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



The primary advantage of the Imacon design is the unfolded light path
correct?  The mirrors can't be helping with the less expensive
scanners.  Only absolute disadvantage to the straight path approach is
physical size of the scanner(?), and of course, in the case of the
Imacon, cost.

Dave

----- Original Message -----
From: Mikael Risedal <risedal@hotmail.com>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 4:23 PM
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.