15 New Messages
Digest #9068
| |
Messages
Fri Aug 17, 2012 9:14 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"OBrien" conorboru
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:45:42 -0500, Dane Reugger wrote:
> FWIW - I'm neither a photographer or graphic designer so maybe someone with
> more experience will chime in.
What you said is mostly correct. TIFs can be saved as compressed, however, although they will usually be larger than JPGs.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
O'Brien ––– –... .-. .. . -.
> FWIW - I'm neither a photographer or graphic designer so maybe someone with
> more experience will chime in.
What you said is mostly correct. TIFs can be saved as compressed, however, although they will usually be larger than JPGs.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
O'Brien ––– –... .-. .. . -.
Fri Aug 17, 2012 9:17 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Denver Dan" denverdan22180
Howdy.
Ken, a "photograph to digital converter" is a confusing term as you are
using it. I think you mean a scanner.
Here's some info to consider that might help make a decision.
1. Will you scan very old photographs along with more recent ones?
2. Will you scan 35 mm slides as well as photographs?
3. Do you intend to print your scans on quality color inkjet printer
paper? Paper like a glossy photo paper?
4. If you intend to print your scans, what size do you want to print?
4x6 inches? Larger?
5. Will you scan any printed material such as a newspaper photo or a
photo printed in a book?
You asked about JPEG and TIFF. These are two of many file format
technologies for images and photos and they have some specific
differences. There are also other image file formats.
JPEG is a compressed file format and is also a "lossy" file format.
This means that to achieve the compression some of the data in the
digital image is removed. Each time you edit and save a JPEG photo
more and more data is removed until the image becomes unusable and
quality suffers greatly. The good of JPEG is that a smaller file is
the result and this helps with sending images via email or posting on a
web site when bandwidth is an issue. JPEGs can be saved as higher
resolution and larger file size or lower resolution and smaller file
size. JPEG is now that standard for all digital cameras but is not
considered a good high quality professional photographer's file format
due to the "lossy" issue. JPEG files, these days, usually have a
"color space" connected with them and these days that's often the sRGB
color space. A color space determins the color gamut of a digital
image and sRGB is more limited than other color space technology such
as the Adobe RGB 1998 color space which has a larger gamut.
TIFF means Tagged Image File Format and was originally created for
square or rectangular scanned images. TIFF is not a lossy file format
and is a good file format for photo work and scanning and editing and
desktop publishing and printing. TIFF is, in my experience, more
comfortable in the Macintosh environment although it is cross
platform. I've run into Windoze users who just utterly freak out when
they run across things like TIFF images even though most all Windows
program can deal with TIFF. TIFF is also good for color work. File
sizes will be larger than with JPEG files.
RAW. This is a file format available to many digital cameras. RAW is
a generic term and each digital camera maker has a different term in
use. A RAW image taken by a digital camera is often a very very large
file but also doesn't do any kind of "in camera" alterations, no
compression, and lets you move the RAW image to your Mac and edit it in
a program like Photoshop.
Some digital cameras can be set to take JPEG, RAW, and TIFF images.
When I scan family photos on my Canon CanoScan scanner I do so at a
resolution of 600 dpi or higher. Then later in Photoshop I reduce the
resolution to 300 dpi for images to keep as a "master" file and for
printing to paper and a 2nd file at 72 dpi which I can use for email
and/or posting to a web site where file size is an issue.
Digital ICE. If you will be scanning old photos, look for a scanner
with what is called Digital ICE technology built into the scanner.
Digital ICE is something that can reduce dust and scratches and some
discoloration seen in many old photos. It does a sort of double scan
using two different light sources. Digital ICE usually makes a scanner
a bit more expensive.
If you will be scanning 35 mm slides, then look for a scanner with
slide scanning abilities and slide holders. A good idea for 35mm slide
scanning is a scanner with higher resolution built into the scanner.
Descreen. If you will be scanning material printed by a printing
press, note that this is a different technology than film and photos
and darkrooms and you need a feature in the scanning software called
Descreen. Printed material from a printing press is done with a series
of dots in rows and when scanned these rows of dots can produce a bad
effect called a "moire pattern" like resembles moire silk. Sometimes
on TV you see the unaware person wearing a polka dot tie or dress and
you can see a somewhat similar bad effect. Moire can be reduced with
the Descreen option found in better scanning software programs. Also
making sure an image is place square on the scanner's glass can help.
Resolution changes can also help but descreen is the best place to
start.
Batch Scan. If you will be scanning, for example, multiple smaller
photographs or slides, look for a feature in scanner's software program
called batch scan. This lets you place, for example, four 35mm slides
on your holder at one time and tell the scanner to do a batch scan of
all four. A good time saver.
