Maybe it is the scanner. I have a Nikon film scanner. Back in January
I was scanning some negs and it was taking 6-7 minutes to do one 35mm
neg at 4000 dpi. I can't remember if that was the total time or the
scanning time, but it was a long time. I think it must have been the
scan because yesterday, using 8.4.16, it was taking 90 seconds to do the
scan and a total of 4:50 for everything, and that seemed to awfully
quick compared to before.

--
Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883
bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac]
rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office]

In article <bob-(E-Mail Removed)>,
Robert Peirce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Maybe it is the scanner. I have a Nikon film scanner. Back in January
> I was scanning some negs and it was taking 6-7 minutes to do one 35mm
> neg at 4000 dpi. I can't remember if that was the total time or the
> scanning time, but it was a long time. I think it must have been the
> scan because yesterday, using 8.4.16, it was taking 90 seconds to do the
> scan and a total of 4:50 for everything, and that seemed to awfully
> quick compared to before.

I think I know. I was multi-sampling in January. Four samples would
probably take four times as long. I decided four didn't seem to help
all that much and more would really take a really long time so I went
back to one. Problem solved.

--
Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883
bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac]
rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office]