victor_ho2

<p>http://www.backscatter.com<br>

Housings are specific to the camera model. Then you need strobes. It's gets pricey. But this site has lots of info. Best of luck. </p>

<p>Download the trial version of Vuescan. It's free. Nikon doesn't support the scanner and software any longer. OS systems will continue to change so you can't go back. Vuescan was definitely worthwhile when I switched. Something's changed and you can eventually get back to the start but why?</p>

<p>There seems to be a problem with the current Mac OS in which an external hard disk will disconnect when you plug in another USB device. This is an OS software problem. There was another thread somewhere else that discussed external drives and the failure rate. It was mentioned that Seagate had a relative problem. A new drive is good for quite a long time unless it was originally defective. There are built in ways that the drive disregards bad blocks as all drives seem to have some defects. Within the warranty period most manufacturers replace their drives if there is a defect. This is hardly comforting if you have precious images lost. With the prices so low, it's not a bad idea to back up to multiple drives. Copy your originals directly to each backup because copying from one backup to another can introduce errors also. Drive failure is then related to time that the drive is spinning. It is inevitable that your drive may fail at some point if it runs long enough.<br>

Check this article running 25,000 drives for 4 years:<br>

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/170748-how-long-do-hard-drives-actually-live-for</p>

<p>Tricia<br>

Nikon scan software is no longer compatible with the current Mac OS and hardware. The software is no longer supported by Nikon. I bought Vuescan. You can download a trial free. It's the best solution to get back to work. The scanner will be just fine. There is ICE type software in Vuescan that needs to be adjusted for your need. Quality is good and the scans are just a little faster. </p>

<p>I would buy bricks (20 rolls) because you had the same emulsion lot. I did nothing special but stuck the film in the freezer. Fortunately my wife put up with this. The film was used over the course of a year on average. But I was not too careful about the dates. As far as I could tell, freezing suspends the aging of film. After removing the film from the freezer all that I would do was allow the film to return to room temperature, overnight would be fine. No problem. No special handling or any kind of sealing. So that's what works down and dirty. Let that be the simplest plan and anything else is up to you.<br>

I would also add most of my shooting was slide - Kodak E6, which I developed myself. So I would accumulate about 64 exposed rolls before running a gallon of solution from the kit. I would do a marathon processing session. Yes, I had the patience to wait for the results, which by and large were ok. I averaged about 100 rolls of slide film per year. It's crazy since I have gone to digital preview and adjustments just like everyone else. Anyway, I would store the exposed film in the freezer placing the rolls in a container and sealed with tape. There was nothing special about the humidity when I stored the film into the freezer. I would again remove the film and let it come to room temperature before opening the container. <br>

This method worked for me and I can make no complaint since there were no mishaps to speak of for more than 20 years. Good luck. </p>

<p>Must be a slow day waiting for the start of the Superbowl.<br>

Value? Yeah, I thought the Coolscan was expensive at $1000 and got Santa (wife) to ok the purchase. I had waited and waited not knowing that the scanner market for high end scanners was pretty much dead. Nikon discontinued the sales based on profit. There wasn't any. And if you are a photographer on a budget, then anything you can get for hundreds of dollars less must be attractive. But I also value quality. So for me the choice was to bite the bullet and ask Santa to deliver. Yes, I still believe in Santa. When you get around to saying that you don't, your dreams won't come true any more.</p>

<p>No, unfortunately I am a hoarder and have kept every slide I ever mounted. It's taking up a lot of drawer space. Yes they are the originals! And so I have to hope my daughter not my wife will take possession when that time comes. <br>

And I tried the DSLR slide copy idea. It was half-hearted. I wanted a fast way to get those slides digital. Nope if you're going to do it right, then you need that Nikon Coolscan. Otherwise there's not much point to getting poor scans in half the time. You shot the slides/negatives with the best camera and film you could muster at the time. It is comparable to printing your images on a low cost printer just to say you printed them. Quality does matter.. at least to me. Everyone has a price point and weighs the benefit of better or more expensive equipment. <br>

Everything is a compromise. Where I started this thread I was congratulating my timing for a change. I never thought that Nikon would stop making scanners. But as film has fallen from use, so too has the need for scanners to digitize the images. But they built those scanners to last. Thank the engineers, I haven't had any problems except that the slide feeder jams periodically, a known issue. And I got that scanner never knowing how much someone would pay for one a few years down the road. </p>

