Thinking of a scanner
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: Iphoto 08 to iPhoto 09
Next: Apple Tech Support?
From: Rowland McDonnell on 23 Feb 2010 07:02 Martin S Taylor <mst(a)hRyEpMnOoVtEiTsHm.cIo.uSk> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell wrote > >> Hmm. I get that when I hit 'Overview'. I then have to select an area > >> (click and drag) and the 'Scan' button ungreys and allows me to do a > >> decent quality scan. > > > > No such button as `Overview'. I've got `Scan' and `Show Details' > > buttons only. > > Do you have a checkbox for 'Detect separate items'? I don't recall and can't check now (see below). > > `Scan' gives me a fast scan and dumps the file in ~/Pictures (selectable > > via a pop-up menu). > > Yes, it will. > > > Pressing `Overview' - ah well now, that's not a bad idea, is it? Yes. > > Some controls. > > Typo here? Did you mean pressing 'Show Details'? I forget - and I can't check, because Image Capture now denies that I've got a scanner at all. [snip] > >> I'd recommend buying a Canon scanner (or an all-in-one) from a mail > >> order company and trying it out. If it doesn't work (or even if it > >> does) you can always return it for a full refund under the Distance > >> Selling Regulations. > > > > Hmm - righto. Ta for the thought. > > > btw, is there any chance that an HP scanner might be competent? The > > prices look quite good, but I've never met an HP scanner in the past > > that struck me as capable of producing adequate images... > > I hate HP peripherals. They write their own software all over the place, and > put icons to all of it in the dock. Vt has an HP, and it was one of the > reasons I bought a Canon. > > Hope this helps. Yep. HP's still off my list, then... (I've got HP on my `don't buy' list - but I do like to check each time I boycott the firm) Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Pd on 23 Feb 2010 07:18 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > And now I actually look, there is also a large XML file that indicates > > which files are in which album, so there is no metadata lost if you lost > > the application. > > You're wrong, of course. > > Since that XML file isn't remotely useful to any normal person without > Aperture, the data is in reality lost for any normal person if Aperture > goes. I don't know XML, but as a human (allegedly) person I can read an XML file and make some sense of it. That's one of the nice things about XML. -- Pd
From: Woody on 23 Feb 2010 07:19 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > ... which is 100% fully commercial proprietary copyrighted software, and > > > > the only software that supports exactly the data structures that > > > > Aperture (e.g.) works with is Aperture. > > > > > > Its a series of folders named 2002,2003,2004 etc, and within that there > > > are a series of months that go 01->12, and within that there are a > > > series of days, depending on what days you took photos, in the range of > > > 1->31 > > > > > > > That is the lock-in I'm talking about, which is in fact there. > > > > > > That isn't a lock in, that is an ordering. > > > A lock in is where there is no way of getting your data out (or it is > > > hard). > > You're wrong, of course - it is as I described. What? that the data is irrovocably lost? It clearly isn't and could be recovered by almost anyone with a basic knowledge of computing, or people who are able to work out the date. > You'd find things would be better if you tried to understand people > rather than reflexively denying the facts they're trying to open your > eyes to. I tried to understand how a date ordered filing system could be a lock in, and yes, I failed to understand how that could prevent anyone from accessing their photos. Even my mum could work that out. If you could enlighten me rather than just claiming it is a lock in because you said so, I would appreciate it. -- Woody
From: Daniel Cohen on 23 Feb 2010 07:20 Daniel Cohen <dcohenspam(a)talktalk.net> wrote: > J. J. Lodder <nospam(a)de-ster.demon.nl> wrote: > > > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > > Well, no it doesn't. No UI, no nothing. The only response I've ever > > > had from GraphicConverter when trying to TWAIN acquire - is crashing. > > > > Any TWAIN-compatible one, which they all are nowadays. > > > > > Yes, but there may not be a TWAIN driver (is that the right word?) that > works with 10.6.2. Just had another thought. The old TWAIN driver may well work if Graphic Converter is run in 32-bit mode rather than the default 64-bit mode. Though if Rowland's *only* response from GC was crashing, and that is meant to mean even before Snow Leopard, then there is probably something wrong with his system. -- <http://www.decohen.com> Send e-mail to the Reply-To address. Mail to the From address is never read.
From: Ben Shimmin on 23 Feb 2010 07:23
Pd <peterd.news(a)gmail.invalid>: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: >> > And now I actually look, there is also a large XML file that indicates >> > which files are in which album, so there is no metadata lost if you lost >> > the application. >> >> You're wrong, of course. >> >> Since that XML file isn't remotely useful to any normal person without >> Aperture, the data is in reality lost for any normal person if Aperture >> goes. > > I don't know XML, but as a human (allegedly) person I can read an XML > file and make some sense of it. That's one of the nice things about XML. In general I agree, but try unzipping a .docx file and having a look at the XML that gives you. Yes, you can read it. No, you wouldn't really want to. b. -- <bas(a)bas.me.uk> <URL:http://bas.me.uk/> `It is like Swinburne sat down on his soul's darkest night and designed an organized sport.' -- David Foster Wallace, _Infinite Jest_, on American football |