Oh Shoot

Also though, I believe the gun has to be capable of being FIRED while in the holster. Unlike all the ones like this:

You mean this thing? If so, it's not a "wallet holster". If not, what holster are y'all talking about for the NAA derringer? - OS

Yes, I guess my post was a long about way of agreeing with you, for general use. Note that a screen image requires much less zap (tech term) than good printed image however. edit: Oh, since Bkelm seems mostly interested in black and white photography, getting good print output from grayscale without a color cast can be quite touchy, too. You do want to work and send RGB images, even though they "look" black and white. If you change mode to "grayscale" or tell your printer to print in "black and white", you have gone from 16.7 million colors (or shades), though about half those are indistinguishable from each other by the human eye, to 256 shades of gray, each of which is distinguishable. And working beyond 24 bit isn't worth it, btw, you are just doubling file size with no real benefit unless you outputting BACK to film where you will gain a little. And of course, never work in JPEG; JPEG condenses file size by throwing away similar colors, and each time a JPEG is manipulated and resaved, more image degradation happens. JPEG should be reserved a final output step primarly for onscreen use. Always work/resave and archive images you care about in uncompressed format like TIFF or PSD. Also also, any software sharpening should occur only as a last step when exact pixel dimensions are set. It's a truly irreversible process once file has been saved and closed. Sharpening DURING the scan should be avoided, too. - OS

Well, okay. Just know that the "4800" ppi of say, that Epson, is spread over a much larger area than a 35mm frame, and will give actual resolving rez of much lower actual usable pixel samples, not due to interpolation. And of course, the other scale, 9600, is simply sensor stepping, and not a real measure of resolving power at all, but rather number of samples for final software interpolation. If it is exactly precise, more is better, but stepper motors in "consumer" grade scanners generally overlap some, so the number of steps possible in and of itself can just be a number, depending. The fact that it can "resolve" film grain itself is really not particularly a measure of overall quality, but rather an indication of how it perceives contrast differences; grain itself is easier to resolve than subtle nuances of shading created BY the grain clumps or "clouds", or of, of course, dynamic range of color dyes, including chromgenic "black and white" films. A film scanner's actual native resolution is measured only over the actual area of the film itself of only 24x36mm in the case of 35mm, while a flatbed's maximum possible native sensor rez is measured over the entire range of its array, in the case of flatbeds, usually the entire size of the platen it's capable of covering, usually 8x10 or larger. So the actual number of native (non software interpolated) pixels is much much less than the ballpark maximum resolution of most 35mm film itself, certainly somewhere around 4K pixels max. Of course, the larger the negative/transparency, the better the results as the same pixel resolution is now applied over a larger area, and beyond 35mm size, film scanners are prohibitively expensive. Indeed, at 4x5" film and larger, only minor gains would be made with film scanners over even a modest flatbed such as the Epson discussed. Of course, printing output is the other biggest factor involved. It doesn't gain anything to use the highest quality scanner if the printer system isn't up to reproducing it. Printers have to interpolate, too, and the best you can do with even the best of them is to feed them the best sampling you can. Archival printing (how long will your prints last, how impervious to environmental conditions, etc) is a whole 'nother issue. So in short, all that being said, the "eye of the beholder" principle applies -- if the final output meets your expectations, then it's plenty good enough. And you ARE right for the most part, that no more than $500 bucks or less for a flatbed scanner/inkjet printer combo will give results, that with proper skill of scanning technique and software image manipulation, will produce output pleasing and acceptable to most. - Oh "sorry for the lecture" Shoot

Technology, sigh... I also have a Lasergraphics film recorder, top of the line. Paid $15,000 for it in '97 and made basic living off it for about 5 years. I'll be lucky to get $500 for it now, should have sold it long ago, but still had a few folks sending me stuff for it until about a year ago. - OS

Nikon Coolscan is still the most affordable quality choice for 35mm, but as you probably already know, looking at about a grand. Consumer grade flatbeds of any kind are a far second as far as actual resolution, color depth, dynamic range, etc. Depending on your printing system, though, you may not notice much difference. Another option is to find an older Nikon LS 2000, but knowing that it's still up to snuff before buying it could be a crapshoot. Its 2700 ppi still beats consumer grade flat bed scanners that offer much higher claimed rez. I actually have one, that I'm probably going to eBay soon; I'd offer it to you, but I have no idea what is a fair price. All that being said, there are a pile of flatbed options out there now, and I haven't kept up with the actual reviews regarding claimed resolution and actual USABLE resolution. Of course, for on screen use only, you can get by with significantly less capable hardware capability than for fine prints. Regarding Digital ICE, and similar technologies like FARE and others: with the correct level of this algorithm, especially in a dedicated film scanner, you can get EXCELLENT results. However, it does NOT work well on actual silver halide based films, like most black and white, or even old Kodachrome slides (which have residual silver left in the emulsion, unlike Ektachrome, which has only dyes remaining). One exception to black and white films in this regard are the various chromogenic black and white films, such as Ilford XP and others, that are developed in C-41 like other color neg films. There is no silver left, only color dyes. Another option is to simply shoot color neg film and convert to black and white in digital post processing. No matter how careful you are with dust control you will ALWAYS have significant dust spotting in scanning film, and ICE (and similar) can save you A LOT of time. Negs are much worse than positives, as dust shows as light specks instead of dark ones. - OS

