 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / September 200835mm film users should be mad
On more on topic thread. 35mm film users should be mad that film scanners are still far too slow. It really seems that by now we should have film scanners that could scan a frame in a few seconds. Has the market for new film scanners dropped to the point where there is not going to be any more real development? A scanner based on a monochrome area CCD and LEDs for the illumination should be able to digitize a frame in about 2 seconds. Scott On 9/3/2008 9:22 AM Scott W spake thus: > On more on topic thread. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > A scanner based on a monochrome area CCD and LEDs for the illumination > should be able to digitize a frame in about 2 seconds. How long do current film scanners take (let's say for a frame of 35mm film)? I've never used one, but wish I had one.  SignatureWashing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral. - Paulo Freire >On 9/3/2008 9:22 AM Scott W spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >How long do current film scanners take (let's say for a frame of 35mm >film)? I've never used one, but wish I had one. Full res on my clunky old HP-S10 is about 45 sec / frame using VueScan. 12bit @ 2400 dpi. Long in the tooth as that scanner is (scsi), it still does a satisfactory job. No upgrades for me until necessary. RP© > On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 10:17:56 -0700, David Nebenzahl > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > (scsi), it still does a satisfactory job. No upgrades for me until > necessary. Mine takes around 45 seconds at low res, 1410 ppi I believe, or around 2 minutes at full res, 2820. Going through a stack of photos means sitting at the computer for a fair bit of time, even at 45 seconds/scan. Scott > How long do current film scanners take (let's say for a frame of 35mm > film)? I've never used one, but wish I had one. A coolscan V ED takes just over 1 minute at full 4000, with ICE on. At basic 2000 without ICE, it's around 30 secs each. But that is not the only delay: the setting up also takes time. Dedicated film scanners with good film transport mechanisms are easier to use as the focus doesn't wander as much and once set stays more or less correct for a whole film strip. Then you got the calibration and colour balancing, colour neg film is rarely exposed the same way for all frames: different ones need different settings for the scanner lighting and the auto-exposure features are not as sophisticated as in slrs. It all adds up. Once setup and going, things get smoother. But starting up a session can involve some arcane manipulations and trials. Needs attention and that is something not all folks are willing to give. Not a biggie for film addicts but I can see why digital-heads are reluctant to invest the time. Definitely a case for more sophisticated scanning mechanisms and firmware/software, Scott is spot-on. Commercial scanners like the Noritsu and Fuji Frontier range not only have larger sensors and very good transport mechanisms but they also sport well developed firmware and software algorithms to automate the whole process as much as possible. That's why they can do a whole roll in minutes. They are however very expensive to buy and setup and usually come with printing equipment attached, needing commercial quantities to become cost-effective. Costco has recently started to be very competitive in this area and that can only be good in the long run. > On more on topic thread. > > 35mm film users should be mad that film scanners are still far too > slow. Ain't that the truth! The main reason I don't shoot more film is that is just too damn sloooowww to scan. >> On more on topic thread. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Ain't that the truth! The main reason I don't shoot more film is that >is just too damn sloooowww to scan. But you have no problem spending all sorts of time in PS? VueScan takes care of 95% of my PS time, provided I clean the negs first. RP© > But you have no problem spending all sorts of time in PS? > VueScan takes care of 95% of my PS time, provided I clean the negs > first. I used Vuescan when it first came out. I believe Ed Hamrick posted a lot on these groups back then. Then I bought Silverfast, which is supposed to be the best scanning software available. It is certainly capable of doing an outstanding job, but is painfully slow with my Minolta 5400 scanner. It takes a few minutes just to boot up and get do a pre-scan. Then every little adjustment you make takes an eternity to go through. For example, it allows you to really zero in on the focus for a particular slide, but this process might take you 15 minutes to get exactly right. IOW, I'll probably be moving back to VueScan soon. >> But you have no problem spending all sorts of time in PS? >> VueScan takes care of 95% of my PS time, provided I clean the negs [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >IOW, I'll probably be moving back to VueScan soon. VueScan is indeed the best I've used. I'm still using ver. 7.1.18, which does all I need. As you're well aware