<p>No film since I went digital with the first Nikon D70 in 2004. Before that, I would buy bricks of twenty rolls (same lot and exp date) and spend $500 at a pop. That was a lot for a hobby that started on a very slim budget. I even developed my own slides to ultimately save money. It was a matter of keeping to budget. I shot about 100 rolls a year. That would be 3600 slides. When the kids were visiting me this December 2013, we shot 6000 images on 5 cameras and two iPhones in about 10 days. I sometimes wonder why I am hesitating to get a Nikon D600. It's just that big charge to the credit card. But no film fees! Somehow spending in 10 and 20 dollar bills doesn't seem to hurt, but it all adds up.<br>

Yes, it's legacy. My daughter has assumed responsibility for all those slide drawers. Maybe and maybe not? When my wife's father passed away, her mother cleaned out his room full of 'man' machines - lathes, drill press and you know the rest - in about a week, donating most of it to a local high school. So what happens to stuff has taken on a different meaning. What is it actually you want to leave behind. It's the images of family and friends. And then there are a few images which tell how my eye saw the world. Funny, but it's hard to identify people only a generation earlier. <br>

I believe legacy will survive on the hard drive and the internet. I can clone my drives and give/leave one each for my kids. And my blog will live on until the server kicks me off. Ahhh, it's about the endgame. Meanwhile, I have a rather nice collection of images/slides that I can never hope to display on the limited wall space available to me. And then there's the blog sharing and satisfaction somebody somewhere out there likes my stuff. </p>

<p>I made a calculation that for every roll of film I shot, there were maybe one or two keepers. Some people ruthlessly cull their slides and throw out all the duds. I keep thinking that it's not necessarily a good thing to throw them away. I have systematically stored my slides in custom built drawers and it numbers more than 100K. That, my friends is a lot of drawers and it takes up the better part of room. I actually hand built the last half of my storage cabinet including the drawers with the help of my two young kids. We had a neat little furniture production line going.<br>

When I was less skilled I scanned many of my favorite slides. Later I realized I could have done a better job. Fortunately I could scan my slides again. But there is the matter of storage space. My wife has said once the slides are scanned, go ahead and throw out the originals. I'd like to point out that as long as you have a print, why not discard the negative. How many times do you actually enlarge one of your pictures? When you get down to it, I can scan slides with the feeder and not have to do too much hoovering. But in large numbers the time adds up. Fortunately I was pretty organized on the front end in terms of storage and organizing the slide collection. I'm about 2/3 way through (stopped) the collected slides. Digital stopped film accumulation, so the numbers (of slides) are not expanding.<br>

I can't say enough about how Vuescan saved me when Nikon stopped supporting their own scan software. It's even faster, and the ICE equivalent is just as good. I don't even blow the dust off the slides before scans, the software has taken care of it for me. <br>

And by the way, the entire collection of digital and scanned images is sitting within a rather compact 2TB hard drive on my desk. This includes about 220k digital images and scanned slides (redundant) 90k. Now to back up that 2TB drive...</p>

<p>Has anyone noticed? I got the Nikon Coolscan 5000 just as Nikon stopped marketing the device. At that time the slide feeder was about double in price on Amazon. I waited a year and the price finally dropped again to the original retail price.</p>

<p>http://www.ebay.com/bhp/nikon-coolscan-5000</p>

<p>http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-9238-Nikon-Super-CoolScan-5000-ED-Film-Scanner/dp/B0001DYTOY</p>

<p>I just happened to check prices on Ebay and Amazon yesterday. Used, the asking price is more than $2000, which would be about double the original retail price. For a "new" scanner on Amazon the prices are above $4000. This is pretty breathtaking. I would have thought that anyone with a batch of negatives or slides to digitize would have already obtained a scanner. Someone out there has to be pretty desperate at this point to drive the price so high. <br>

I also had a Bessler enlarger with the computerized colorhead. Last I looked that is pretty much worthless. And I have a first generation Nikon scanner with a SCSI port (remember those?), which i last looked and had no market value to speak of. <br>

