kw: product testing, product reviews, scanners, film scanners, slide scanners
See the post three days ago. My estimate of timing for running with Digital ICE technology was off by a factor of two. The actual time per image is 4.8 minutes, while the time without it is 0.9 minutes.
I also found that it is best to put no more than one strip of any length into each of the four sections of the film carrier. That makes wiping dust off easier, and striving to fill the carrier doesn't actually save any time. This means I seldom do more than 12-16 frames, rather than the 24 a full carrier can handle. As it happened, all my negatives were cut by the developer into 4-frame sections. The sheets in which I have had them stored have room for 6 frames per strip, so I cut every second strip into two pieces to economize on sheets. So now I load them 4, 2, 4, 2, for 12 frames per run. At 4.8 min/frame scan time, that is one run per hour, plus the time to unload and reload the carrier. I could speed things up by buying a second carrier, but I'll defer that.
I do a lot with the computer, so I have found I can run the scanner in the background. To start the day, I load film in the carrier and start a scan. It pays to be careful with the carrier's parts, because the tabs that hold them together are rather small. Once it is all together, I lay it on a light table and carefully slide the film strips until all edges of each image are visible. Then I dust with a blow-brush. I also clean the glass. Dust seems to get in there every time I open the lid. So I run Preview, set the options I want (Unsharp Mask off, Grain Reduction on High, Digital ICE on), and rotate any frames that I took in Portrait orientation. Then I hit Scan and I have an hour to do other stuff.
So it takes two sets to scan a roll of 24 (or 26) and three to scan a roll of 36 (or 38; I squeezed frames onto the leader and trailer as much as I could). I hope this helps. I suppose if you work in a clean room environment you can get by with out Digital Ice, because it really does take a lot more time. But I am fine with it.
Showing posts with label product testing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label product testing. Show all posts
Thursday, January 09, 2014
Monday, January 06, 2014
Testing a semi-pro transparency scanner
kw: product testing, product reviews, scanners, film scanners, slide scanners
I had promised myself a good film scanner once I got other year-end projects out of the way. I have the negatives from a couple hundred rolls of film plus a few hundred slides, from my pre-digital days. One of my brothers also has several thousand slides our father took. I ordered the scanner a few days after Christmas.
The first shipping day of the year, it arrived, an Epson Perfection V700. I have been reading and comparing reviews and tests and user articles for months, because a $600 investment is no small potatoes for me.
This is a product test, not a total review, so I'll forego a few things and get right to test results.
First, the negative I chose for these tests is a friend playing the banjo, about thirty years ago. I scanned in Professional Mode at 4800x4800 dpi. This first scan establishes a baseline. All options were turned off.
The color is too blue, but I am most interested in the film grain and dust that appear in closeups. You can see a large dust speck on the forehead and above the pegboard of the banjo. There is also a bit of lint on the collar, and others that we'll see in crops shown next:
Here, another piece of lint shows up at lower right, and two scratches, running nearly vertically, one at upper left and another to its right next to the bright curl of lint on the collar. There is also a large speck of dust near bottom center on the shirt pocket, left of the lint.
All of these images can be seen in a larger size (about twice) by clicking on them. At this size the film grain pretty well averages out.
First I turned on Unsharp Masking, a cool mathematical way to sharpen an image:
The primary effect is seen by looking at the banjo strings, which appear more distinct. However, the lint, dust and scratches are even more visible here. I think it better to concentrate on cleaning up the image. Sharpening can be done later.
To that end, for the next scan I turned on Grain Reduction. While I was at it, I also turned on Color Restore; it should not interfere with other functions:
Now the color is much better. A full size image also shows that the film grain has been reduced. But now it is time to test two methods of dealing with dust.
First, the software-only method, titled Dust Removal:
Clearly, Dust Removal doesn't touch lint or scratches. The speck of dust at lower center is still visible also, though perhaps a little less evident. We'll return to this. Note that I turned Color Restore off for this scan.
The second method is called Digital ICE, and uses two scans. One is infrared, and detects the dust, lint and scratches. Then they can be subtracted from the visible-light image by pasting nearby pixel patterns in. Here is the result:
This is marvelous! The dust and scratches are entirely gone, and I can see just slight hints of the lint. The drawback is that scanning takes more than twice as long.
Guess what I did next? I took the film holder out and used an optical brush to clean the negatives. Upon re-scan, the lint and dust are gone, though the scratches are still there.