of, VueScan saves my previous settings and loads them on each startup, which takes less than ten seconds. I haven't needed to change the settings in years other than the type of film to be scanned. Highly recommend this software. RP© > VueScan is indeed the best I've used. I'm still using ver. 7.1.18, > which does all I need. As you're well aware of, VueScan saves my > previous settings and loads them on each startup, which takes less > than ten seconds. I haven't needed to change the settings in years > other than the type of film to be scanned. > Highly recommend this software. Until it goes completely wacko on Provia... I like VueScan but in that case the Minolta s/w slayed it completely and utterly. Using NikonScan v. VueScan, there is hardly any difference in the scanned images to worry about. Although the Mac OS X v. of NikonScan is quite buggy (so I use the XP machine to scan from the Nikon 9000). Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. > I used Vuescan when it first came out. I believe Ed Hamrick posted a > lot on these groups back then. Then I bought Silverfast, which is [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > IOW, I'll probably be moving back to VueScan soon. Good plan! I moved from a 5400-II/Silverfast/Mac after the Minolta broke to CoolscanV/Vuescan/NoiseNinja/Linux, never regretting it. But it is a good idea to shoot the coloraid.com color reference target now and then, especially with negative film. -- Hans > On more on topic thread. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Scott Why does it need to be faster? Is your life that harried that the minute or so to scan a frame is so precious? Perhaps instead of demanding a faster scanner, you could try doing things to improve your health and increase your lifespan. One thing might be to not stress out over the amount of time it takes to scan a negative. If you want really fast, try optical wet-system printing. My enlarger exposures are typically in the 10 to 15 second range. > > On more on topic thread. > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > lifespan. One thing might be to not stress out over the amount of time it > takes to scan a negative. If all I was scanning as say a frame or two a day then sure what is a minute, but a roll of film is going to take 30-60 mintues to scan, kind of takes the fun out of shooting a roll of film. > If you want really fast, try optical wet-system printing. My enlarger > exposures are typically in the 10 to 15 second range. I did a lot of wet printing back in the 70s, not nearly enough control for my tastes, and whereas you exposures are maybe 10 to 15 seconds you are still looking at a few minutes to get the thing developed. Add to that the fact that I want all my images in digital format, but I don't want prints of all of them. Scott >Why does it need to be faster? Is your life that harried that the minute or >so to scan a frame is so precious? Or is he so anti-film that he cannot stop sniping at film users? > >Why does it need to be faster? Is your life that harried that the minute or > >so to scan a frame is so precious? > > Or is he so anti-film that he cannot stop sniping at film users? Or trying to keep get a few film posts in here, which I don't see many others here. I do care about film scanning, I still have a lot of negatives that need to be scanned and I really would like to see a much faster scanner. Scott > On more on topic thread. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > A scanner based on a monochrome area CCD and LEDs for the illumination > should be able to digitize a frame in about 2 seconds. Times vary greatly depending on color depth & resolution used, which in turn depends on the film & equipment used (I usually use 5400 dpi instead of 2700 dpi typically for films of 100 ISO and under and my better lenses), as well as whatever else is going on in the background. But while the film is scanning, I can do cropping and any other photoshop adjustments - a dual core processor really made a big difference there! Yes, in an ideal world, a super-fast scanner would be nice and will probably come out sometime because of the billions of film images which will eventually be digitalized. Please provide some actual numbers. Twenty minutes? Four hours? Two days? SignatureChristopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org . Times vary greatly depending on color depth & resolution used, which in turn depends on the film & equipment used (I usually use 5400 dpi instead of 2700 dpi typically for films of 100 ISO and under and my better lenses), as well as whatever else is going on in the background. But while the film is scanning, I can do cropping and any other photoshop adjustments - a dual core processor really made a big difference there! Yes, in an ideal world, a super-fast scanner would be nice and will probably come out sometime because of the billions of film images which will eventually be digitalized. > Please provide some actual numbers. Twenty minutes? Four hours? Two days? Please do not top post. Signaturelsmft > > Please provide some actual numbers. Twenty minutes? Four hours? Two days? > > Please do not post. > > -- > lsmft Typo in your post... I fixed it. >>> Please provide some actual numbers. Twenty minutes? Four hours? Two days? >> Please do not post. > Typo in your post... I fixed it. Ah, well, to each his own! I like his nym, but there are too many posts. Signaturejohn mcwilliams Remember to pillage *before* you burn. > >>> Please provide some actual numbers. Twenty minutes? Four hours? Two days? > >> Please do not post. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Remember to pillage *before* you burn. History John, History. We all have some... -Jim > On more on topic thread. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > A scanner based on a monochrome area CCD and LEDs for the illumination > should be able to digitize a frame in about 2 seconds. Given the glass and sensor that would be needed ... that would make for a pretty expensive scanner. Scanning 35mm is no big deal timewise. We're too comfy with our digital cameras and instant gratification. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. On Sep 3, 11:47 am, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: > > On more on topic thread. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Scanning 35mm is no big deal timewise. We're too comfy with our digital > cameras and instant gratification. This may be why a really fast scanner has not been made, not enough people care enough about scanning speed. Scott : On more on topic thread. : : 35mm film users should be mad that film scanners are still far too : slow. Yeah, all five of them are furious. Bob >: On more on topic thread. >: >: 35mm film users should be mad that film scanners are still far too >: slow. > >Yeah, all five of them are furious. Wrong again Bob. The "film users" aren't complaining about scan times, Scott the digital guru is. Reading comprehension is a skill. RP© > >: On more on topic thread. > >: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Scott the digital guru is. > Reading comprehension is a skill. If I am still scanning film that was shot some time ago does that mean I am still using film? I mean it is film, and I am using it, but I sure wish I could scan a lot faster. Scott Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 4/09/2008 11:50 AM: > I mean it is film, and I am using it, but I sure wish I could scan a > lot faster. have you tried a slide duplicator with a 5D and a diffused flash? > Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 4/09/2008 11:50 AM: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > have you tried a slide duplicator with a 5D and > a diffused flash? I have not tried that, but then I don't own a 5D, but I have not tried it with any DSLR. I think that might work well for slides, but negatives have a large dynamic ranges compressed into a small one, which is where having a 16 bit converter on the film scanner would be nice. Scott > > have you tried a slide duplicator with a 5D and > > a diffused flash? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > dynamic ranges compressed into a small one, which is where having a 16 > bit converter on the film scanner would be nice. Isn't the 5D 14-bit? That should be enough to cope with colour negs? Small aside note to the uninitiated: a lot of folks claim colour negs have a wide dynamic range, without noting - as Scott correctly did - that it is in fact a *compressed* range. The actual dynamic range of a colour neg is surprisingly small and so is a b&w negative: the compression is what makes it wide. Hence why more than the usual 8-bits are needed to get all possible gradations: the dslr sensor itself can cope with the min-max, it's the in-between that makes all the diff. I still think a dslr with 12 or maybe even 14-bit a-d should be able to get all the grads? Gotta give it a try with the d80! Who knows: might be the perfect excuse to get myself a 2nd-hand 5D? Hmmm, need to talk to SWMBO about that... Isn't the excellent mr Bustin looking into something similar? If anyone has the know-how and motivation to get something like that going, it's him. BTW: an F6 just arrived on the doorstep! I feel a looooong weekend of photography coming up... ¦-) Oh, the coolscanV is turning out to be an amazing piece of gear, even if it is only 14-bit: you should really give it a second look. Price is peanuts, compared to what it can do. Beats the crap out of any affordable flatbed and the resale value in epay is still high, particularly now that Nikon has decided to discontinue it: never seen so many being sold, at more than they used to cost! Very good points you make, thanks for the sensible discussion. >: On more on topic thread. >: >: 35mm film users should be mad that film scanners are still far too >: slow. > >Yeah, all five of them are furious. There must still be hundreds of millions of film users. Not many show serious concern about the alleged "slowness" of scanning film. Apart from Scott W, who takes every available opportunity to criticise film (and makes up a few opportunities of his own along the way) I don't know anyone who is so obsessed with the slowness of scanning. If you have a lot of slides to scan, or whole rolls of negative film, there are bulk feeders available that make it easy to leave a scanner to do them all together in one job, unattended. Not a problem, except to some people who just cannot stop criticising film. And these people should stop trying to offload their own personal insecurities on to film users > : On more on topic thread. > : > : 35mm film users should be mad that film scanners are still far too > : slow. > > Yeah, all five of them are furious. I know a half dozen people who scan within 20 km of my house. I scan too and I don't see that stopping any time in the next decade. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. You should put up signs, so they would not scan so close to your house. SignatureChristopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org . I know a half dozen people who scan within 20 km of my house. I scan too and I don't see that stopping any time in the next decade. On 9/3/2008 9:22 AM Scott W spake thus: > On more on topic thread. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > scanners dropped to the point where there is not going to be any more > real development? Question--and please pardon my abject ignorance here--but aren't there film scanners that can autoload slides? (You didn't say whether you were scanning film strips or slides.) That would at least let you load up a bunch of slides and scan them while doing something else. SignatureWashing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral. - Paulo Freire > On 9/3/2008 9:22 AM Scott W spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > scanning film strips or slides.) That would at least let you load up a > bunch of slides and scan them while doing something else. There are bulk loaders for slides, but from what I have heard they tend to jam. In any event I have all my slides scanned, just have the negatives left to do. If I knew I was going to be scanning my film when I shot it I most likely would have shot mostly slides. Most of my early stuff was on slides, I liked to see it big and the only cheap way to do that was to project it on a screen. Once I started to fill a lot of slide carousals I switch to prints just to save some space. For me at least I find slides a lot easier to scan then negatives, although VueScan has helped a lot with the negatives. Scott > On 9/3/2008 9:22 AM Scott W spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > scanning film strips or slides.) That would at least let you load up a > bunch of slides and scan them while doing something else. Most likely there are, and there are definately scanners that can feed 35mm film by the sprocket holes to scan a strip of negatives or a whole roll. Such scanners are built into most modern minilabs, and are available as add-ons for older or less-full-featured minilabs. Usually such scanners have a SCSI output, some are firewire. Check with a minilab supply company for price, features, and availablity. Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 4/09/2008 2:22 AM: > On more on topic thread. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > A scanner based on a monochrome area CCD and LEDs for the illumination > should be able to digitize a frame in about 2 seconds. noritsu koki and fuji frontiers scan a frame in seconds.... pity they are not affordable to amateurs. but Costco is apparently putting the cat amongst the pigeons on that field! > Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 4/09/2008 2:22 AM: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > pity they are not affordable to amateurs. but Costco is apparently putting the > cat amongst the pigeons on that field! My understanding is that they are all area CCD, which is what I think is really needed, but for the home market. Scott > > > A scanner based on a monochrome area CCD and LEDs for the illumination > > > should be able to digitize a frame in about 2 seconds. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > My understanding is that they are all area CCD, which is what I think > is really needed, but for the home market. Gotta get mr Bustin cracking on that one: It's gotta be possible to cook up something! :) Yes, we are mad... About real photography! ;-) > 35mm film users should be mad that film scanners are still far too > slow. It really seems that by now we should have film scanners that > could scan a frame in a few seconds. Has the market for new film > scanners dropped to the point where there is not going to be any more > real development? The scanning operation is slow but all the process to scan a picture is slower (take the slide/neg...) but you don't scan all pictures taken. SignaturePhotographie - http://www.monochromatique.com > > 35mm film users should be mad that film scanners are still far too > > slow. It really seems that by now we should have film scanners that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > -- > Photographie -http://www.monochromatique.com Hey Daniel, good to hear from you again, what happend to the picture of the week? I do try to scan all my photos I take, I still have a lot to go, but when I scan a roll of film I scan all the frames on the roll. Negatives seem to fad pretty fast here, so if I want images that are going to