ðòïåëôù 


  áòèé÷ 


Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

  óôáôøé 


  ðåòóïîáìøîïå 


  ðòïçòáííù 



ðéûéôå
ðéóøíá












     áòèé÷ :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: filmscanners: Vuescan - A few technical questions



On the Nikon LS-30 the LEP is one pass at normal speed and a second at
slower-than normal.  The multi-pass BTW is actual multiple passes (I found
no misregistration of the passes) unlike for the LS-2000.

Maris

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joel Nisson" <jdn@bird9.com>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 12:15 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Vuescan - A few technical questions


| I assumed that LEP is one pass at a slower-than-normal speed.  If so, it
| shouldnl't be subject to mis-registration that MP can cause on some
scanners
| (SS4000).
|
| --Joel Nisson
|
|
| ----- Original Message -----
| From: "shAf" <michael@shaffer.net>
| .  After I saw the mis-registration for LEP, I  scanned again at 16x MP
| only.
| >I couldn't see where LEP improved over
| > 16x MP.  After all (Ed may comment), what's the difference between
| > increasing the exposure time and scanning mutiple times??  I can
| > understand how exposing for shadows improves film response, ... but
| > digitally, we are only making numbers larger or averaging smaller
| > numbers ... both would seem to produce the same effect for dense areas
| > of film(?)
| >
| > shAf  :o)
| >
|




 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.