Plus the scan quality was not
> that
> > great either.
> >
> > The solutions to speed things up are either:
> > a) adapter for your digital camera + automation. That way you can scan
> and
> > postprocess hundreds of pictures a day instead of a few with slow
> scanners.
> > With half decent DSLR, you will get high quality scans.
> > b) send the stash out for someone else to scan them. There are a few big
> > and decent companies still doing it. That is what I have eventually
> settled
> > on. The price is good and the quality is decisively better than from a
> > desktop scanner with transparency adapter.
> >
> > Until I went through this scanning discovery, I naively believed in great
> > quality of film photography compared to digital. I was so wrong - today's
> > digital imaging is vastly superior, especially to old/aged films.
> >
> > I hope that you find my comments useful,
> > Tomas
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018, 11:54 AM Russell Senior <russell at personaltelco.net
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > There is a guy in Seattle named Andrew Filer, who I met in a
> > > then-hackerspace called Metrix:Create who modified a Kodak Carousel
> > > projector in such a way as to backlight the slides (reduced wattage of
> > the
> > > bulb, replaced the heat shield with frosted glass), basically used the
> > > projector as a slide advancing robot, removed the lens, and aimed a
> > digital
> > > SLR with a macro lens back at the slide and photographed the slide.
> With
> > > some simple transistor circuits, you could automate the camera's
> shutter
> > > release and the slide advance.  You could do a whole tray of slides in
> a
> > > few minutes with very little supervision.
> > >
> > > You need a digital SLR and a macro lens, preferably one with autofocus
> > (as
> > > I discovered).  But orders of magnitude less tedious than a flatbed
> > scanner
> > > where you manually loaded slides into a holder, 12 at a time.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 11:09 AM, Denis Heidtmann <
> > > denis.heidtmann at gmail.com
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Russell,
> > > >
> > > > I would be interested in the method.  Picture of a screen?
> > > >
> > > > -Denis
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 11:03 AM, Russell Senior <
> > > > russell at personaltelco.net>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Gotcha.  I don't have any better solutions for that.
> > > > >
> > > > > If they were slides, I'd suggest the method I used in Seattle a few
> > > years
> > > > > ago, that went through about 3000+ slides in kodak projector
> > carousels
> > > is
> > > > > an afternoon.  Automation++.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 10:32 AM, Michael Rasmussen <
> > > michael at jamhome.us>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Of primary interest are 2 1/4 x 2 3/4 (6x9cm) negatives from my
> > > > > > grandparents. After that 35mm negatives.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I was entrusted to my grandparents' negatives and am feeling a
> > > > > > responsibility to scan them into digital files for my relatives.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 2018-06-27 10:10, Russell Senior wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> What kind of transparencies?  If they are 35mm slides, and lots
> of
> > > > them,
> > > > > >> there is a better way.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 9:00 AM, Michael Rasmussen <
> > > > michael at jamhome.us>
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> In another group, it was suggested I try Vuescan from
> > > > > >>> https://www.hamrick.com/
> > > > > >>> The free Linux download untars to three binaries.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> It just works.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Now to, when I have time, figure out the issue with xsane.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> On 2018-06-26 18:37, Michael Rasmussen wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> I've acquired an Epson V500 flatbed scanner. After immediate
> > > install
> > > > of
> > > > > >>>> xsane and the Epson iscan drivers scanning does not work.
> I've
> > > > added
> > > > > >>>> myself to the scanner group and done a bit of unproductive
> > > googling.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> The sympton can be summed up:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>   michael at camper:~$ scanimage -L
> > > > > >>>>   device `epson:libusb:001:006' is a Epson  flatbed scanner
> > > > > >>>>   michael at camper:~$ scanimage -T
> > > > > >>>>   scanimage: rounded value of br-x from -32768 to -32768
> > > > > >>>>   scanimage: rounded value of br-y from -32768 to -32768
> > > > > >>>>   scanimage: sane_start: Invalid argument
> > > > > >>>>   michael at camper:~$
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> If you have a cluestick on what needs to be done, I'm ready
> for
> > a
> > > > > whack.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > > --
> > > > > >       Michael Rasmussen, Portland Oregon
> > > > > >     Be Appropriate && Follow Your Curiosity
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > PLUG mailing list
> > > > > > PLUG at pdxlinux.org
> > > > > > http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
> > > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > PLUG mailing list
> > > > > PLUG at pdxlinux.org
> > > > > http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
> > > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > PLUG mailing list
> > > > PLUG at pdxlinux.org
> > > > http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > PLUG mailing list
> > > PLUG at pdxlinux.org
> > > http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PLUG mailing list
> > PLUG at pdxlinux.org
> > http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
> >
> _______________________________________________
> PLUG mailing list
> PLUG at pdxlinux.org
> http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
>