Good luck!
Denver Dan
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:19:42 +0000, Ken wrote:
> Not a pro. Just an old, retired guy with several 40 and 50 year old
> scrapbooks that I'd like to get into my computer's iPhoto.
>
Ken, a "photograph to digital converter" is a confusing term as you are
using it. I think you mean a scanner.
Here's some info to consider that might help make a decision.
1. Will you scan very old photographs along with more recent ones?
2. Will you scan 35 mm slides as well as photographs?
3. Do you intend to print your scans on quality color inkjet printer
paper? Paper like a glossy photo paper?
4. If you intend to print your scans, what size do you want to print?
4x6 inches? Larger?
5. Will you scan any printed material such as a newspaper photo or a
photo printed in a book?
You asked about JPEG and TIFF. These are two of many file format
technologies for images and photos and they have some specific
differences. There are also other image file formats.
JPEG is a compressed file format and is also a "lossy" file format.
This means that to achieve the compression some of the data in the
digital image is removed. Each time you edit and save a JPEG photo
more and more data is removed until the image becomes unusable and
quality suffers greatly. The good of JPEG is that a smaller file is
the result and this helps with sending images via email or posting on a
web site when bandwidth is an issue. JPEGs can be saved as higher
resolution and larger file size or lower resolution and smaller file
size. JPEG is now that standard for all digital cameras but is not
considered a good high quality professional photographer'
due to the "lossy" issue. JPEG files, these days, usually have a
"color space" connected with them and these days that's often the sRGB
color space. A color space determins the color gamut of a digital
image and sRGB is more limited than other color space technology such
as the Adobe RGB 1998 color space which has a larger gamut.
TIFF means Tagged Image File Format and was originally created for
square or rectangular scanned images. TIFF is not a lossy file format
and is a good file format for photo work and scanning and editing and
desktop publishing and printing. TIFF is, in my experience, more
comfortable in the Macintosh environment although it is cross
platform. I've run into Windoze users who just utterly freak out when
they run across things like TIFF images even though most all Windows
program can deal with TIFF. TIFF is also good for color work. File
sizes will be larger than with JPEG files.
RAW. This is a file format available to many digital cameras. RAW is
a generic term and each digital camera maker has a different term in
use. A RAW image taken by a digital camera is often a very very large
file but also doesn't do any kind of "in camera" alterations, no
compression, and lets you move the RAW image to your Mac and edit it in
a program like Photoshop.
Some digital cameras can be set to take JPEG, RAW, and TIFF images.
When I scan family photos on my Canon CanoScan scanner I do so at a
resolution of 600 dpi or higher. Then later in Photoshop I reduce the
resolution to 300 dpi for images to keep as a "master" file and for
printing to paper and a 2nd file at 72 dpi which I can use for email
and/or posting to a web site where file size is an issue.
Digital ICE. If you will be scanning old photos, look for a scanner
with what is called Digital ICE technology built into the scanner.
Digital ICE is something that can reduce dust and scratches and some
discoloration seen in many old photos. It does a sort of double scan
using two different light sources. Digital ICE usually makes a scanner
a bit more expensive.
If you will be scanning 35 mm slides, then look for a scanner with
slide scanning abilities and slide holders. A good idea for 35mm slide
scanning is a scanner with higher resolution built into the scanner.
Descreen. If you will be scanning material printed by a printing
press, note that this is a different technology than film and photos
and darkrooms and you need a feature in the scanning software called
Descreen. Printed material from a printing press is done with a series
of dots in rows and when scanned these rows of dots can produce a bad
effect called a "moire pattern" like resembles moire silk. Sometimes
on TV you see the unaware person wearing a polka dot tie or dress and
you can see a somewhat similar bad effect. Moire can be reduced with
the Descreen option found in better scanning software programs. Also
making sure an image is place square on the scanner's glass can help.
Resolution changes can also help but descreen is the best place to
start.
Batch Scan. If you will be scanning, for example, multiple smaller
photographs or slides, look for a feature in scanner's software program
called batch scan. This lets you place, for example, four 35mm slides
on your holder at one time and tell the scanner to do a batch scan of
all four. A good time saver.
Good luck!
Denver Dan
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:19:42 +0000, Ken wrote:
> Not a pro. Just an old, retired guy with several 40 and 50 year old
> scrapbooks that I'd like to get into my computer's iPhoto.
