At 06:08 PM 7/19/01 -0400, you wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Austin Franklin wrote:
>Rafe,
>
>Exactly, and that's my point. If what was suggested is an issue, these guys
>made a very basic design flaw...which I am hard pressed to believe they did,
>so I question this being a problem.
>
>I'd like to get together when I get back, and see this first hand, if you
>don't mind. Plus I'd like to bring a few negatives scanned on the
>"unmentionable" scanner and see how your Nikon does with it. While your
>Nikon is gone, if you want to borrow my Leaf 35, you're welcome to. I'll be
>developing film for at least a week after this trip...so I'll hardly miss
>it.
Did you say, "Leaf 35" ? Not 45? You've got the "little guy" too?
I have a working SprintScan Plus, so there won't be a problem with
scanning 35 mm.
The URL for Lawrence's banding pic is:
I've never seen anything on my 8000 quite as pronounced.
To be quite honest, I'm reconsidering that rendezvous with Nikon
service, unless/until I can get some serious, repeatable banding
to show up, and preferably banding that isn't "defeated" by
the Super-Fine Scan trick. So far, no dice. At the moment,
no banding whatsoever, with or without Super-Fine Scan.
It may not be wise, I think, to send the scanner in until the
problem is obvious and repeatable.
Lawrence -- is there a type of image, in your experience,
that's most likely to make the banding appear? Slides vs.
negatives, for example? At present, I'm scanning slides
with deep blue skies.
I'm wondering if your problems are exacerbated by the multi-
sampling you use. I never use it (multi-sampling, that is.)
rafe b.