Let's have a closer look at another area of the image before wrapping up. First, here is the other area of the scan with all options off. This is near the pegboard of the banjo:
In this area the film grain is more visible. This is a tighter crop also. One big dust speck and several smaller ones are evident.
Here is the effect of Grain Reduction:
To my eye, the graininess is reduced by half or better. The smaller dust grains are also less evident. This is simply a blur function.
Now for Dust Removal:
Now, that is nearly prefect. The algorithm finds dust specks in large smoothly colored areas and covers them over quite well. Too bad about the lint and scratches, though.
Here is the result of Digital ICE processing instead:
It is incredibly good. I can just see a tiny light spot where the largest dust mote had been. Digital ICE is clearly the best method for cleaning up images from imperfect film or slides. Of course, it is best to get them as clean as possible first, but that can't remove scratches.
The time spent to scan a roll of film is about an hour. Loading the film holders is somewhat finicky. People who use this scanner for production work (the ones that charge you about half a dollar per neg or slide) buy a second set of film and slide holders, for about $40. Once loaded and placed, scanning takes about a minute or so for a preview. Then you choose options, if you are in Professional Mode (and none other is worth using), and Scan.
To choose options, when the preview is showing you your thumbnails, be sure to hit the Select All button, unless you want to use different options for each image. You can choose them one by one by clicking in the image area of the thumbnail.
I was surprised that scanning is done image by image. I'd have thought the scanner could make a single pass and use software to pick it apart, but it scans each one, taking about a minute each, or a little less. With Digital ICE turned off, scanning a roll of 24 takes just over 20 minutes.
If you have turned on Digital Ice for any images, it scans each one a second time with the backlight turned off, using an IR source in its place. With the extra motion and resetting it does, it takes about 2½ minutes per image. That is a full hour just to scan a roll of 24 frames, or half an hour to scan 12 slides. That compares to over 20 minutes for the film and 11-12 minutes for slides, with Digital ICE turned off. In my estimation, the extra time is worth it.
Scanning film is a task I'll do while I have other stuff I can also do. I can get it going, do other stuff, and take a break from the other stuff to put the film away and load the next batch. I am really glad I got this scanner.
I had promised myself a good film scanner once I got other year-end projects out of the way. I have the negatives from a couple hundred rolls of film plus a few hundred slides, from my pre-digital days. One of my brothers also has several thousand slides our father took. I ordered the scanner a few days after Christmas.
The first shipping day of the year, it arrived, an Epson Perfection V700. I have been reading and comparing reviews and tests and user articles for months, because a $600 investment is no small potatoes for me.
This is a product test, not a total review, so I'll forego a few things and get right to test results.
First, the negative I chose for these tests is a friend playing the banjo, about thirty years ago. I scanned in Professional Mode at 4800x4800 dpi. This first scan establishes a baseline. All options were turned off.
The color is too blue, but I am most interested in the film grain and dust that appear in closeups. You can see a large dust speck on the forehead and above the pegboard of the banjo. There is also a bit of lint on the collar, and others that we'll see in crops shown next:
All of these images can be seen in a larger size (about twice) by clicking on them. At this size the film grain pretty well averages out.
First I turned on Unsharp Masking, a cool mathematical way to sharpen an image:
The primary effect is seen by looking at the banjo strings, which appear more distinct. However, the lint, dust and scratches are even more visible here. I think it better to concentrate on cleaning up the image. Sharpening can be done later.
To that end, for the next scan I turned on Grain Reduction. While I was at it, I also turned on Color Restore; it should not interfere with other functions:
First, the software-only method, titled Dust Removal:
The second method is called Digital ICE, and uses two scans. One is infrared, and detects the dust, lint and scratches. Then they can be subtracted from the visible-light image by pasting nearby pixel patterns in. Here is the result:
Guess what I did next? I took the film holder out and used an optical brush to clean the negatives. Upon re-scan, the lint and dust are gone, though the scratches are still there.
Let's have a closer look at another area of the image before wrapping up. First, here is the other area of the scan with all options off. This is near the pegboard of the banjo:
Here is the effect of Grain Reduction:
Now for Dust Removal:
Here is the result of Digital ICE processing instead:
The time spent to scan a roll of film is about an hour. Loading the film holders is somewhat finicky. People who use this scanner for production work (the ones that charge you about half a dollar per neg or slide) buy a second set of film and slide holders, for about $40. Once loaded and placed, scanning takes about a minute or so for a preview. Then you choose options, if you are in Professional Mode (and none other is worth using), and Scan.
