[Digihubsadmin] FW: Re: FADGI Compliance

[Barry Kallander]

Jeff,

 

Thanks for the message.  I will discuss with i2S the lens question identified by Chatham to see if that is an option, as well as any other concession.

 

To be clear, I didn’t say that i2S wasn’t being honest –I have discussed this with the owners and senior executives at i2S and they continue to make the point that Fadgi compliance has various levels (stars) and are relevant to specific resolutions.  The Suprascan is capable of various resolutions from 1 star to 4 star performance.  I think that Kirtas made the assumption that 600dpi/A0 was Fadgi 2 star.  We have suggested to i2S that this be clarified in their documents so one cannot draw an incorrect conclusion.

 

Regards,

Barry

 

Barry Kallander

KallanderGroup, Inc.

978-562-0767 (office)

978-790-1902 (Mobile)

646-219-3304 (Fax)

barry at kallandergroup.com

www.kallandergroup.com <http://www.kallandergroup.com/> 

kallander_group_inc_tag_log

 

From: Wale, Jeff [mailto:jeff.wale at toledolibrary.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 1:09 PM
To: barry at kallandergroup.com
Cc: 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)
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

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.oplin.org/pipermail/digihubsadmin/attachments/20140604/a8d58c60/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 10445 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.oplin.org/pipermail/digihubsadmin/attachments/20140604/a8d58c60/attachment-0001.jpg>