>
Fri Aug 17, 2012 9:25 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Jurgen Richter" epsongroups
Hammacher Schlemmer is cryptic in the brands of items they sell, and the
one the OP referred to is named "photo to digital converter" - "we all know
them as scanners".... You get what you pay for, and personally I'd stick
with one of the other post's recommendations to get one of the Epson
scanners, specifically made for just your task. The devices listed in HS
catalog do not specify in general whether they are mac or pc
compatible... and where you can expect any technical support.... If you
opt for a known brand, like Epson, you can expect support from Epson
(and also get some through these groups). How far from support are you
wanting to get?
Also consider checking if your printer is a multi-function machine that
includes a scanner. You might have that already and not used it [yet].
We have a Canon 560 printer on our mac and it scans just fine for what
we need. I also have a dedicated flatbed scanner and another for slides.
That way I have the right tool for the job at hand.
FWIW - a number of retailers here in Canada have Photoshop Elements on
sale this week; probably until school starts... so if you need this
software, shop around.
Look at Futureshop.com, bestbuy.ca, staples.ca and other big box outlets
in your area, and have them ship it to you if you can't find a better
deal locally. Watch out for Customs Duty and brokerage fees that could
eat up those savings.
To elaborate on Mr Hopkins' post - JPEGs are not entirely lossless. Each
time you save the file as another JPEG more data gets lost. So you
should save your file as a "Master" and then make copies to work with.
Each generation strips down data until your image is no longer much use
due to pixelation and degradation of details.
Scan at the highest resolution to start with, you can always reduce
resolution later but you don't always want to rescan over and over. Once
you start to crop your pictures they get physically smaller too; if
space is such an issue.
one the OP referred to is named "photo to digital converter" - "we all know
them as scanners"...
with one of the other post's recommendations to get one of the Epson
scanners, specifically made for just your task. The devices listed in HS
catalog do not specify in general whether they are mac or pc
compatible..
opt for a known brand, like Epson, you can expect support from Epson
(and also get some through these groups). How far from support are you
wanting to get?
Also consider checking if your printer is a multi-function machine that
includes a scanner. You might have that already and not used it [yet].
We have a Canon 560 printer on our mac and it scans just fine for what
we need. I also have a dedicated flatbed scanner and another for slides.
That way I have the right tool for the job at hand.
FWIW - a number of retailers here in Canada have Photoshop Elements on
sale this week; probably until school starts... so if you need this
software, shop around.
Look at Futureshop.com, bestbuy.ca, staples.ca and other big box outlets
in your area, and have them ship it to you if you can't find a better
deal locally. Watch out for Customs Duty and brokerage fees that could
eat up those savings.
To elaborate on Mr Hopkins' post - JPEGs are not entirely lossless. Each
time you save the file as another JPEG more data gets lost. So you
should save your file as a "Master" and then make copies to work with.
Each generation strips down data until your image is no longer much use
due to pixelation and degradation of details.
Scan at the highest resolution to start with, you can always reduce
resolution later but you don't always want to rescan over and over. Once
you start to crop your pictures they get physically smaller too; if
space is such an issue.
Fri Aug 17, 2012 9:35 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Mary Taylor" mltartist
I would choose Tif over Jpeg. Though there are many choices of JPEG's , Tiffs as a rule are not going to throw away pixels every time you save them. My explanation is non-techinical. Other considerations for long term storage is that whatever you do digitally will always require digital hardware and software to convert the pixels, so from my standpoint preserving as much information as possible at the outset is going to give you the longest term flexibility, you can always down size with favorable results up recreating what's been lost is not easy.
hope that helps you in your decision making.
Though there is a bit of a learning curve with Adobe Lightroom, I'm loving it for organization and quick photography edits. Wish it had a scanner plug in for it though.
Mary Taylor
MaryTaylorArt.com
Check out Workshops
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
hope that helps you in your decision making.
Though there is a bit of a learning curve with Adobe Lightroom, I'm loving it for organization and quick photography edits. Wish it had a scanner plug in for it though.
Mary Taylor
MaryTaylorArt.
Check out Workshops
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Fri Aug 17, 2012 9:52 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"OBrien" conorboru
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:45:30 -0500, OBrien wrote:
> The EPSON Perfection V33 Scanner might be a good, inexpensive choice.
> <http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/jsp/ProductCategory.do?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&oid=-16223 >
This one would be for casual, non-professional use. Of course, if you want to spend the money, you can get more expensive ones. I would highly recommend Epson, although there are other good brands.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
O'Brien ––– –... .-. .. . -.
> The EPSON Perfection V33 Scanner might be a good, inexpensive choice.
> <http://www.epson.
This one would be for casual, non-professional use. Of course, if you want to spend the money, you can get more expensive ones. I would highly recommend Epson, although there are other good brands.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
O'Brien ––– –... .-. .. . -.
