Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

   


   


   















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

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

RE: filmscanners: Test Imacon, Nikon.Polaroid



Mikael,
I did this test myself with a 6x6 transparency. To do a fair test it is
important to have USM of on all scanners. With the Imacon that it not so
straight forward. When you uncheck the USM box it is not really off. When
you set the slider to zero it is not really off. I specifically discussed
this with Imacon technical support and they confirmed that the "developers"
did not want users to get fuzzy scans so there is some unsharp mask even
when it says there is none. You need to have unsharp mask checked AND have
the slider set to -60. The image I used to look at sharpness has a picture
frame hanging by two pieces of mono-filament line. I looked at this line
with all three scanners. The Imacon was just slightly sharper than the SS120
and the Nikon was significantly less sharp enough so I was concerned I had
done something wrong. The part of the image I was scanning was in the upper
third so I need to go back and see if it is an issue of center to edge
focus.
My testing on the dust stuff concurs with yours.
David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mikael Risedal [mailto:risedal@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 12:23 PM
> To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> Subject: filmscanners: Test Imacon, Nikon.Polaroid
> 
> 
> A  small comparison between  Imacon Photo 3200 ppi ,  
> Polaroid SS120  4000 
> ppi,   and Nikon LS4000 at 4000 ppi.
> 
> Test slide 24 x 36 by Leitz was used as reference.  ( glass mounted)
> Test slide 24 x36 un mounted.
> 1. Imacon at 3200 ppi  was a lot sharper  and show 
> significant more details 
> than the  Nikon and  Polaroid scanner does.
> 2. Polaroid SS 120 did not wipe the floor with Nikon LS4000.  
> ( Ian Lyons 
> statement) Non of us how made the test could se
> any difference between Nikon Ls 4000 and Polaroid SS 120 in 
> sharpness and 
> resolution of a 24 x 36 test slide.
> 
> 3. Test with   un mounted slide strip . This test slide is 
> little bit curved 
> as a normal slide film are. Here have Nikon LS 4000 problem
> with over all sharpness, excellent in the middle but unsharp 
> out against the 
> sides and corner. (manual film holder)
> Same manual film holder and a negative  film how are 
> extremely flat  = no 
> problem with over all sharpness in the Nikon scanner.
> 
> 4. Scratches and dust are more visible in scannings by Nikon 
> LS 4000 than 
> Polaroid and Imacon.
> 
> Discussion: How can we se more dust and scratches from the 
> Nikon  scanner 
> but not have more resolution and details  from
> the test slide and the Nikon scanner ?? We turned around the 
> slide with 
> emulsion side up      ( mounted like in Imacon) and have the same 
> results.?????????
> Where is the maximum focus in the Nikon scanner?
> 
> Conclusion: Imacon best scanner but  slow in final scanning , 
> up to 6 min. 
> to scan  a  24 x36 slide at 3200ppi.
> SS 120  good scanner at 24 x 36 fast but not better than 
> Nikon LS4000. SS 
> 120 have less problem with curved film than Nikon LS 4000..
> Nikon LS 4000 not sharp at all as the Imacon scanner, have 
> problem  with 
> curved film and depth of field , small and fast.
> 
> So what can we expect from Nikon LS 8000. Im thrilled to hear 
> from Rafe and 
> Lawrence what they have discovered about
> sharpness, curved film problem on a 6 x 7 cm slide or negative film.
> 
> 
> 
> Mikael Risedal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________
> ___________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at 
http://www.hotmail.com.




 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.