[Digihubsadmin] FW: FW: Re: FADGI Compliance

[Wale, Jeff]

You are probably right, but it sets the stage for “extras”.

From: Chatham Ewing [mailto:chatham.ewing at cpl.org]
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 1:26 PM
To: Wale, Jeff
Cc: digihubsadmin (digihubsadmin at lists.oplin.org)
Subject: Re: [Digihubsadmin] FW: FW: Re: FADGI Compliance

Jeff,

All editing for a good cause is welcome. But I suspect that hopeful as it is, that idea won't work. I don't know if what they have on the thing is the 50, and it didn't look as if the other lenses were a match.

Chat

________________________________
From: "Jeff Wale" <jeff.wale at toledolibrary.org<mailto:jeff.wale at toledolibrary.org>>
To: "digihubsadmin (digihubsadmin at lists.oplin.org<mailto:digihubsadmin at lists.oplin.org>)" <digihubsadmin at lists.oplin.org<mailto:digihubsadmin at lists.oplin.org>>
Sent: Wednesday, June 4, 2014 1:13:31 PM
Subject: [Digihubsadmin] FW:  FW: Re: FADGI Compliance
Chatham,
I edited your email slightly – forgive me.  I wanted to give you credit for finding this link and coming up with the suggestion.
Barry was intrigued with the idea and will have answers for us tomorrow.
 Jeff


From: Wale, Jeff
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 1:09 PM
To: barry at kallandergroup.com<mailto:barry at kallandergroup.com>
Cc: digihubsadmin (digihubsadmin at lists.oplin.org<mailto:digihubsadmin at lists.oplin.org>)
Subject: FW: [Digihubsadmin] FW: Re: FADGI Compliance

Hi Barry,
Thank you for the call this morning. To summarize (and to bring all partners up to speed for tomorrow’s call) . . . . .

•         No need to send Bart back to Toledo to run a 600 dpi @ A1 – we will run a test and email it to Don, if needed.

•         You understand how we were led to believe the scanner would pass at 600 dpi @ AO size and acknowledged that i2s wasn’t completely honest on their website specs (you don’t have to acknowledge this is email). It was only after speaking to i2s that you learned of the A1 size limitation.

•         I shared with you that Don Williams has tested other OEM scanners and they passed FADGI-2 at 600 dpi @ A0 size. He did tell me that the 2xAO HD is too large to pass.

•         In preparation of tomorrow’s conference call, you will talk to i2s to see if they have an alternative lens (see Chatham’s email below) or some other good faith effort for Toledo to waive the requirement – such as extending the maintenance from 1 to 2 years or providing technician level training at no cost. Note: I cannot speak for the other partners -- each will make their own decision on what’s best from them.
I look forward to resolving this matter quickly and moving on to transferring maintenance.
Thank you,
Jeff

From: Chatham Ewing [mailto:chatham.ewing at cpl.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2014 4:09 PM
To: Wale, Jeff
Cc: digihubsadmin (digihubsadmin at lists.oplin.org<mailto:digihubsadmin at lists.oplin.org>)
Subject: Re: [Digihubsadmin] FW: Re: FADGI Compliance

Jeff,

I noticed that the lens on the scanner was a Rodagon. Which Rodagon was it? Was it a 50 (for 24×36 mm film)? Was it the one with six element lenses? And I wonder if the scanner would perform any better with a higher end eight element lens?Or if that's even possible on this scanner.

Rodagon lenses specs:
http://www.rodenstock-photo.com/mediabase/original/e_Rodenstock_Printing_CCD_43-62__8230.pdf

Chatham



_______________________________________________
Digihubsadmin mailing list
Digihubsadmin at lists.oplin.org<mailto:Digihubsadmin at lists.oplin.org>
http://lists.oplin.org/mailman/listinfo/digihubsadmin

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.oplin.org/pipermail/digihubsadmin/attachments/20140604/8710e3e0/attachment-0001.html>