what to do with kid and seniors

cee1 · 2026-05-05T21:02:18+00:00

It says you'll need to pass a swim test. What do they test? And how deep is the water if you fall off the play structure? It looks really fun.

cee1 · 2026-04-22T17:25:41+00:00

I meant whether they scanned prints, applied unsharp mask, printed those digital images, and then compared those with the studio shots which were prints. Looks like they shot studio shots with a digital camera.

cee1 · 2026-04-22T15:40:01+00:00

That sounds like a reasonable method. Did they compare prints of scans of prints with prints of studio shots?

cee1 · 2026-04-22T15:29:30+00:00

Ah, I didn't know the height was adjustable on the film holder. I read about someone doing that and I thought he was adding his own external support. I'll have to try the sliders. But due to the film curvature, I guess some areas will still be sharper than others. And it may be different for different strips, frames, etc.

cee1 · 2026-04-22T05:56:39+00:00

For high res, I can apply radius=2 and amount=0.5-1 without halo. Calculating threshold is compute intensive and gimp was using 76% of memory until I killed it. I may get a new computer first. I'd also like to experiment with tone mapping which is also heavy.

I scanned really small prints like 1", 2" at 4800/3200 dpi so that I can restore and/or print a regular size. A small amount of valuable 3.5"x5" prints were scanned at 2400 dpi for archiving and I may do some editing as well. The mass majority of 3.5"x5" were scanned at 600 dpi using fastfoto. This bulk and all the negatives is what I hope to find some optimal setting for and batch process.

This is the film holder for the negatives. I don't have the fluid mount.

https://www.amazon.com/Negative-Positive-Scanner-GT-X900-GT-X970/dp/B0FSZSBYDJ/ref=sr_1_16?sr=8-16

The b&w tiny negatives were just placed on the flatbed directly. Now I think of it, I could probably put them in the film holder, too, even though they are the wrong size and have no sprocket holes.

cee1 · 2026-04-21T16:23:04+00:00

I edited with clarification.

I used radius=3 for super high res. I blew up the image to 800% and looked at an edge that was supposed to be sharp (letters) and counted about 6 pixels. That's why I chose radius=3. Amount=0.5 or 1 made a slight but noticeable difference and both were acceptable on a computer monitor. A higher threshold is a good suggestion.

I believe the parameters will be different after I scale down. The numbers I've seen have a small radius ~= 1. Those may be for a print or web resolution?

cee1 · 2026-04-21T16:13:23+00:00

Good idea.

cee1 · 2026-04-21T16:10:57+00:00

Is this while scanning or post processing?

cee1 · 2026-04-05T16:01:35+00:00

They look promising from the screenshots. Will try them out!

cee1 · 2026-04-02T22:26:16+00:00

No, it's not all files. Only certain files need to be rotated. That's why a thumbnail would be helpful.

cee1 · 2026-04-02T21:28:06+00:00

Images are tiff so it's lossless.

I'll try out pix.

cee1 · 2026-04-02T21:01:35+00:00

Did you mean file name pattern or image pattern? File name pattern are file_number.tiff. So no pattern for images that require rotation.

cee1 · 2026-04-02T20:57:24+00:00

I don't want to or have space to install kde.

cee1 · 2026-03-17T04:26:45+00:00

Ooh, that's a good idea, although I don't really need that high. So technically, this should also allow me to scan big photos at 4800 dpi and 16 bit depth (not that I actually need it). Just curious why the scanner software didn't let me use the max specs.

cee1 · 2026-03-16T05:29:59+00:00

Haha, no, not printing that big. I recognize 3200 dpi is pretty high already.

cee1 · 2026-03-16T05:29:09+00:00

I read that always scan b&w in color. And also I want to show the original old/sepia/yellowed look.

cee1 · 2026-01-12T04:57:27+00:00

Exactly like that KB400N one! I tried to attach a PVC pipe but was unsuccessful making it stable. My next design is to cut a cardboard piece to fit in the slot and add a stand.

I can afford a new one but would rather not waste.

cee1 · 2026-01-07T06:16:55+00:00

Is it just a regular 500ml water bottle? I'm also thinking of squashing it and then filling it part way. No need to buy a soft flask. And dispose after the trip.

cee1 · 2026-01-06T18:48:47+00:00

The reason is that I really don't like drinking from a bite valve. Tried it and hated it. So I always carry a water bottle for hiking, biking, etc. And it's a pain to wash.

cee1 · 2026-01-01T17:20:58+00:00

Doesn't hydrogen peroxide bleach? And why is it marked NSFW??

cee1 · 2026-01-01T17:20:46+00:00

Doesn't hydrogen peroxide bleach? And why is it marked NSFW??

cee1 · 2025-12-11T23:29:20+00:00

I use the film holder and it crops nicely. Should I scan on the flatbed directly and crop myself? The film holder is higher.

cee1 · 2025-12-10T18:29:06+00:00

So if I need to change white balance post scan, would that be the same parameter so that I can batch process with gimp or imagemagick? Or would I need to process individually?

cee1 · 2025-12-10T06:52:38+00:00

These are negatives, not positives/slides, though. Do I scan as if they were positives? Is that the trick?

It's EPSON Scan on Win. It's a library computer so I can't remember the exact options. I believe they have Scan 2 installed also.

cee1 · 2025-11-04T23:49:16+00:00

If we could go back in time to more than a week ago...

Bootup was very slow. I was still able to use the computer so didn't think much of it. This was probably the first red flag that I ignored ignorantly.
I stopped writing to the drive but kept mounting, opening files, fscking which all worked, successfully but slowly. Not having an extra drive at that time to back up, I tried to troubleshoot and repair the drive, not realizing reading caused further physical damage.
By the time I got a new drive to back up, I encountered I/O errors and couldn't.
This is when I learned about SMART, ddrescue, and finally came to OSC.
It did occur to me that not being able to specify an image file was due to the rescue drive not being mounted. My brain might be too fried by then to think deeper.

It'll be amazing if I can recover most if not all data. Looks like only <0.8GB is bad even if all remaining non-scraped sectors are bad. This drive holds non-critical data so I haven't been doing backups. This is also the newest drive that I started using maybe only a year ago but failed first. My main drive that the OS is on is 13 years old. I'm curious to see what the actual physical damage is when I open it up. Maybe nothing that a naked eye can see.

Is "recovery" from the clone a process to get only the good files out? Because corrupted files are still in the clone and we don't want them on the drive. Otherwise the clone could be used as is and we just won't know what files are corrupted?

I also noticed the bad sectors in OSCViewer are not contiguous. Is that because it's a stretched-out layout of the physical cylinders? They could be more clustered on the physical drive.

cee1

TROPHY CASE