I'd sell off my Coolscan 5000, but my digital conversion of my slide collection is still ongoing... as in it will probably take forever. The price for commercial scanning is not too bad for a few slides. But if you have thousands, it could rapidly add up to a very large chunk of change. And to think I upgraded and bought the scanner right after they stopped marketing it? Parenthetically, I will add that when I got my Nikon D200, it was only a few months later that the D300 came out. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose...</p>

<p>I can say that I noticed that there is a difference with Vuescan and the Nikon Coolscan 5000. I had to get Vuescan when Nikon stopped supporting the software for their own scanner. I was pretty unhappy with Nikon for that move. When I reluctantly downloaded the Vuescan trial I was immediately struck by how much faster my slides were scanned. No matter, the quality was pretty much the same. I'm sure it has something to do with writing software and making it more efficient or compatible with faster computers and newer operating systems. Me, I'm just glad I got a faster scan and no appreciable loss in quality.</p>

<p>Well, my hope was to help someone else avoid the pain of changing thousands of file names manually one at a time. So this info is out there for the Photo.net community to use.<br>

I hadn't opened my pict file folders for a long time. I finally got around to organizing old pictures on my back up disks. Both leopard and lion OS X go crazy when you open a folder that contains only pict files. The later versions of Photoshop do not recognize pict files anymore. My work around, I had to go back and use an early version of Photoshop to convert pict to jpg. Yeah, old files can sneak up and bite you as the technology changes.</p>

<p>Bridge is an elegant solution. Wish i had known about it.</p>

<p>I have had a Mac computer with Mac OS for many years. Over this time rules for file naming have changed. And the original pict files/quickdraw are no longer recognized by Photoshop. I had to use an older version of Photoshop to open and then save the pict files in jpg. If you are familiar with the Automate/Batch action you can change a folder of files in a hurry.<br>

Meanwhile my woe was that there were many thousands of files that had accumulated with wrong naming characters. Additionally I had many files that had not been saved with ".jpg" extensions. The files still work but Lightroom will not play with them.<br>

Specifically I had used a file name convention naming roll number and frame number: 2406/03. The problem was the "/" is not allowed and so the file was ignored by Lightroom.<br>

The Internet is great and powerful! Two searches later have led me to find the scripts that will change my file names. After you write the script into Applescript editor you will save: Library/Scripts/Apple/Folder Action Scripts.<br>

Then create a new folder. Control-click and choose Folder Action Setup. Add your files that need changes and the names will be changed saving untold time.<br>

Here are two helpful scripts to help you rename your files. The rename script has " " I chose this as a space/no character. For windows naming you would need "_" an underscore.<br>

I apologize that I cannot return to find the webpage that gave me the scripts but thanks to the kind folks who posted and saved me so much time.</p>

<p>To add ".jpg" Applescript:</p>

<p>on adding folder items to myFolder after receiving myFiles<br /> repeat with myFile in myFiles<br /> set myPath to (POSIX path of myFile)<br /> set myType to do shell script "file --mime-type -br " & (quoted form of myPath)<br /> if myType is "image/jpeg" and myPath does not end with ".jpg" and myPath does not end with ".jpeg" then<br /> set newExtension to ".jpg"<br /> else if myType is "image/gif" and myPath does not end with ".gif" then<br /> set newExtension to ".gif"<br /> else if myType is "image/png" and myPath does not end with ".png" then<br /> set newExtension to ".png"<br /> else<br /> set newExtension to null<br /> end if<br /> tell application "Finder"<br /> if newExtension is not null then<br /> set name of myFile to (name of myFile) & newExtension<br /> end if<br /> end tell<br /> end repeat<br />end adding folder items to</p>