I don't believe I've ever contributed in this thread: XD9 SC in a TT Gunleather - OS

OIC. guy's nic is bucnball next time you check, he's okay. Thanks for info.. - OS

Guy I know tried to join - has "account has been activated, in queue to be added to forum". So David, you now manually do this? I thought was automagic? - OS

XD subbies have 3" barrels. That's what I carry in 9mm. You can't go wrong with the Glock 26 or XD SC 9. XD has more rounds. I'm not a big fan of .40 in smaller guns, but may be in a minority. Don't know the Walther. - OS

Umm...the legislature doesn't re-convene until 1st of the year. You think they'd all come to Nashville earlier just to "fix" this? Right. And of course, if they DO allow a clean statue for carry in alcohol serving establishments, Bredesen will veto it, and whether there are enough votes this time around to override, dunno. Whatever happens, it won't be quick, and it won't happen till first of the year, unless I'm really missing the boat on something. Maybe a higher court could override it before then, IF the state appeals it. - OS

For me, there's really not "feed better". Either the chosen ammo feeds, fires, and ejects, or the ammo goes, or the gun goes (if it can't be fixed). Relying on XD for carry thus far, I've not had either prob. - OS

While I carry something I consider "better" due to studying the prevailing research, I wouldn't feel like I was necessarily any less effective in defending myself carrying the rounds in question. - OS

Defense to unlawful possession. "... an unloaded rifle, shotgun or handgun not concealed on or about the person and the ammunition for the weapon was not in the immediate vicinity of the person or weapon" Separate gun and ammo as far as possible. To be sure, put either gun or ammo in locked case. That has pretty much been shown to be an ironclad indication that you are not "going armed" and you would REALLY have had to piss off a LEO bigtime to get charged under those circumstances. - OS

Me too. Oh wait, can I still make it read only? - OS edit: Oh, USMCJG, I bow out, I concede equal opportunity from both samples to reach 4% participation among HCPers. It's fine, as there's not way it will happen - unfortunately, what's more important, even a well publicized attempt to do so can only spotlight carry proponents in a Bad Way.

You keep assuming ALL TN HCP holders eat out somewhere each day in a place that serves booze. None of this matters, though. Even my stand is not statistically valid, was merely using a couple of parameters of more that exist. More importantly, even if a "boycott" DID cause every restaurant in TN that serves alcohol a 4% decrease in revenue, it is still illogical, ineffective, and indeed, likely detrimental to public perception (and perhaps even to perception of our lawmakers). I also see no moral high ground by attempting to harm all those establishments that either tolerated carry, or even openly welcomed it. - OS

Nope. Assuming that the restaurant actually does 100 patrons per day, and that all 4% of the population does not eat out each day, the odds are MUCH greater that ALL 100 will be from the 96% sample than that there will be even FOUR there from the 4% sample. I don't think it will make a difference either; if anything, will just sound absurd to the general public, which helps nada in over all PR. But unlike you, I don't get any moral satisfaction tilting at windmills any more. - OS

Bzzzt. Logic alert. That assumes that EVERY DAY, ALL 4% of HCP holders in the state eat in a restaurant that serves alcohol. I eat in one maybe twice a month, tops, for example. But I wish you lots of luck in the boycott. I'll give up my 2 days per month to really hurt them. - OS

Bzzt...math alert. 4% of population, boycotting restaurants all over the state does NOT equal any single restaurant losing 4%. More like .000004% At worst. - OS

No, it won't. Unless folks gang up to affect just certain restaurants. 2 or 3 hundred thousand folks, of of over 6 million, even if ALL participated, dispersed across the whole state wouldn't affect any given restaurant or even a whole chain by enough for them to notice. - OS

Like 4% of the TN population, even IF every single one participated, would make a whisker of difference state wide to any given restaurant, or chain. - OS

Hunting law. 100 yards unless you have owner's permission. - OS

Well, that's true. It does feel like you're shooting .38 +p. The laser probably has practical accuracy, but the bullets themselves are unlikely to coincide with it very often. - Oh <flame suit on> Shoot

No, call the sheriff, as I already said. The sherrif isn't listed. - OS

I wouldn't bet the farm that it won't be somehow nuked again at some point, though. - OS