To choose options, when the preview is showing you your thumbnails, be sure to hit the Select All button, unless you want to use different options for each image. You can choose them one by one by clicking in the image area of the thumbnail.
I was surprised that scanning is done image by image. I'd have thought the scanner could make a single pass and use software to pick it apart, but it scans each one, taking about a minute each, or a little less. With Digital ICE turned off, scanning a roll of 24 takes just over 20 minutes.
If you have turned on Digital Ice for any images, it scans each one a second time with the backlight turned off, using an IR source in its place. With the extra motion and resetting it does, it takes about 2½ minutes per image. That is a full hour just to scan a roll of 24 frames, or half an hour to scan 12 slides. That compares to over 20 minutes for the film and 11-12 minutes for slides, with Digital ICE turned off. In my estimation, the extra time is worth it.
Scanning film is a task I'll do while I have other stuff I can also do. I can get it going, do other stuff, and take a break from the other stuff to put the film away and load the next batch. I am really glad I got this scanner.
Wednesday, November 02, 2011
Two duct tales
kw: product testing, observations
I have had the ducts cleaned in two houses by two different methods, and they differ quite a lot. I haven't had rotary brush cleaning, which only works well if all the ducts are round. It also requires cutting into the plenum to attach a high-capacity vacuum, and we'll cover that in a moment. Both cleaning methods that we used rely on air blast to dislodge debris in the ducts, but they take quite different approaches: one relies on "air pull", the other on "air push".
At the first house, the operator used a truck-mounted vacuum, lots and lots of large-diameter tubing, and a separate air hose. The process was to take off the faceplate of a register or return duct and let the air pressure hold a faceplate with a large, soft gasket, at the end of the vacuum tube, against the hole. The air hose was inserted through a port in the faceplate. It ended in a foot-long flexible tube with a "pull" nozzle at the end. Such a nozzle has several holes directed backwards, toward the faceplate. When the high-pressure air is turned on, the flexible tube whips around, and the air blasts the loosened debris toward the faceplate and it is carried away to the vacuum on the truck. The backward-directed air blast also makes it easy to get the air hose all the way to the end of the duct. My job was to stand by the plenum and tell him (shout) when the end of the hose arrived. He would then increase the air flow and pull it back out, so each duct had a double going-over.
This method is for aluminum ducts only. The whipping hose with the nozzle is likely to crack or break fiberglass ducts. The only disturbance to the air system is the removal and replacement of faceplates. No cutting into the ductwork is needed.
Ten years later, in the house we presently live in, I had a quite different experience. I believe the cleaning was thoroughly done, but consider the process. The first step was to lug a large-capacity vacuum into my basement, cut a foot-square hole in the plenum, and attach the vacuum. Then, near the end of each duct, the operator drilled an inch-diameter hole into which he put an air hose with a push nozzle. He fed the hose in until it reached the vacuum, then turned on the vacuum and the air and pulled the hose back through the duct. The section of duct between the holes he drilled and the vents was reached by taking off the faceplate and using the air hose to blow debris toward the vacuum.
Once he finished all the supply ducts, the hole in the supply plenum was closed by duct taping the cut-out piece, and the process was repeated with the return air plenum. After that was finished and re-closed, he went around and put a piece of duct tape over each of the holes he'd drilled. This whole process made me rather anxious, and I've thought since that I should have not let it be done, but shopped around until I found someone who used the first method. It is less invasive of the whole system.
As I mentioned, the result was probably about the same, but I am much happier with the "air pull" method.
I have had the ducts cleaned in two houses by two different methods, and they differ quite a lot. I haven't had rotary brush cleaning, which only works well if all the ducts are round. It also requires cutting into the plenum to attach a high-capacity vacuum, and we'll cover that in a moment. Both cleaning methods that we used rely on air blast to dislodge debris in the ducts, but they take quite different approaches: one relies on "air pull", the other on "air push".