last I need to scan them. Scott On 9/5/2008 5:50 AM Scott W spake thus: > I do try to scan all my photos I take, I still have a lot to go, but > when I scan a roll of film I scan all the frames on the roll. > Negatives seem to fad pretty fast here, so if I want images that are > going to last I need to scan them. About that last bit--"negatives seem to fad[e] pretty fast here"--I'm curious: why? Do you actually have problems with color negatives fading? If so, I'm really surprised: I have 30-something-year-old negs that are as printable as the day I had them processed. Where is "here"? Are you in the tropics? How do you store your negatives? In a nice dark, cool, dry place, I hope. SignatureWashing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral. - Paulo Freire > On 9/5/2008 5:50 AM Scott W spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Where is "here"? Are you in the tropics? How do you store your > negatives? In a nice dark, cool, dry place, I hope. Yup, in the tropics, on the Big Island of Hawaii. Dark I can get, cool and dry are a lot harder. Hardly anyone here has AC, the temp and humidity are pretty much the same inside as out. Scanning really would work the best, if it just did not take so much time. Scott > Dark I can get, cool and dry are a lot harder. Hardly anyone here has > AC, the temp and humidity are pretty much the same inside as out. Interestingly, my experience with negatives & slides is in places where summer temperatures often reach 40°C+ and the humidity is very high. And no air-conditioning of course. As mentioned in other threads, apart from a few slides that have visibly clour-shifted, the vast majority of negatives (inherited 100+ year old ones, plus my own somewhat more recent ones) seem to be in very good, if not perfect, condition - hard to tell without comparing them directly to their own pristine state. Most damage is mechanical, i.e. scratches, probably due to bad handling. It seems more likely that someone, with the excuse of exceptional local conditions, is determined to put film down. That is comparable to someone living where there is no electricity having a thing against digital... ;-) >> About that last bit--"negatives seem to fad[e] pretty fast here"--I'm >> curious: why? Do you actually have problems with color negatives fading? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Dark I can get, cool and dry are a lot harder. Hardly anyone here has > AC, the temp and humidity are pretty much the same inside as out. But you _can_ get a small AC and setup a small room to be the cool/dry vault. AC for a small room (5000 BTU or so) cost $100 - $150 to purchase. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. On Sep 5, 9:47 am, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: > >> About that last bit--"negatives seem to fad[e] pretty fast here"--I'm > >> curious: why? Do you actually have problems with color negatives fading? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > vault. AC for a small room (5000 BTU or so) cost $100 - $150 to > purchase. We are paying something like $0.38/KWH. Scott > On Sep 5, 9:47 am, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@Freelunchvideotron.ca> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > We are paying something like $0.38/KWH. Then make the vault room really small and well insulated. Won't cost as much as you think. It's not like AC for a room with people coming and going + light streaming in... I bet you could solar power it. $0.38?! $0.055 here .. up to $0.065 for the portion over 30 kWh/day (eg: winter heating). Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. On Sep 5, 10:08 am, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: > > On Sep 5, 9:47 am, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@Freelunchvideotron.ca> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > $0.055 here .. up to $0.065 for the portion over 30 kWh/day (eg: winter > heating). It was $25/KWH a few year ago, but with oil going up so has our power cost. At some point we will go solar. If I felt the cost of the solar panels was not going to come down much I would do it today, but solar is a long term investment and I think we are going to see some noticeable improvements in the next 5 years. We do heat our water with solar, that saves a lot of money. Scott > It was $25/KWH a few year ago, but with oil going up so has our power > cost. I hope you mean cents... > At some point we will go solar. If I felt the cost of the solar > panels was not going to come down much I would do it today, but solar > is a long term investment and I think we are going to see some > noticeable improvements in the next 5 years. > > We do heat our water with solar, that saves a lot of money. Indeed... I was pretty disappointed to see in the s/w US that there was not all that much solar water heating. There was some; just expected a lot more for hotels and restaurants and other businesses which use huge amounts of hot water. They would see payback within a year or two. I've been thinking about heating water here, with a really efficient and large array I could probably heat water at least 6-7 months of the year. But