Fri Aug 17, 2012 10:38 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Marc Reavis" seitsaman
Are there scanners for large-format negatives, e.g. 4x5?
Marc
On Aug 17, 2012, at 9:52 AM, OBrien wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:45:30 -0500, OBrien wrote:
> > The EPSON Perfection V33 Scanner might be a good, inexpensive choice.
> > <http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/jsp/ProductCategory.do?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&oid=-16223 >
>
> This one would be for casual, non-professional use. Of course, if you want to spend the money, you can get more expensive ones. I would highly recommend Epson, although there are other good brands.
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Marc
On Aug 17, 2012, at 9:52 AM, OBrien wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:45:30 -0500, OBrien wrote:
> > The EPSON Perfection V33 Scanner might be a good, inexpensive choice.
> > <http://www.epson.
>
> This one would be for casual, non-professional use. Of course, if you want to spend the money, you can get more expensive ones. I would highly recommend Epson, although there are other good brands.
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Fri Aug 17, 2012 11:06 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"(no author)"
I have an Epson 2450 Photo scanner that is a flatbed scanner that came with holders to allow scanning of various films, including 4x5, 35mm film strips, 35mm slides, and 120/220 (6x9cm) film. I do prefer my Nikon Coolscan V scanner for the 35mm stuff, though. Of course the scanner bed allows scanning of up to 8-1/2 by 11-1/2 inch material, which I use for documents, but could use for 8x10 film, for example.
...........Mike
On Aug 17, 2012, at 1:38 PM, Marc Reavis <shirasagi@earthlink.net > wrote:
> Are there scanners for large-format negatives, e.g. 4x5?
>
>
> Marc
>
> On Aug 17, 2012, at 9:52 AM, OBrien wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:45:30 -0500, OBrien wrote:
>>> The EPSON Perfection V33 Scanner might be a good, inexpensive choice.
>>> <http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/jsp/ProductCategory.do?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&oid=-16223 >
>>
>> This one would be for casual, non-professional use. Of course, if you want to spend the money, you can get more expensive ones. I would highly recommend Epson, although there are other good brands.
>>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Group FAQ:
> <http://www.macsupportcentral.com/policies/ >
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
...........Mike
On Aug 17, 2012, at 1:38 PM, Marc Reavis <shirasagi@earthlink
> Are there scanners for large-format negatives, e.g. 4x5?
>
>
> Marc
>
> On Aug 17, 2012, at 9:52 AM, OBrien wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:45:30 -0500, OBrien wrote:
>>> The EPSON Perfection V33 Scanner might be a good, inexpensive choice.
>>> <http://www.epson.
>>
>> This one would be for casual, non-professional use. Of course, if you want to spend the money, you can get more expensive ones. I would highly recommend Epson, although there are other good brands.
>>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------
>
> Group FAQ:
> <http://www.macsuppo
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Fri Aug 17, 2012 11:14 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"mpstupinski@snet.net" mstupinski
Marc,
(I tried sending this before but got a strange response from an ISP so this may be a duplicate, but here it is:)
Marc,
I have an Epson 2450 Photo scanner that is a flatbed scanner that came with holders to allow scanning of various films, including 4x5, 35mm film strips, 35mm slides, and 120/220 (6x9cm) film. I do prefer my Nikon Coolscan V scanner for the 35mm stuff, though. Of course the scanner bed allows scanning of up to 8-1/2 by 11-1/2 inch material, which I use for documents, but could use for 8x10 film, for example.
...........Mike
--- In macsupportcentral@yahoogroups.com , Marc Reavis <shirasagi@...> wrote:
>
> Are there scanners for large-format negatives, e.g. 4x5?
>
>
> Marc
>
> On Aug 17, 2012, at 9:52 AM, OBrien wrote:
> > On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:45:30 -0500, OBrien wrote:
> > > The EPSON Perfection V33 Scanner might be a good, inexpensive choice.
> > > <http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/jsp/ProductCategory.do?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&oid=-16223 >
> >
> > This one would be for casual, non-professional use. Of course, if you want to spend the money, you can get more expensive ones. I would highly recommend Epson, although there are other good brands.
> >
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
(I tried sending this before but got a strange response from an ISP so this may be a duplicate, but here it is:)
Marc,
I have an Epson 2450 Photo scanner that is a flatbed scanner that came with holders to allow scanning of various films, including 4x5, 35mm film strips, 35mm slides, and 120/220 (6x9cm) film. I do prefer my Nikon Coolscan V scanner for the 35mm stuff, though. Of course the scanner bed allows scanning of up to 8-1/2 by 11-1/2 inch material, which I use for documents, but could use for 8x10 film, for example.