At the first house, the operator used a truck-mounted vacuum, lots and lots of large-diameter tubing, and a separate air hose. The process was to take off the faceplate of a register or return duct and let the air pressure hold a faceplate with a large, soft gasket, at the end of the vacuum tube, against the hole. The air hose was inserted through a port in the faceplate. It ended in a foot-long flexible tube with a "pull" nozzle at the end. Such a nozzle has several holes directed backwards, toward the faceplate. When the high-pressure air is turned on, the flexible tube whips around, and the air blasts the loosened debris toward the faceplate and it is carried away to the vacuum on the truck. The backward-directed air blast also makes it easy to get the air hose all the way to the end of the duct. My job was to stand by the plenum and tell him (shout) when the end of the hose arrived. He would then increase the air flow and pull it back out, so each duct had a double going-over.
This method is for aluminum ducts only. The whipping hose with the nozzle is likely to crack or break fiberglass ducts. The only disturbance to the air system is the removal and replacement of faceplates. No cutting into the ductwork is needed.
Ten years later, in the house we presently live in, I had a quite different experience. I believe the cleaning was thoroughly done, but consider the process. The first step was to lug a large-capacity vacuum into my basement, cut a foot-square hole in the plenum, and attach the vacuum. Then, near the end of each duct, the operator drilled an inch-diameter hole into which he put an air hose with a push nozzle. He fed the hose in until it reached the vacuum, then turned on the vacuum and the air and pulled the hose back through the duct. The section of duct between the holes he drilled and the vents was reached by taking off the faceplate and using the air hose to blow debris toward the vacuum.
Once he finished all the supply ducts, the hole in the supply plenum was closed by duct taping the cut-out piece, and the process was repeated with the return air plenum. After that was finished and re-closed, he went around and put a piece of duct tape over each of the holes he'd drilled. This whole process made me rather anxious, and I've thought since that I should have not let it be done, but shopped around until I found someone who used the first method. It is less invasive of the whole system.
As I mentioned, the result was probably about the same, but I am much happier with the "air pull" method.
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Just use the generic backup
kw: product testing, backup software
I do very few product reviews, but I just gotta do this one. The short report: The hardware is good, the software is not. Read on.
I bought a Toshiba Canvio 0.5TB external drive, which comes with NTI Backup Now EZ software for you to install on your computer. I did so on my Lenovo laptop and my homebrew ultra-fast desktop.
They do try to make the software easy to use. It presented me with two possible backup jobs, one a total system image, the other a backup of the document files gleaned from everywhere. On the Lenovo I chose the second option, and changed its direction a little, but left most settings default. Bottom line: it ran for ten hours, backing up 26 Gby of files.
I was a little bothered by that, but I decided to try it with my faster computer. This time, I pointed it at the C drive documents, and also the entirety of an external drive where I keep large files and archives. The total backup volume was 64 Gby. I also upped its "impact" setting to the maximum, for fastest backup. Early feedback from the program indicated that I was in for about a twelve-hour wait. After 12 hours, it was 97% done, but then it sat there. There is another feedback indicator that I could watch to see how frequently the next 10-Mby chunk was copied over. This was going slower and slower, so when it reported 98% done after four more hours, I aborted the program using Task Manager. There is no way provided by the NTI software to cut a backup short.
Of course, this trashed the backup folder, but I will just delete that. Here is what I did next. I plugged the drive back into the Lenovo and started the Backup utility provided with Windows XP. I allowed me to set up a destination folder on the Toshiba drive, and took off. It finished in 28 minutes. Almost 1 Gby/min.
There is one caveat with a Canvio drive. They are USB powered. Some low-power laptops limit the amount of power a drive can draw through a USB port. Then you have to buy a $8 cable that uses two USB ports so the drive can run.
The bottom line: Use the Windows utility. The NTI software is rated "Not Acceptable" by Polymath-at-Large.
I do very few product reviews, but I just gotta do this one. The short report: The hardware is good, the software is not. Read on.
I bought a Toshiba Canvio 0.5TB external drive, which comes with NTI Backup Now EZ software for you to install on your computer. I did so on my Lenovo laptop and my homebrew ultra-fast desktop.
They do try to make the software easy to use. It presented me with two possible backup jobs, one a total system image, the other a backup of the document files gleaned from everywhere. On the Lenovo I chose the second option, and changed its direction a little, but left most settings default. Bottom line: it ran for ten hours, backing up 26 Gby of files.