<p>To rename and replace characters Applescript:</p>

<p>--set the list of characters you want to replace<br />--disallowedChars will be replaced with the replacementChar<br />--in this case, an underscore<br />property disallowedChars : ":;,/|!@#$%^&*()+"<br /><br />--anything in disallowedChars2 will be removed altogether<br />property disallowedChars2 : "'"<br /><br />--set the character you'd like to use to replace the invalid <br />--characters specified in disallowedChars<br />property replacementCharacter : " "<br /><br />on adding folder items to this_folder after receiving added_items<br /> <br /> tell application "Finder"<br /> try<br /> repeat with x in added_items<br /> <br /> set fileNamed to name of x<br /> set newName to my CleanName(fileNamed)<br /> set (name of x) to newName<br /> <br /> end repeat<br /> on error<br /> display dialog "An error occurred."<br /> end try<br /> end tell<br /> <br />end adding folder items to<br /><br />--function for cleaning the characters from the file name<br />on CleanName(theName)<br /> <br /> set newName to ""<br /> repeat with i from 1 to length of theName<br /> <br /> --check if the character is in disallowedChars<br /> --replace it with the replacementCharacter if it is<br /> if ((character i of theName) is in disallowedChars) then<br /> set newName to newName & replacementCharacter<br /> <br /> --check if the character is in disallowedChars2<br /> --remove it completely if it is<br /> else if ((character i of theName) is in disallowedChars2) then<br /> set newName to newName & ""<br /> <br /> --if the character is not in either disallowedChars or<br /> --disallowedChars2, keep it in the file name<br /> else<br /> set newName to newName & character i of theName<br /> <br /> end if<br /> end repeat<br /> <br /> return newName<br />end CleanName</p>

<p>It's been a long time since I did E-6. But here's what I remember. Temperature of the process was 100+/- .1 degrees. I used a water bath. This would be a sink and bathtub with enough water to hold the temp steady for the 30 minute process. I had a high grade thermometer that measured by .1 degrees. I saved exposed film in the freezer for as much as 6 months until I had enough to develop 64 rolls. A gallon of solution would process 64 rolls. I also purchased the slide mounts from a company called Pic Mount (probably out of business). They would sell me about 10k mounts at a time. I currently have about 100k slides processed that way. There are easier ways to do things, but this was what I did for many many years. I did finally have a top notch darkroom with temp controlled faucets. Then the neighbor complained about the water running at 3AM. Then digital came... Good luck.</p>

<p>A couple years back i purchased from Tiger Direct a Sony device. It was a simple DVD burner with input for RCA video. You add VCR or 8mm player. It would record a DVD simply direct from the player. My problem was having a consistent player for the 8mm tape. I had about 4 camcorders, a Walkman 8mm player, and a Sony 8mm tape dedicated player. Sony doesn't really support these devices any longer. Till I got an 8mm player limping along, I was stuck. But the tapes are now copied to a stack of DVD's. Now to edit.... Sorry I don't know the model but it was not expensive - less than $100. And if you consider an outside source to copy your tapes it is an enormous savings. Good luck.</p>

<p>I have the Coolscan 5000ED and SF 210 and am using Vuescan. Nikon software does not support the scanner and it will not work on every computer without Vuescan which is still available and supported. I have scanned well over 30,000 images and have many more to go. The SF 210 jams periodically but does ok. You will need to tweak Vuescan to your liking but it works just fine and is actually faster than the Nikon scan software. I would load the batch scan device and walk away. If there was a jam, you just fix it and continue. I did the scanning over a period of a few months time pretty much leaving the scanner to go as long as it didn't jam. The only parts to be replaced would be the bulb and this appears to be made to last for many scans. I still have many more slides to go but haven't done a serious try for a while. Still, I think the setup is about as fast as you can go and not sacrifice quality. It is the highest quality image transfer as far as I can ascertain. I had mostly Ektachrome slides. There were some Kodachrome which required different settings.</p>

<p>If this camera is not for divers (I have already stated the reasons) then why make it waterproof to 50 feet. You only need 15 feet for snorkeling and then maybe you could charge a lot less. The price point is a real killer here. As I said if you merely want a waterproof camera there are a lot of easier and more practical choices. I could be wrong. But I got a feeling that this one is not going to sell big at this price. Maybe it's all a setup for the next model which will go to 40 meters. The engineering problems must be significant to extend the depth rating.</p>

<p>I've been diving for a year. I am currently using a Canon S100 and before that a Canon G11 both with the Canon dedicated housing rated to 40 meters. If you dive your recreational limit is about 30 meters. Most of the fish and coral are at around 60 feet. Waterproof cameras initially were rated to about 5 meters and now it's 15 meters. In either case you don't look to closely at your depth when diving so it's easy to get deeper than 15 meters and thus surpass the limit of the 1AW1. Snorkel folks don't really go past about 15 feet. So though it is an interesting product it is not really a camera for scuba use. The two Canon cameras and their current equivalents are pretty standard fare where I am currently diving in the Middle East. Canon got it right when they made the housings for their cameras.<br>