the recovery cost would be on the order of 7 - 10 years. Not counting maintenance... Since our power is hydro, it's just no subject to the fossil energy market prices. And Vermont, which a couple years ago was complaining about the high prices we charge them for juice, have gone quite quiet in the last year as oil/nat gas prices have flown. While oil prices have cooled in the last couple months, nat gas did not fly as high and has cooled even quicker, leading to .... ... another odd one. Utah (yes, I know they're odd generally, but) , natural gas powered cars have taken off like crazy. There is a lot of local supply, so people are buying nat gas powered cars from all over. On an equivalent cost basis, it is like paying $0.85 / gallon of gasoline. And new shale gas techniques are paying off, so huge (really unknown quantity) reserves of formerly "untappable" natural gas are now coming into production... maybe HI should switch generation to natural gas. At least it's cleaner than oil/coal. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. On Sep 5, 11:10 am, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: > > It was $25/KWH a few year ago, but with oil going up so has our power > > cost. > > I hope you mean cents... Yup, that should have read $0.25 > > At some point we will go solar. If I felt the cost of the solar > > panels was not going to come down much I would do it today, but solar [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > lot more for hotels and restaurants and other businesses which use huge > amounts of hot water. They would see payback within a year or two. Here the pay back is pretty fast and there are tax incentives from time to time. Hawaii would really like to be energy indpendent at some time, we are working on it but it is going pretty slow. > I've been thinking about heating water here, with a really efficient and > large array I could probably heat water at least 6-7 months of the year. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > into production... maybe HI should switch generation to natural gas. At > least it's cleaner than oil/coal. I am guessing that shipping natural gas here would be costly. We have oil power plants here, other then the CO2 we don't worry too much about how clean they are, we are on small islands in a big ocean, and we have a volcano that is putting out something like 1,000,000 of SO2/day. Scott > I am guessing that shipping natural gas here would be costly. Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) isn't cheap to ship, that's for sure, but I suspect the market is too small to warrant setting up the infrastructure- if the purchaser, be it a single utility or a consortium of Island utilities, can't use the gas they contract for, or want to renegotiate a price, the supplier is pretty screwed; there's no other use for the receiving/distributing facilities. > We have oil power plants here, other then the CO2 we don't worry too > much > about how clean they are, we are on small islands in a big ocean, and > we have > a volcano that is putting out something like 1,000,000 of SO2/day. I was lucky enough to get to the Big Island that day in '83 when she first erupted after many years' dormancy. Signaturejohn mcwilliams > > I am guessing that shipping natural gas here would be costly. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I was lucky enough to get to the Big Island that day in '83 when she > first erupted after many years' dormancy. We would all like it to go back to being dormant. It has really started to spew out a lot more SO2 this year, most days we get a very heavy haze. Scott >It has really started to spew out a lot more SO2 this year, most days >we get a very heavy haze. On a global basis, doesn't increased SO2 to some extent help to counteract the warming effects of increased CO2? >>It has really started to spew out a lot more SO2 this year, most days >>we get a very heavy haze. > > On a global basis, doesn't increased SO2 to some extent help to > counteract the warming effects of increased CO2? No makes it worse and eats away the ozone layer too. -Jim On Sep 5, 12:03 pm, "jimkramer" <Newsread...@NOFSPAMjlkramer.net> wrote: > >>It has really started to spew out a lot more SO2 this year, most days > >>we get a very heavy haze. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > No makes it worse and eats away the ozone layer too. This source says it could be lowering the temp. http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/1998/98_10_22.html You have to go about halfway down to get to the part about SO2 Scott On Sep 5, 12:03 pm, "jimkramer" <Newsread...@NOFSPAMjlkramer.net> wrote: > "Bruce" <n...@nospam.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > No makes it worse and eats away the ozone layer too. This source says it could be lowering the temp. http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/1998/98_10_22.html You have to go about halfway down to get to the part about SO2 Scott I was ok until I realized it was a USGS link and based on a large number of USGS dealings, I'm suspicious. You also must realize if it reflects out it must also reflect in... -Jim On Sep 5, 1:42 pm, "jimkramer" <Newsread...