[Digihubsadmin] FW: Re: FADGI Compliance

[Stephen Hedges]

just so you guys know, Barry is not on this list, I have to approve anything he tries to post here, so he's not seeing our correspondence.
--
Stephen


----- Original Message -----
> From: "Barry Kallander" <barry at kallandergroup.com>
> To: "Jeff' 'Wale" <jeff.wale at toledolibrary.org>
> Cc: digihubsadmin at lists.oplin.org
> Sent: Wednesday, June 4, 2014 1:57:46 PM
> Subject: Re: [Digihubsadmin] FW: Re: FADGI Compliance
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Digihubsadmin mailing list
> Digihubsadmin at lists.oplin.org
> http://lists.oplin.org/mailman/listinfo/digihubsadmin
>