Nikon DSLR housings alone can cost thousands and then you need lights (hundreds to thousands more). This cost is prohibitive for a casual user. But you need this if you're professional. So in my opinion the 1AW1 is a camera all dressed for a party with no one to take them. The cost is too much for snorkeling and there are certainly cheaper alternatives. The scuba group needs something that can go 30 meters so they don't have to fear camera leakage. The product is very attractive but even a gearhead has to think about how this camera can fit into their use. I love the idea but at this price I would be hard pressed and besides that, who wants to watch their depth so closely. I guess Nikon didn't pose this very basic idea to divers.</p>

<p>I have a Coolscan 5000 bought new and used intermittently since 2009. It was purchased just as Nikon stopped selling. I got a bulk slide feeder about a year later. The bulk feeder is a bit finicky like it says but it works. I have scanned more than 25,000 slides (approx). Most of this was done in a blitz over a few months in 2012. Don't ask. I'm not done, as in many thousands to go. But so far no problem. Fortunately the price of external harddrives was low until the floods in Thailand drove the prices up by double. Vuescan software made a big difference. Nikon scan was slower and very buggy. Nikon software does not support the scanner any longer. Imagine having the hardware without support. But that's business. Not much film being shot to justify continuing a small market for scanners. I am very very grateful that Hamrick Vuescan still supports and updates his software. I too have wondered if the scanner will give out at some point.</p>

<p>Amy<br>

I traveled your itinerary a few years ago, basically the same parks. Yes you will be in a vehicle. But they are open and you will have many opportunities to be closer than you think. Lions are lazy so they don't really bother with tour vehicles. We got close enough for me to touch them with my foot. I didn't. The hippos will kill you. We never really got closer than a maxed out zoom. Another night the wildebeest were grazing inches away on the other side of our canvas tent. That said, I used my own lenses and then rented. As I recall I used rentglass, (search the internet, there's lots of companies with different availability and prices). They ship to your home and you return the lens with very little problem. I had the 18-200, 80-200 f2.8 and the 80-400 lenses. I rented the 17-55 f2.8 lens and the 12-24 f2.8 lens. I got a lot of use from the 17-55 and not enough from the 12-24. I'd not bother to take this again. My daughter pretty much used my 18-200 so I alternated with the 80-400 and the 17-55. I appreciated the f2.8 in the early morning and evening. You definitely want two bodies. I really didn't use flash. But it's good to have that point and shoot. Since you will be in a vehicle most times, weight is not a problem. I especially used the fast lens 17-55 set at shutter speed 1/250 and shot constantly through the vehicle window at people and scenery as we drove by at considerable speed. My family would never have tolerated stopping so often. I came back with a lot of very acceptable street photos that would otherwise have been missed. The Toyota landrover is pretty much the vehicle of choice. Its roof will lift up and you can stand up with a 360 view once you are in the park and looking at the animals. The drivers know where to find the animals and are in touch with each other by radio. Our trip was uncrowded. We were a party of three and had the vehicle to ourselves. You need lot of memory cards and plenty of batteries. There are means to charge every night even at the camp sites. But make sure you have extras. Dust is a factor. But don't hesitate to change lenses. You can still change lenses and the dust is not prohibitive. Before we went I wondered how it could be that we would possibly see everything in only a few days. Each and every trip is different so what you will see is chance. But there are more than enough opportunities that you will have seen enough to be satisfied. And you will want to return for more. Have a great trip. Each park that you will be touring has different things and some things are ubiquitous. Wildebeest are everywhere. Tarangire is giraffe. Ngorongoro is isolated and there were lions and leopards. We weren't close enough. The scenery was great. In the Serengeti the wildebeest migration is on and depending upon luck you will see some crossings. But they are on both sides of the river. And they cross back and forth. So it's confusing. We flew in. Be sure to shoot from the plane. Hippos and elephant are not hard to find. Wildebeest and zebras are everywhere. The big cats and rhino are harder. Shoot the birds, lots of birds. The drivers in the Serengeti roam at will over the land. There are no road to speak of. They wander where the animals are. Think of it as a hike but with the ability to cover lots of ground. If its safe they drive right up to the animals. The drivers are very experienced and will get you to the animals if they are about. You will go out at different times of the day to max the opportunity to see things. Food is good and you can get a shower every day. It's definitely a perk. Most days it will be a picnic on the road sitting in a picturesque spot. They always have plenty of water available. As far as confidence, you need to shoot some wide angle for the overall scene. I let my camera be set on "P" and I used the close focus setting, the one that will focus on the nearest subject. Hey, it works. I was too busy shooting to be playing with the settings. The camera does a great job all on its own. After that it's close-ups. After all this is the ultimate trip to the zoo without fences and cages. You will be close to the animals. And your shots should remind you that they were only feet from your vehicle. Shoot lots and change the zoom so you get wide and close ups. You can edit later. I don't check each and every shot after it's been shot. You'll miss too many photo ops. You don't need a tripod or monopod. Your driver will stop if you ask. When stopped the vehicle is perfectly stable. But i urge you to shoot as you ride and just use a fast shutter speed. You won't have the best photos but you'll be surprised. As I said I used the wide angle f2.8 lens 1/250 and it really worked. Don't forget to reset the shutter to auto when the car is stopped. The sun is more than adequate during the day. Oh, if you have binoculars, put your camera up to the eye piece and shoot. For color tint, shoot through your sunglasses. It's great to travel with amateurs. My daughter was constantly thinking up silly things to do. Damn, some of it really worked. And we had a lot of laughs and fun. </p>