...........Mike
--- In macsupportcentral@
>
> Are there scanners for large-format negatives, e.g. 4x5?
>
>
> Marc
>
> On Aug 17, 2012, at 9:52 AM, OBrien wrote:
> > On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:45:30 -0500, OBrien wrote:
> > > The EPSON Perfection V33 Scanner might be a good, inexpensive choice.
> > > <http://www.epson.
> >
> > This one would be for casual, non-professional use. Of course, if you want to spend the money, you can get more expensive ones. I would highly recommend Epson, although there are other good brands.
> >
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Fri Aug 17, 2012 11:30 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Marc Reavis" seitsaman
On Aug 17, 2012, at 11:14 AM, mpstupinski@
> Marc,
> (I tried sending this before but got a strange response from an ISP so this may be a duplicate, but here it is:)
>
> I have an Epson 2450 Photo scanner that is a flatbed scanner that came with holders to allow scanning of various films, including 4x5, 35mm film strips, 35mm slides, and 120/220 (6x9cm) film. I do prefer my Nikon Coolscan V scanner for the 35mm stuff, though. Of course the scanner bed allows scanning of up to 8-1/2 by 11-1/2 inch material, which I use for documents, but could use for 8x10 film, for example.
>
> ...........Mike
>
> --- In macsupportcentral@
> >
> > Are there scanners for large-format negatives, e.g. 4x5?___
>
Hi, Mike,
I got the earlier message�hanks! It was oddly formatted, with all the header information, but the body of the e-mail came through with no mangling.
My Canon scanner may have the ability to scan large-format film; I'll have to investigate further. My chief concerns are to use a scanner with the highest resolution possible (at least equal to that of the film itself), and whether or not this would mean having to entrust my negatives to a professional photo facility.
Thank you again for your reply.
Cheers,
Marc
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Fri Aug 17, 2012 11:56 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"T Hopkins" todhop
The issue is not really the size, but rather the ability to do transmissive scanning (light passing through) versus reflective scanning. Most scanners are reflective only. Some are capable of shining light through the document for transparencies. These generally come with plastic tray to hold various sizes in the precise necessary position for focus (which is oddly, not directly on the surface). There are dedicated "slide scanners" which trade sensor size for extremely high resolution about three times that of a flatbed. They are also a more convenient if you are only doing slides.
But flatbeds, these days, are more than good enough for slides. For instance the Epson V300 is $100, does transparencies and has an optical res of 4800dpi. That's enough resolution to scan a 35mm slide at four times the resolution of a high-definition video image, or make a beautiful 8x10 print (or even larger). If you want a poster, you might want the entire 16,000 pixels of a dedicated slide scanner.
TIFF is bitmap. Can have lossless compression. Relatively inefficient for storage, but absolutely no generational quality loss.
PNG also bitmap and always uses lossless compression. More efficient than TIFF but a small amount.
JPEG is totally scalable from very near lossless to garbage.
TIFF and PNG are considered "mastering" formats, for work product. Graphic artists typically save their finished masters in one of these. Specific formats for distribution would be compressed from these masters.
JPEG is for bulk or low bandwidth distribution. Camera originals, mass scanning, archiving, emailing, web images, etc... How much compression depends on your particular trade off between quality and file size.
Isn't technology wonderful.
Cheers,
tod
On Aug 17, 2012, at 1:38 PM, Marc Reavis wrote:
> Are there scanners for large-format negatives, e.g. 4x5?
>
> Marc
>
> On Aug 17, 2012, at 9:52 AM, OBrien wrote:
> > On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:45:30 -0500, OBrien wrote:
> > > The EPSON Perfection V33 Scanner might be a good, inexpensive choice.
> > > <http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/jsp/ProductCategory.do?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&oid=-16223 >
> >
> > This one would be for casual, non-professional use. Of course, if you want to spend the money, you can get more expensive ones. I would highly recommend Epson, although there are other good brands.
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
But flatbeds, these days, are more than good enough for slides. For instance the Epson V300 is $100, does transparencies and has an optical res of 4800dpi. That's enough resolution to scan a 35mm slide at four times the resolution of a high-definition video image, or make a beautiful 8x10 print (or even larger). If you want a poster, you might want the entire 16,000 pixels of a dedicated slide scanner.
TIFF is bitmap. Can have lossless compression. Relatively inefficient for storage, but absolutely no generational quality loss.
PNG also bitmap and always uses lossless compression. More efficient than TIFF but a small amount.
JPEG is totally scalable from very near lossless to garbage.
