All Forum Comments
Make sure your camera currently has firmware version 1.00 through 1.20.
(They say that, because if there was ever a 1.40 you can't downgrade to 1.30 ... at least not normally!)
Just go ahead and put 1.30 straight in and enjoy
Matt
Comment by MattMatic posted on Firmware at 04/01/2008 - 09:32
Or, again, as Katrin Eismann suggests in one of her books (particularly for scratched images) - try scanning at 0 degrees, then rotate 90 degrees and scan again. It's likely that the scratches will look different in each scan and you can combine the two scans
And finally.... in the realm of bringing back old images - anything's worth a go!!
Matt
Comment by MattMatic posted on Scanning a photocopy of a mono photograph at 03/01/2008 - 16:20
http://macgroup.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/320604742/m/1691050362
http://www.descreen.net/eng/soft/descreen/descreen.htm (see above post though)
http://answers.google.com/answers/main?cmd=threadview&id=224671
http://hardware.mcse.ms/archive47-2005-11-48294.html
Have fun
Matt
Comment by MattMatic posted on Scanning a photocopy of a mono photograph at 03/01/2008 - 13:28
Couldn't you photograph it, rather than scan it?
(Just the same as scanning!)
Matt
Comment by MattMatic posted on Scanning a photocopy of a mono photograph at 03/01/2008 - 13:23
There are (fiddly) ways around it in Photoshop - basically you are trying to turn a half-toned image into a greyscale one. The photocopy process can only deposit one colour - solid black. It gets the appearance of grey by spattering the solid dots into a random half-tone. (Newspapers and magazines use a regular half-tone process - usually in little rose shape arrangements of dots).
Any descreening process is a balancing act of smoothing vs retaining detail. You will probably find that a good noise reduction software (like NeatImage) will do a good job of descreening...
HTH!
Matt
Comment by MattMatic posted on Scanning a photocopy of a mono photograph at 03/01/2008 - 12:12
(They don't have a jealous-green emoticon! LOL! )
Matt
Comment by MattMatic posted on Can I Toot My Own Horn? at 26/12/2007 - 14:29
Matt, I was talking specifically about the AF400FTZ
Just re-read the thread... my must brain in muddle be
Matt
Comment by MattMatic posted on AF400FTZ or AF-360FGZ TTL with Pentax 645? at 11/01/2008 - 13:01
... but I suspect they just cant talk to one another.
The AF360 connected on a 4P link will behave exactly like any other 4P flash gun. I've even used the AF360 on the *ist-D in TTL mode using a 4P link.
That said, if the AF360 has been previously used on a K10D (for example) the it will be "stuck" in P-TTL mode until it talks to a TTL only body (like an MZ10 etc). This may be the only sticking point when connecting onto a really old body that supports TTL only.
You only have to push the Mode button on the AF360... if you only get P-TTL then you have to "retrain" it on a body. If you get "TTL" as one of the modes then everything should be just fine and dandy
So, if the MF 645 supports TTL then I would say it will work with the AF360 and AF540.
Don't you just love Pentax compatibility!!
Matt
Comment by MattMatic posted on AF400FTZ or AF-360FGZ TTL with Pentax 645? at 11/01/2008 - 11:11
The AF360 and AF540 will determine the camera capabilities when connected. If the body only supports normal TTL then it'll do just that. For all the digital bodies it will use P-TTL only.
Matt
Comment by MattMatic posted on AF400FTZ or AF-360FGZ TTL with Pentax 645? at 04/01/2008 - 09:34


I have just got a K100d and would like to know how to find out how ifind out which version is on mine?
Matt