Anything USB will track better because of the higher sampling rate.
Unfortunately the MS USB mouse I bought didn't like the KT133 VIA chipset on
the motherboard. This is a common problem with Via chipsets see:
. When I first installed the motherboard I couldn't
use USB at all with my Epson 1270 and the USB mouse & keyboard caused
periodic crashes. Eventually I gave up on the mouse and keyboard but I
managed to persuade the printer to work.
It's not entirely Vias fault though has my Casio camera has had absolute
zero problems from day 1.
If you have a PS/2 mouse, AT YOUR OWN RISK, you can overclock the sampling
rate. Never heard of anyone permanently damaging anything with this
procedure but I am sure it can be done (I have tried it before myself). If
you did permanently damage the PS/2 port you would have to use a USB or
serial port mouse - you have been warned.
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: "Maris V. Lidaka, Sr." <mlidaka@ameritech.net>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 5:22 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: What causes this and is there any easy solution ?
> Be sure that you are using an *optical* mouse or trackball - it will track
> much more smoothly..
>
> Maris
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve Greenbank" <steve@gccl.fsbusiness.co.uk>
> To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
> Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 5:05 AM
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: What causes this and is there any easy solution
?
>
>
> | I'll try this and see how it compares with gaussian blur. I was hoping
> | someone would have a solution that didn't involve carefully selecting
> | sections of a 20Mpixel image. It takes ages to get it right and I wish I
> had
> | a bigger monitor there just isn't enough room for the picture on my 17
> inch
> | screen.Sadly there isn't enough room in the house for a significantly
> bigger
> | screen.
> |
> | Maybe, with practice I will be able to select sections better. Has
anyone
> | tried adjusting their mouse movement settings (slow it down,reduce
> | accelleration) to make this easier ?
> |
> | Steve
> |
> | ----- Original Message -----
> | From: "Lynn Allen" <lalle@email.com>
> | To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
> | Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 1:00 AM
> | Subject: RE: filmscanners: What causes this and is there any easy
solution
> ?
> |
> |
> | > The solution looks so easy that I probably don't understand the
problem
> | > completely. :-) There are two quick ways you can do corrections:
> | > 1) make two scans the same size in Vuescan; one normally, the second
> with
> | a
> | > slight positive offset of manual focus (about +1 to +1.5). The second
> scan
> | > will have "corrected" much if not all of the g-a, and the subject will
> be
> | a
> | > little blurred--but surprisingly little (you might even decide to stay
> | with
> | > that one, unless you're doing large blow-ups).
> | > 2) load the first scan into Photoshop or your favorite image
processor.
> | > Select "All" and copy it. Then load the second frame in (it's OK to
> delete
> | > the first one without saving, since you have a copy). Paste the copy
> over
> | > the second, blurry copy, and Erase the sky from the top layer down to
> the
> | > blurred layer.
> | >
> | > If you can get a Selector to work, like the Magic Wand for example to
> | select
> | > just the sky portions (I almost never can--I think the wand is
> | over-rated),
> | > it's even simpler--select the sky only, and have-at-it with any or
all
> of
> | > the blur filters. :-)
> | >
> | > Another way is to use Channels (if they're available in your programs)
> | > either to select and copy a mask, or--as I'd say in this case--to
> isolate
> | > the redish pixels in the sky and eliminate them.
> | >
> |
> |
> |
>
>
