Custom Search
|
|
| [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] |
Custom Search
|
We used PhotoCDs for small color subjects in 4/c guidebooks at my last employer and they were a great, inexpensive source of electronic files requiring very little manipulation. Matter of fact, I wasn't aware of all the history with PhotoCD until I started shopping--unsuccesfully--for a new vendor after moving to a job in a new town. In case I can't find a good local vendor with a PhotoCD set up, what's should I be asking for (or looking for in the Yellow Pages) as the generic equivalent--or am I just out of luck? I don't have the film scanner and probably not the time nor the skill to scan my own 35s. Thanks for any advice. > ---------- > From: Arthur Entlich > Reply To: scan@leben.com > Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 9:33 PM > To: scan@leben.com > Subject: Re: Noise on my SS4000 > > > Regarding PhotoCD, if you have found a good provider who isn't damaging > your film and is producing good scans, and are finding the price > reasonable, I wouldn't argue the point with you at all. > > I was involved in some of the beta of PhotoCD and I thought it was a > great concept, though ahead of its time for the general public, since > most people did not have the equipment or knowledge at home at the time > to do much with it. At the time, I suggested to Kodak that they forget > about promoting the home PhotoCD/CD player/reader and just license the > option to CD player manufacturers, and to push the reading software be > integrated into all image manipulating programs and the firmware be > available with all CD-ROM units. > > Well, it took them nearly 5 years to take my advice, unfortunately. In > the meantime, they lost millions trying to sell the Kodak CD/PhotoCD > players, made it way too expensive to license the file format, so no one > took it on, and the general public ignored the whole thing. Further, I > had warned then that if they weren't going to monitor the quality of the > results coming out of private labs they were going to have some very > poor results, since this digital stuff was new to most labs and they > were not properly trained. Heck, Kodak even recognized the problem with > unmonitored print production, and started their own program of checking > up on processing and printing with labs. > > Anyway, the current status is the CD/PhotoCD players mainly were given > away in contests, and I occasionally see them in pawn shops, Kodak got > CD-ROM manufacturers to make multi-session reading standard in their > drive firmware, and they reduced the licensing and open coded parts of > the PhotoCD file format, the format became well accepted in professional > circles, and the rest is history... If I had 1% of Kodak's losses in > trying to establish this format and not taking my advice, I could > probably be retired right now... > > Art > > > Sam A. McCandless wrote: > > > > > I'd rather have the 4000+ Art has, but I'm still using my 4000 for old > > 35mm slides and negatives. I plan to use it also for newly-exposed film > > in the case of images I want scanned at more samples per inch than the > > highest (2048 spi) of the five Kodak PhotoCD resolutions with which I'm > > experimenting, mostly at 16 bits. > > > > Three 36-exposure rolls of film - I'm starting with Kodak's Supra - are > > developed and scanned uncut and returned in plastic sleeves along with > > the Kodak PhotoCD CD and a print of the 108 small thumbnails. For about > > $100 total, including the cost of the film and the mailing/shipping, > > i.e., for about a dollar per exposure, at Jim's Digital Photo Lab > > (1-877-762-7894) in Littleton, Colorado. For my first few orders I've > > been satisfied with everything except a lack of communication from Jim's > > > about when orders are received and shipped. But I'd appreciate any > > references to other labs. > > > > Other than cropping, the Kodak PhotoCD scans typically seem to me to > > require little if any work in Photoshop except for some sharpening. I > > don't doubt that Art can do better scans, but I do doubt that I could or > > > would anytime soon. And sometime soon I expect to switch to a digital > > camera. (I wish I knew when "soon" is.) > > > > The highest-resolution Kodak PhotoCD scans also seem to me to print ok > > up to at least 8 x 10 in the case of the Supra 400. And the > > minimally-handled, sleeved negatives together with the CD seem to me an > > inexpensive supplement to whatever Photoshop files I might try to > > archive. Instead of creating those via the 4000, I could instead send > > negatives back for Kodak Pro PhotoCD scans at 4096 spi. But I haven't > > done it. > > > > I've been experimenting with Supra because I believe Kodak designed it > > both not to distort colors and to scan well. I'd appreciate any > > suggestions about alternatives. > > > > Sam samcc@vom.com > > > > > >> > >> My experience with PCD was awful, and I would NEVER use it again. In > >> my case the turn around time was weeks, the color was way off (very > >> green and dark). The images were not fully cleaned and I ended up > >> with a lot of cleaning work. In some cases the cropping was off or > >> the scan was not squared properly. Finally, the one disk I had done > >> (and its on a Kodak gold disk) doesn't read for some files. > >> > >> In fairness, the company that did the work went out of business > >> (deservingly). I like knowing where my films are (especially after > >> 10:00 PM ;-)). I love having access to a good scanner, allowing me to > >> scan what I need when I need it, the way I need it, and at the > >> resolution I require. I'd never trade. BUT, if you have a very good > >> lab you trust to work well and quickly, there might be some advantage. > >> I have yet to see a PCD scan that is as good as mine, but again, I > >> haven't studies one in many years, and I image the PCD systems have > >> improved as have desktop scanners. > >> > >> Art > >> > >> Scott Whittle wrote: > >> > >>> Thanks everyone for the input on cleaning out my dusty SS4000. I did > >>> try > >>> spraying out the dust, although I'm not sure how much good it did. I > >>> did > >>> some comparisons between a Kodak Photo CD scan (18MB) vs a 4000DPI > >>> scan I > >>> did with the SS4000, and was shocked to see that there was a lot more > >>> noise > >>> in the SS4000 scan. It just looked "grainier", if that makes sense. > >>> Makes > >>> me think that maybe I should just be making $1.75 scans at the lab > >>> and save > >>> myself the headache of spending hours trying to get a decent scan out > >>> of the > >>> Polaroid. The time saved would be significant...I spent $65 to for 30 > >>> perfect PhotoCD scans, in comparison to the 5 or so hours it took to > >>> make > >>> those same 30 scans at home and then spot, adjust, etc. Comments, > >>> anyone? > >>> > >>> Scott W > >>> scottwhittle@scottwhittle.com > >> > > > > > > - > Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate > subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions. > > - Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.
 |