and...@users.sourceforge.net said:
> I think you have a strong bias towards VueScan. That's fine, but it
> doesn't mean we have to give up coding to make things better. And it
> certainly doesn't mean SANE is by definition inferior to VueScan.
I have a strong bias towards fully functioning softwa
Jonathan,
I think you have a strong bias towards VueScan. That's fine, but it
doesn't mean we have to give up coding to make things better. And it
certainly doesn't mean SANE is by definition inferior to VueScan.
> > Orange mask: at least with Coolscan2, this one is trivial: adjust the
> > exposu
and...@users.sourceforge.net said:
> Orange mask: at least with Coolscan2, this one is trivial: adjust the
> exposure times of the R, G, B channels so that the space between two
> frames comes out exactly white. If you then scan with these settings
> and invert, all colours will be correct, and you
> At the end of the day the problem with SANE and film scanning is that
> there is no SANE front end with decent orange mask removal, dust removal,
> multi pass scanning, faded negative correction etc. etc. The end result
> is that it is somewhat sucks when compared to VueScan.
Orange mask: at lea
petter.sund...@findus.dhs.org said:
> I am thinking of buying a film scanner. I really really want one.
Fair enough
> However, there seems to be few in the affordable range (around and
> below) ~<400$ that are supported by SANE. Without knowing about
> support, I had considered the Minolta Dual
Hi!
On: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 19:36:02 +,
Major A wrote:
> =
> > However, there seems to be few in the affordable range (around and =
> > below) ~<400$ that are supported by SANE. Without knowing about sup=
port, =
> > I had considered the Minolta Dual Scan III. It seems to not be work=
ing
Steven Lembark wrote:
>
>> Does anyone have any recommendations/experiences to share? I am most
>> interested in a solution that currently _works_.
>
>
> I hve a Nikon Coolscan 4000. It works beautifully. They
> also make a lower-res CS-IV that might do what you need
> it to.
>
> The Nikon equi
Major A wrote:
>>However, there seems to be few in the affordable range (around and
>>below) ~<400$ that are supported by SANE. Without knowing about support,
>>I had considered the Minolta Dual Scan III. It seems to not be working
>>very well, if at all.
>>Epson doesn't seem to work very well e
Hello.
I am thinking of buying a film scanner. I really really want one.
However, there seems to be few in the affordable range (around and
below) ~<400$ that are supported by SANE. Without knowing about support,
I had considered the Minolta Dual Scan III. It seems to not be working
very well,
> However, there seems to be few in the affordable range (around and
> below) ~<400$ that are supported by SANE. Without knowing about support,
> I had considered the Minolta Dual Scan III. It seems to not be working
> very well, if at all.
> Epson doesn't seem to work very well either. Anyhow,
> Does anyone have any recommendations/experiences to share? I am most
> interested in a solution that currently _works_.
I hve a Nikon Coolscan 4000. It works beautifully. They
also make a lower-res CS-IV that might do what you need
it to.
The Nikon equipment works in part because the manufactur
11 matches
Mail list logo