I was a little bothered by that, but I decided to try it with my faster computer. This time, I pointed it at the C drive documents, and also the entirety of an external drive where I keep large files and archives. The total backup volume was 64 Gby. I also upped its "impact" setting to the maximum, for fastest backup. Early feedback from the program indicated that I was in for about a twelve-hour wait. After 12 hours, it was 97% done, but then it sat there. There is another feedback indicator that I could watch to see how frequently the next 10-Mby chunk was copied over. This was going slower and slower, so when it reported 98% done after four more hours, I aborted the program using Task Manager. There is no way provided by the NTI software to cut a backup short.
Of course, this trashed the backup folder, but I will just delete that. Here is what I did next. I plugged the drive back into the Lenovo and started the Backup utility provided with Windows XP. I allowed me to set up a destination folder on the Toshiba drive, and took off. It finished in 28 minutes. Almost 1 Gby/min.
There is one caveat with a Canvio drive. They are USB powered. Some low-power laptops limit the amount of power a drive can draw through a USB port. Then you have to buy a $8 cable that uses two USB ports so the drive can run.
The bottom line: Use the Windows utility. The NTI software is rated "Not Acceptable" by Polymath-at-Large.
Saturday, July 02, 2011
Triple browser trial
kw: product testing, reviewing
I started this post using Google Chrome version 12.0.742.112. I use it rarely, but I'm checking out how it works for making Blogger posts. I first prepared the labels and copied them to the "kw" line in the Compose screen. That worked fine (In an older version of Chrome the copy came with some HTML tags that changed the font).
The other features I'll test are paragraphing and font styles. Looking in the Edit Html screen at this point, I find that paragraphs are delimited with "div" tags. I haven't figured out how to trick Chrome into showing the arrow brackets, so we'll have to live with the quote as a substitute. To put the extra line between paragraphs, it uses two sets of "div" tags and a return between.
Next, this text is italicized and this text is bolded. The tags Chrome used are "i" and "b". So far so good. Now I'll switch browsers and continue.
I am continuing with MS Internet Explorer version 9.0.8112.16421. One thing I noticed right away is that the paragraphs left by Chrome now have an extra line between them in Compose mode. Older versions of IE liked to use "p" tags between paragraphs. Another is, that when I use the down arrow on the last line of text, the cursor goes to the end in Chrome, but not in IE.
This begins a new paragraph. Checking… OK, IE is continuing the "div" tags but not adding a return between them. Font styles:
The italic and bold text tags IE uses are "em" and "strong". Now I'll check two more features in a fresh post and return with results. Here we go: Firstly, if I put a label in the labels window and try to copy it into the post, it will not paste. That's one negative mark for IE (This works in FF). Secondly, typing a few paragraphs into an empty post resulted in the paragraphs being separated by returns, not tags. While this is a violation of HTML protocol, it is shared by Firefox.
At this point I'll switch browsers once again.
Now I am using Mozilla Firefox version 5.0. (No long version numbers here!) I first went to the test post that I'd put "p" tags into. Firefox continues them. This one still has the two ways of using "div" tags, and FF has responded as Chrome would have, by showing a double space only if there is an extra set of "div" tags. Depending on the browser you are using, the IE section above may look all jammed together.
Looking in the Edit Html screen, I see that, inside the last "div" section left by IE, FF is simply putting double returns between my paragraphs. Finally, I know FF uses the most doctrinaire font style tagging: the italic and bold tags are "span" tags with a "style" modifier inside:
span style="font-style: italic;"
span style="font-style: bold;"
inside the arrow brackets. While the three browsers try to produce the same look, I suspect this post, with its mixed styles, will not look uniform in any browser!
Now I am using Mozilla Firefox version 5.0. (No long version numbers here!) I first went to the test post that I'd put "p" tags into. Firefox continues them. This one still has the two ways of using "div" tags, and FF has responded as Chrome would have, by showing a double space only if there is an extra set of "div" tags. Depending on the browser you are using, the IE section above may look all jammed together.
Looking in the Edit Html screen, I see that, inside the last "div" section left by IE, FF is simply putting double returns between my paragraphs. Finally, I know FF uses the most doctrinaire font style tagging: the italic and bold tags are "span" tags with a "style" modifier inside:
span style="font-style: italic;"
span style="font-style: bold;"
inside the arrow brackets. While the three browsers try to produce the same look, I suspect this post, with its mixed styles, will not look uniform in any browser!