<p>Fletcher<br>

I did a similar tour in 2010. I use Nikon. I rented a 17-55 f2.8 and a 10-24 lens. I used an 18-200 and an 80-400 lens. A tripod is not necessary. The landcruiser is stable and they will stop when you come upon animals. The guides are generally very good and know where to go for what you would like to see. The pop-up gives you a 360 degree view. It's a matter of just being ready to shoot. I did a lot of shooting through the vehicle window while we traveled. The fast lens helped. I traveled with family so stopping in each and every village we passed was not practical. I got a lot of keepers on the 'run' anyway. You will mostly get close to many of the animals. There are some where you wish you had a long lens. The days were bright enough to use any f stop. It's not sports photography. You have plenty of time to change glass. Yes, there's a lot of dust. I changed lenses on the fly without any problems in post production. There are generally places to charge batteries. There are no places to purchase memory cards. There's not too much at night. It really is dark in the camps that we stayed. I'm not much on flash and didn't feel it was a necessity. I did use a Canon G11 and found that to be really a very good camera in low light and especially for sunsets. It has a saturation setting which really makes the setting sun pop. There are plenty of sunset opportunities. We were in the hands of the guides and I felt just as you that it is impossible to see everything in two weeks. But we were really treated to a wide variety of opportunities. And I got to shoot about everything I had wished. Each park is different and has different animals to offer. We saw a cheetah whose image was the size of period in my viewfinder in Ngorongoro and later in the Serengeti I saw another that filled my viewfinder. It let me shoot hundreds of images and never moved on. We saw a leopard feeding on a fresh killed wildebeest. The guide knew of the kill from the night before. They all are in communication by radio, so they know where to seek scarce animals like rhinos. Every trip is different so just take it as it comes. You'll have a great time.</p>

<p>http://www.hamrick.com/<br>

Vuescan software. I believe that this will allow you to resize your images. You can check with the support site. They are pretty good at answering. And the best news is that you can batch convert your files. So assign a source folder with 14 bit files and designate a destination folder for the smaller files. Then you have to decide if you discard the larger files. I bet you keep them because it's painful to think about rescanning again. If you're not using this software to scan, it's worth looking into. The files are very good and the scan software is supported and updated by Hamrick. It's also faster than the Nikon software. Vuescan works with multiple scanners and with all the latest system software. I switched because the current Mac OS does not work with Nikon software. Nikon does not support software upgrades any longer. The Vuescan software does the 'ICE' thing as well as Nikon. I really did no special cleaning for multiple slides (thousands - tens of). </p>

<p>On the subject of rental: http://www.rentglass.com/<br>

There are many others companies which can ship to you. Try them and then decide for yourself which lens you prefer before you purchase. I've rented from this company and been very satisfied. </p>

<p>http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?atclk=Type_Slide+Mounts&ci=1495&N=4292349717+4229849849<br>

I believe what you seek are called slide mounts. No special equipment. There are also cardboard mounts which can be sealed by an ordinary iron for clothes. </p>