TIFF and PNG are considered "mastering" formats, for work product. Graphic artists typically save their finished masters in one of these. Specific formats for distribution would be compressed from these masters.
JPEG is for bulk or low bandwidth distribution. Camera originals, mass scanning, archiving, emailing, web images, etc... How much compression depends on your particular trade off between quality and file size.
Isn't technology wonderful.
Cheers,
tod
On Aug 17, 2012, at 1:38 PM, Marc Reavis wrote:
> Are there scanners for large-format negatives, e.g. 4x5?
>
> Marc
>
> On Aug 17, 2012, at 9:52 AM, OBrien wrote:
> > On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:45:30 -0500, OBrien wrote:
> > > The EPSON Perfection V33 Scanner might be a good, inexpensive choice.
> > > <http://www.epson.
> >
> > This one would be for casual, non-professional use. Of course, if you want to spend the money, you can get more expensive ones. I would highly recommend Epson, although there are other good brands.
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Fri Aug 17, 2012 10:00 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"HAL9000" jrswebhome
My understanding is that there is no agreement to be able to record movies on an AppleTV, maybe I don't have that correct. jr
--- In macsupportcentral@yahoogroups.com , "\"Harry F.\"" <harryo43@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
> From: "T Hopkins" <hoplist@...>
> Sent: August 17, 2012 11:40 AM
> To: macsupportcentral@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [macsupport] AppleTV
>
> Not sure I understand the question? Apple TV exists. What does it need cable and "Hollywood" for?
>
> Cheers,
> tod
>
> Tod Hopkins
> Hillmann & Carr Inc.
> todhopkins-at-hillmanncarr.com
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 17, 2012, at 1:53 AM, HAL9000 wrote:
>
> > Does anyone think within the next year that Apple will successfully partner w cable and Hollywood so Apple can build and sell it's AppleTV? Or do you think that the XBox will get there first
>
> The latest news is. a cable box replacement, but much much more, according.to CNET.
>
--- In macsupportcentral@
>
>
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
> From: "T Hopkins" <hoplist@...
> Sent: August 17, 2012 11:40 AM
> To: macsupportcentral@
> Subject: Re: [macsupport] AppleTV
>
> Not sure I understand the question? Apple TV exists. What does it need cable and "Hollywood" for?
>
> Cheers,
> tod
>
> Tod Hopkins
> Hillmann & Carr Inc.
> todhopkins-at-
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 17, 2012, at 1:53 AM, HAL9000 wrote:
>
> > Does anyone think within the next year that Apple will successfully partner w cable and Hollywood so Apple can build and sell it's AppleTV? Or do you think that the XBox will get there first
>
> The latest news is. a cable box replacement, but much much more, according.to CNET.
>
Fri Aug 17, 2012 10:31 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"HAL9000" jrswebhome
My understanding is there is no agreement to be able to record movies on an
AppleTV, maybe I don't have that correct. Comcast would love for Apple to make cable boxes for them, but ownership and royalties is the issue hold up, and I hear there is no hurry to settle on cables or content owners part. I hear that the AppleTV will incorporate iOS like GUI. That is why I was wondering if the XBox will slip under and corner an agreement. They are cable box or xbox ready. jr
--- In macsupportcentral@yahoogroups.com , "\"Harry F.\"" <harryo43@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
> From: "T Hopkins" <hoplist@...>
> Sent: August 17, 2012 11:40 AM
> To: macsupportcentral@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [macsupport] AppleTV
>
> Not sure I understand the question? Apple TV exists. What does it need cable and "Hollywood" for?
>
> Cheers,
> tod
>
> Tod Hopkins
> Hillmann & Carr Inc.
> todhopkins-at-hillmanncarr.com
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 17, 2012, at 1:53 AM, HAL9000 wrote:
>
> > Does anyone think within the next year that Apple will successfully partner w cable and Hollywood so Apple can build and sell it's AppleTV? Or do you think that the XBox will get there first
>
> The latest news is. a cable box replacement, but much much more, according.to CNET.
>
AppleTV, maybe I don't have that correct. Comcast would love for Apple to make cable boxes for them, but ownership and royalties is the issue hold up, and I hear there is no hurry to settle on cables or content owners part. I hear that the AppleTV will incorporate iOS like GUI. That is why I was wondering if the XBox will slip under and corner an agreement. They are cable box or xbox ready. jr
--- In macsupportcentral@
>
>
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
> From: "T Hopkins" <hoplist@...
> Sent: August 17, 2012 11:40 AM
> To: macsupportcentral@
> Subject: Re: [macsupport] AppleTV
>
> Not sure I understand the question? Apple TV exists. What does it need cable and "Hollywood" for?