Sunday, April 17, 2011
On the go safely
kw: product testing
I may be the last guy on the block to get a GPS unit for the car. I have been taking huge advantage of mapping software for years, and I am very good at reading maps, and at making them. I was an earlier purchaser of Delorme products such as Street Atlas, and as soon as AAA began offering online TripTiks, I began using them also.
We have a trip coming up, however, and I decided the extra convenience of the point-of-interest-finding functions made the purchase worth it. All the product reviews indicated that the TomTom products have the largest POI databases, so I was quite biased in their favor. As it happened, at the Best Buy I went to I did get a TomTom, one of the VIA series, which is their mid-level line. It isn't entry-level, but neither does it have some of the extras I'd be unlikely to use (nor the extra cost). The only major feature I know I won't use is the BlueTooth feature, because I don't have a BlueTooth headset.
I paid about $200. The two compelling features that pushed me this high, when I'd initially budgeted $150, were the lifetime maps/traffic that were included, and the voice recognition feature. With map updates costing $50 yearly on most units, I figured I couldn't pass it up. I noticed in the fine print that "lifetime" means "useful lifetime of the unit", which means until its memory is full. I expect this to be a few years, and if it is at least four years, I'm money ahead.
First tip to anyone getting a new unit: Don't put your real home address into it. This is the first thing the setup operation wants you to create. You don't want someone to steal the unit and use it to find your house. I entered the address of a business half a mile from my house. I know how to get home from there! Thus at the start of a return trip, I can say "Take me home" and it will get me through the stuff I don't know and into the neighborhood.
So, once I had it set up, I took it for a spin. To activate voice, you poke a microphone icon and wait for a tone. I said, "Drive to nearest Arby's." It confirmed that and set the route without trouble. But when I wanted hardware next and said, "Drive to nearest Lowe's" it kept trying to confirm if I wanted to go to Wendy's. Of course I was still sitting in the Arby's parking lot (you don't try to set your GPS while driving, do you? Hmmm?), so I said, "Cancel" and entered the POI finding menu manually, and soon had a route to the Lowe's. Later I tried saying things like "Find hardware store", only to have it enter "Locate a city center" mode. Oh, well. I guess the TomTom people figured restaurants and hotels (I haven't tried any, but will soon) are more likely targets of an on-the-road search.
So OK, it is working. Now I need to work out a reliable routine for getting it hidden before I park someplace. These are the most frequently stolen accessory now.
I may be the last guy on the block to get a GPS unit for the car. I have been taking huge advantage of mapping software for years, and I am very good at reading maps, and at making them. I was an earlier purchaser of Delorme products such as Street Atlas, and as soon as AAA began offering online TripTiks, I began using them also.
We have a trip coming up, however, and I decided the extra convenience of the point-of-interest-finding functions made the purchase worth it. All the product reviews indicated that the TomTom products have the largest POI databases, so I was quite biased in their favor. As it happened, at the Best Buy I went to I did get a TomTom, one of the VIA series, which is their mid-level line. It isn't entry-level, but neither does it have some of the extras I'd be unlikely to use (nor the extra cost). The only major feature I know I won't use is the BlueTooth feature, because I don't have a BlueTooth headset.
I paid about $200. The two compelling features that pushed me this high, when I'd initially budgeted $150, were the lifetime maps/traffic that were included, and the voice recognition feature. With map updates costing $50 yearly on most units, I figured I couldn't pass it up. I noticed in the fine print that "lifetime" means "useful lifetime of the unit", which means until its memory is full. I expect this to be a few years, and if it is at least four years, I'm money ahead.
First tip to anyone getting a new unit: Don't put your real home address into it. This is the first thing the setup operation wants you to create. You don't want someone to steal the unit and use it to find your house. I entered the address of a business half a mile from my house. I know how to get home from there! Thus at the start of a return trip, I can say "Take me home" and it will get me through the stuff I don't know and into the neighborhood.
So, once I had it set up, I took it for a spin. To activate voice, you poke a microphone icon and wait for a tone. I said, "Drive to nearest Arby's." It confirmed that and set the route without trouble. But when I wanted hardware next and said, "Drive to nearest Lowe's" it kept trying to confirm if I wanted to go to Wendy's. Of course I was still sitting in the Arby's parking lot (you don't try to set your GPS while driving, do you? Hmmm?), so I said, "Cancel" and entered the POI finding menu manually, and soon had a route to the Lowe's. Later I tried saying things like "Find hardware store", only to have it enter "Locate a city center" mode. Oh, well. I guess the TomTom people figured restaurants and hotels (I haven't tried any, but will soon) are more likely targets of an on-the-road search.
