>Would this make it ON-Topic to offer up a 4 x 5 Beseler for sale cheap?
>Dichroic head? How about some stabilization processors? I think that I
>already have a taker for my movie/microfilm (not fiche) processing
>equipment.
>--
>Fred Cisin cisin_at_xenosoft.com
>XenoSoft http://www.xenosoft.com
>PO Box 1236 (510) 644-9366
>Berkeley, CA 94701-1236
>On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, John Foust wrote:
>> At 10:12 AM 8/1/00 -0700, Chuck McManis wrote:
>> >However, if you "think analog" you'll see that you can in fact scan these
>with a cheap scanner but you will need to optically expand them to get the
>gain. Using a standard darkroom enlarger with a 10x enlargement to a piece
of
>onion paper on the bed of the scanner would work.
>>
>> Is that a day dream, or have you actually tried this enlarger/onionskin
>> approach? I know using a scanner for 2D-ish 3D objects works great,
>> but scanning a projected image? When a transparency-adapted scanner
>> scans, doesn't it turn off the internal light and rely on the
>> transmissive light? Wouldn't you want to do the same with the
>> projected image?
Hmm. Now I understand what the settings on my cheap a** Umax scanner for
"transmissive" vs "Reflective" mean. Is this a normal thing for scanners
that you can tell them to just turn off the light?
>> - John
>
--
-Jim Strickland
jim_at_calico.litterbox.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
BeOS 5.0.1 Powered!
This message sent with BeatWare MailIt 2.0.4
----------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wed Aug 02 2000 - 22:40:46 BST