>
> Cheers,
> tod
>
> Tod Hopkins
> Hillmann & Carr Inc.
> todhopkins-at-
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 17, 2012, at 1:53 AM, HAL9000 wrote:
>
> > Does anyone think within the next year that Apple will successfully partner w cable and Hollywood so Apple can build and sell it's AppleTV? Or do you think that the XBox will get there first
>
> The latest news is. a cable box replacement, but much much more, according.to CNET.
>
Fri Aug 17, 2012 11:22 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"T Hopkins" todhop
There is a standard called "CableCARD" that would allow Apple TV boxes to decode cable directly if Apple chooses, though the providers are not required to deliver all the bells and whistles, such as their "guides." That is not what the latest story is about. Apple is working on adding "features" and trying to decide which make sense. One of these, according to a recent report, is the ability to "stream" content from a cable company. Really this would be a content agreement, not a technology. Of the top of my head, it sounds like a dumb idea with no future, but what do I know.
The issues for all this stuff are complicated, but we're not talking about killer-apps here. It's about licensing. Apple TV exists. You can buy it now and it's sweet. Consumer Reports just reviewed it alongside it's competition. Good reading if your interested.
Apple TV the streaming box is not to be confused with the future Apple branded TV. That one is gonna happen IMHO. It will likely have a CableCARD option, at least, that would permit it to act as a decoder. If Apple is smart, they will go to the providers, with TV in hand, and politely suggest the cable providers "partner" with them.
Cheers,
tod
Tod Hopkins
Hillmann & Carr Inc.
todhopkins-at-hillmanncarr.com
On Aug 17, 2012, at 1:31 PM, HAL9000 wrote:
> My understanding is there is no agreement to be able to record movies on an
> AppleTV, maybe I don't have that correct. Comcast would love for Apple to make cable boxes for them, but ownership and royalties is the issue hold up, and I hear there is no hurry to settle on cables or content owners part. I hear that the AppleTV will incorporate iOS like GUI. That is why I was wondering if the XBox will slip under and corner an agreement. They are cable box or xbox ready. jr
>
> --- In macsupportcentral@yahoogroups.com , "\"Harry F.\"" <harryo43@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- Original Message ---
> >
> > From: "T Hopkins" <hoplist@...>
> > Sent: August 17, 2012 11:40 AM
> > To: macsupportcentral@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [macsupport] AppleTV
> >
> > Not sure I understand the question? Apple TV exists. What does it need cable and "Hollywood" for?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > tod
> >
> > Tod Hopkins
> > Hillmann & Carr Inc.
> > todhopkins-at-hillmanncarr.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Aug 17, 2012, at 1:53 AM, HAL9000 wrote:
> >
> > > Does anyone think within the next year that Apple will successfully partner w cable and Hollywood so Apple can build and sell it's AppleTV? Or do you think that the XBox will get there first
> >
> > The latest news is. a cable box replacement, but much much more, according.to CNET.
> >
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
The issues for all this stuff are complicated, but we're not talking about killer-apps here. It's about licensing. Apple TV exists. You can buy it now and it's sweet. Consumer Reports just reviewed it alongside it's competition. Good reading if your interested.
Apple TV the streaming box is not to be confused with the future Apple branded TV. That one is gonna happen IMHO. It will likely have a CableCARD option, at least, that would permit it to act as a decoder. If Apple is smart, they will go to the providers, with TV in hand, and politely suggest the cable providers "partner" with them.
Cheers,
tod
Tod Hopkins
Hillmann & Carr Inc.
todhopkins-at-
On Aug 17, 2012, at 1:31 PM, HAL9000 wrote:
> My understanding is there is no agreement to be able to record movies on an
> AppleTV, maybe I don't have that correct. Comcast would love for Apple to make cable boxes for them, but ownership and royalties is the issue hold up, and I hear there is no hurry to settle on cables or content owners part. I hear that the AppleTV will incorporate iOS like GUI. That is why I was wondering if the XBox will slip under and corner an agreement. They are cable box or xbox ready. jr
>
> --- In macsupportcentral@
> >
> >
> >
> > --- Original Message ---
> >
> > From: "T Hopkins" <hoplist@...
> > Sent: August 17, 2012 11:40 AM
> > To: macsupportcentral@
> > Subject: Re: [macsupport] AppleTV
> >
> > Not sure I understand the question? Apple TV exists. What does it need cable and "Hollywood" for?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > tod
> >
> > Tod Hopkins
> > Hillmann & Carr Inc.