@NOFSPAMjlkramer.net> wrote: > On Sep 5, 12:03 pm, "jimkramer" <Newsread...@NOFSPAMjlkramer.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > You also must realize if it reflects out it must also reflect in... But what makes a greenhouse gas work is it lets visible light in but blocks the IR, which is re-radiated. Anything that blocks both visible and IR is going to cool the earth. After 9/11 when there were no planes flying for a few days the temperature over the USA drop unexpectedly, it took a while to figure out that the contrails had been blocking some of the sunlight. Scott > On Sep 5, 1:42 pm, "jimkramer" <Newsread...@NOFSPAMjlkramer.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > temperature over the USA drop unexpectedly, it took a while to figure > out that the contrails had been blocking some of the sunlight. Rose. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. >>>It has really started to spew out a lot more SO2 this year, most days >>>we get a very heavy haze. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >No makes it worse and eats away the ozone layer too. So what is it that volcanoes produce that counteracts the warming effects of increased CO2? Particulates? >>>>It has really started to spew out a lot more SO2 this year, most days >>>>we get a very heavy haze. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > So what is it that volcanoes produce that counteracts the warming > effects of increased CO2? Particulates? The argument is still pretty "hot" as to SO2 real effect in the atmosphere. I quick web search will turn up all sorts of interesting studies - Just make sure you know who p(r)ayed for the studies before you gospilize them. Yea ole' nuclear winter comes to mind. Just block out that sun. -Jim On Sep 5, 2:10 pm, "jimkramer" <Newsread...@NOFSPAMjlkramer.net> wrote: > >>>>It has really started to spew out a lot more SO2 this year, most days > >>>>we get a very heavy haze. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Yea ole' nuclear winter comes to mind. Just block out that sun. I can tell you that when the VOG is thick it does not get hot that day. This has been a very cool summer for us. The SO2 might not do much but it turns into a sulfuric acid, which is hygroscopic and so makes a very fine mist, which does not let much light thorugh. Scott On Sep 5, 2:10 pm, "jimkramer" <Newsread...@NOFSPAMjlkramer.net> wrote: > "Bruce" <n...@nospam.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Yea ole' nuclear winter comes to mind. Just block out that sun. I can tell you that when the VOG is thick it does not get hot that day. This has been a very cool summer for us. The SO2 might not do much but it turns into a sulfuric acid, which is hygroscopic and so makes a very fine mist, which does not let much light thorugh. Scott I think what we are all forgetting is that this stuff eats film. -Jim >>>It has really started to spew out a lot more SO2 this year, most days >>>we get a very heavy haze. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >No makes it worse and eats away the ozone layer too. >-Jim Not to forget that heavy concentration will cause instant chemical pneumonia. Probably not too healthy. RP© >> It has really started to spew out a lot more SO2 this year, most days >> we get a very heavy haze. > > On a global basis, doesn't increased SO2 to some extent help to > counteract the warming effects of increased CO2? Not sure. OTOH increases in SOx do increase soil acidity which causes forests to fall to pieces, increasing the methane. (which is a GH gas). In sum, all sources (natural and man made) and all sinks (natural, negligible man made), CO2 is rising in the atmosphere. That is really what needs attention. Slowing it, stopping it. It is a tipping point issue. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. >Not sure. OTOH increases in SOx do increase soil acidity which causes >forests to fall to pieces, increasing the methane. So that explains why Hawaii is not surrounded by thousands of square miles of dense forests ... or perhaps not. >> Not sure. OTOH increases in SOx do increase soil acidity which causes >> forests to fall to pieces, increasing the methane. > > So that explains why Hawaii is not surrounded by thousands of square > miles of dense forests ... or perhaps not. It's the worldwide sum that counts, not localized effects. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. >> It was $25/KWH a few year ago, but with oil going up so has our power >> cost. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> is a long term investment and I think we are going to see some >> noticeable improvements in the next 5 years. I live in Houston and looked into solar that would provide 450KWH. This would, during the summer months would run my A/C and over the remainder of the year cover about half of my power consumption. The cost installed, $30,000. >>> It was $25/KWH a few year ago, but with oil going up so has our power >>> cost. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the year cover about half of my power consumption. The cost installed, > $30,000. That's a half proposal. What's the payoff? What's the recurring cost (battery maintenance, etc.). What government subsidies do you qualify for? What's your acceptable horizon for a net ROI? Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. >>>> It was $25/KWH a few year ago, but with oil going up so has our power >>>> cost. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > (battery maintenance, etc.). What government subsidies do you qualify > for? What's your acceptable horizon for a net ROI? That is the quote for panels and installation, the pay off is 8 - 10 years assuming I could cash out the system, much much longer if I has to finance it. I did not inquire as to the price of the storage batteries as the initial cost of the basic system alone stop my considering solar for electricity. As for subsidies, I would receive $2,000 from the Feds nothing from the state or my provider. At this point in time solar electric generation is not cost effective and neither is wind. I do believe that one day they will be and homes in mostly sunny areas for the country will have solar and those in windy areas will use wind turbines and homes where geothermal is available will use it. Apartment size refrigerator? SignatureChristopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org . > We are paying something like $0.38/KWH. Then make the vault room really small and well insulated. Won't cost as Alan Browne, 9/6/2008 8:08 AM: >> On Sep 5, 9:47 am, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@Freelunchvideotron.ca> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > $0.055 here .. up to $0.065 for the portion over 30 kWh/day (eg: winter > heating). Jeez, I better stop complaining here in NZ. Our charges currently (!) are about 19 to 23 cents per kWh depending on the supplier, plus about 80 cents/day line charge. Our monthly bill, running two computers all day, fluorescent lighting and water heating is about $NZ 160. No space heating, we have a wood burner. Colin D. > Alan Browne, 9/6/2008 8:08 AM: > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > day, fluorescent lighting and water heating is about $NZ 160. No space > heating, we have a wood burner. What on earth do you do with a wood burner :) We don't have house heat here, at least not at the elevation we live at. Scott Scott W, 9/12/2008 11:58 PM: >> Alan Browne, 9/6/2008 8:08 AM: >> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Scott Surprise! We burn wood, usually offcuts from sawmills. Winter temps here are typically 0 to 7 deg C overnight, 10 to 14 deg C days, too cold to sit at a computer. Gotta be these old bones, I won't see 70 again. Colin D. Hello Scott :) > Hey Daniel, good to hear from you again, what happend to the picture > of the week? Thanks. Well for the moment it's "paused". I have not made any update for a while. This month, something new... :) > I do try to scan all my photos I take, I still have a lot to go, but > when I scan a roll of film I scan all the frames on the roll. > Negatives seem to fad pretty fast here, so if I want images that are > going to last I need to scan them. My scanner is slow, but I take the time to do the job. And the better is to scan each film when it's done, and not to wait a while and have thousands pictures to scan. SignaturePhotographie - http://www.monochromatique.com > Hello Scott :) > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > And the better is to scan each film when it's done, and not to wait > a while and have thousands pictures to scan. I would agree with this, but two things mess it up, my wife and I have taken a lot of photos over the last 25 years and during most of that tiime we did not have a film scanner. The other problem we ran into was coming back from a vacation with a bunch of negatives, maybe not in the 1,000s, but well into the 100s of photos. Scott > On more on topic thread. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > scanners dropped to the point where there is not going to be any more > real development? Yes. The same thing happened to long-life horseshoes back when Henry Ford was making waves. > A scanner based on a monochrome area CCD and LEDs for the illumination > should be able to digitize a frame in about 2 seconds. I take about fifteen seconds to really piss my mother-in-law off. I should be able to do it in three seconds. Hi Scott. Regards Tony >> On more on topic thread. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The same thing happened to long-life horseshoes back when Henry Ford was > making waves. Cue Scott W: "The number of horses has decreased drastically since 1900. At this rate they'll soon be extinct. If you go to a parking lot, you won't see any horses tied up there. If you stable a horse on a volcano, the fumes will make it sick and it will die." :-) >>> On more on topic thread. >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > :-) Interesting point sample: there are 12 horses within 1000 feet of my house, none of them are mine. No volcanoes here though. :-( You won't find horses in parking lots because there are no hitching posts and the fines for crapping in the streets is by the pound. :-) -Jim |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.