So OK, it is working. Now I need to work out a reliable routine for getting it hidden before I park someplace. These are the most frequently stolen accessory now.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Gotta love this molecule
kw: product testing, experiences
I am very susceptible to athlete's foot. For years I used Desenex®, with the active ingredient Miconazole, to keep it at bay and to (barely) drive it out when I got an infestation. Some months back, I tried an ointment, Neosporin AF®, which also contains Miconazole. Equally slow, but also effective.
Then, we picked up some Lamasil AF® spray, which contains Tolnaftate (shown). I used it for my most recent infestation, beginning a little less than two weeks ago. Boy, is it fast! 24 hours for the raw skin to de-inflame, and about a week to clear the infestation up completely. That compares with at least four weeks of diligent use needed for Miconazole to work. Great stuff.
I am very susceptible to athlete's foot. For years I used Desenex®, with the active ingredient Miconazole, to keep it at bay and to (barely) drive it out when I got an infestation. Some months back, I tried an ointment, Neosporin AF®, which also contains Miconazole. Equally slow, but also effective.Then, we picked up some Lamasil AF® spray, which contains Tolnaftate (shown). I used it for my most recent infestation, beginning a little less than two weeks ago. Boy, is it fast! 24 hours for the raw skin to de-inflame, and about a week to clear the infestation up completely. That compares with at least four weeks of diligent use needed for Miconazole to work. Great stuff.
Friday, March 27, 2009
I try to get clean
kw: product testing, opinion
A few days ago I reviewed Green Goes With Everything (here). The book is mainly an extended advertisement for the new line of Shaklee products. I've used a very few Shaklee products for nearly forty years, including Basic H, the blue-colored household cleanser concentrate. I mainly use it in the shower. It is the only thing with which I've cleaned my body since 1970. Every evening, I use about one CC on my hair and face (I keep it out of my eyes), and another CC on my body. Thus, a gallon jug is good for almost 2,000 showers. I use it undiluted.
I decided to try new Get Clean Basic H2, which replaced Basic H not so long ago. It is claimed to be more concentrated than Basic H. I am finding out if that is true. Last evening, I put two ounces of water in a small squeeze bottle and added a quarter ounce of H2. That's an 8:1 dilution. After some experimentation, I found I needed several CC to get cleaned off.
Tonight I added another quarter ounce to the squeeze bottle, making it a 4:1 dilution. I used one CC on my hair. Not quite good enough. A second wash with one CC got my hair and face clean. A couple CC on my body did well enough.
I'll add another half ounce to the bottle tomorrow and see how it works at 2:1 dilution (or 33%). I suspect it'll require going that far, or all the way to a 1:1 dilution (50%) before I can get equally clean with one CC, as I do with one CC of H. Should that be true, I'll judge the product acceptable. At the moment, it is provisionally "barely acceptable".
A few days ago I reviewed Green Goes With Everything (here). The book is mainly an extended advertisement for the new line of Shaklee products. I've used a very few Shaklee products for nearly forty years, including Basic H, the blue-colored household cleanser concentrate. I mainly use it in the shower. It is the only thing with which I've cleaned my body since 1970. Every evening, I use about one CC on my hair and face (I keep it out of my eyes), and another CC on my body. Thus, a gallon jug is good for almost 2,000 showers. I use it undiluted.
I decided to try new Get Clean Basic H2, which replaced Basic H not so long ago. It is claimed to be more concentrated than Basic H. I am finding out if that is true. Last evening, I put two ounces of water in a small squeeze bottle and added a quarter ounce of H2. That's an 8:1 dilution. After some experimentation, I found I needed several CC to get cleaned off.
Tonight I added another quarter ounce to the squeeze bottle, making it a 4:1 dilution. I used one CC on my hair. Not quite good enough. A second wash with one CC got my hair and face clean. A couple CC on my body did well enough.
I'll add another half ounce to the bottle tomorrow and see how it works at 2:1 dilution (or 33%). I suspect it'll require going that far, or all the way to a 1:1 dilution (50%) before I can get equally clean with one CC, as I do with one CC of H. Should that be true, I'll judge the product acceptable. At the moment, it is provisionally "barely acceptable".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