> > todhopkins-at-
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Aug 17, 2012, at 1:53 AM, HAL9000 wrote:
> >
> > > Does anyone think within the next year that Apple will successfully partner w cable and Hollywood so Apple can build and sell it's AppleTV? Or do you think that the XBox will get there first
> >
> > The latest news is. a cable box replacement, but much much more, according.to CNET.
> >
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Fri Aug 17, 2012 11:30 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"pat412255" pat412255
Some of the Apple "rumor blogs" are mentioning the possibility of the company coming out with a box that would be similar, but better than, TiVo or a similar set-top box to stream live TV.
--- In macsupportcentral@
>
> Not sure I understand the question? Apple TV exists. What does it need cable and "Hollywood" for?
>
> Cheers,
> tod
>
> Tod Hopkins
> Hillmann & Carr Inc.
> todhopkins-at-
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 17, 2012, at 1:53 AM, HAL9000 wrote:
>
> > Does anyone think within the next year that Apple will successfully partner w cable and Hollywood so Apple can build and sell it's AppleTV? Or do you think that the XBox will get there first?
> >
> > jr
> >
> >
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:09 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"T Hopkins" todhop
They already have this. It's called Apple TV. What it does not do, that some others do, is record. It only streams. The reason for this is that it presumes that your "recorder" is your Mac. Apple considers recording cable and TV signals to be dead technology. What they intended is for the content providers to come to them, via Hulu, iTunes, Netflix, etc... rather than the other way around.
The Wall Street Journal article says that they are in talks to "stream" the content of cable providers directly, effectively obsoleting the cable box. This makes technical sense. But from a business point of view, it's really tricky. First, it's a complex licensing problem. I'm not sure it's the way to go. Apple should (and probably will) negotiate directly with the content providers (Discovery, Nick, Disney, A&E, etc...) and simply bypass the cable companies. Second, Apple is already poaching on the cable companies. The only way it makes sense for the cable companies is if they can negotiate a piece of the pie for easing Apple's access to their content. Basically, they will act as brokers. Eventually, Apple will cut them off at the knees, but for a little while, they may have leverage.
Cheers,
tod
Tod Hopkins
Hillmann & Carr Inc.
todhopkins-at-hillmanncarr.com
On Aug 17, 2012, at 2:30 PM, pat412255 wrote:
>
> Some of the Apple "rumor blogs" are mentioning the possibility of the company coming out with a box that would be similar, but better than, TiVo or a similar set-top box to stream live TV.
>
> --- In macsupportcentral@yahoogroups.com , T Hopkins <hoplist@...> wrote:
> >
> > Not sure I understand the question? Apple TV exists. What does it need cable and "Hollywood" for?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > tod
> >
> > Tod Hopkins
> > Hillmann & Carr Inc.
> > todhopkins-at-hillmanncarr.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Aug 17, 2012, at 1:53 AM, HAL9000 wrote:
> >
> > > Does anyone think within the next year that Apple will successfully partner w cable and Hollywood so Apple can build and sell it's AppleTV? Or do you think that the XBox will get there first?
> > >
> > > jr
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
The Wall Street Journal article says that they are in talks to "stream" the content of cable providers directly, effectively obsoleting the cable box. This makes technical sense. But from a business point of view, it's really tricky. First, it's a complex licensing problem. I'm not sure it's the way to go. Apple should (and probably will) negotiate directly with the content providers (Discovery, Nick, Disney, A&E, etc...) and simply bypass the cable companies. Second, Apple is already poaching on the cable companies. The only way it makes sense for the cable companies is if they can negotiate a piece of the pie for easing Apple's access to their content. Basically, they will act as brokers. Eventually, Apple will cut them off at the knees, but for a little while, they may have leverage.
Cheers,
tod
Tod Hopkins
Hillmann & Carr Inc.
todhopkins-at-
On Aug 17, 2012, at 2:30 PM, pat412255 wrote:
>
> Some of the Apple "rumor blogs" are mentioning the possibility of the company coming out with a box that would be similar, but better than, TiVo or a similar set-top box to stream live TV.
>
> --- In macsupportcentral@
> >
> > Not sure I understand the question? Apple TV exists. What does it need cable and "Hollywood" for?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > tod
> >
> > Tod Hopkins
> > Hillmann & Carr Inc.
> > todhopkins-at-
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Aug 17, 2012, at 1:53 AM, HAL9000 wrote:
> >
> > > Does anyone think within the next year that Apple will successfully partner w cable and Hollywood so Apple can build and sell it's AppleTV? Or do you think that the XBox will get there first?
> > >
> > > jr
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
GROUP FOOTER MESSAGE
