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: My replacement 8000 is banding like the first one :-(



>===== Original Message From "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@ix.netcom.com> =====
>> Also since the 8000 presumably has a heavier scanning head than
>> the smaller
>> scanners (more ccd etc), the mechanical constraints are more
>> serious and it
>> may therefore be the most sensitive to such things and which may not show
>> up as problems on their 35mm scanners.
>
>This scanner moves the CCD and the light source, instead of the film?  Is
>that so?  That's certainly a place to look for trouble, since they both have
>to be on opposite sides of the film, and have to be synchronized...

Dare I say it, but I suspect a scanner moving the film is "less accurate" than 
a scanner that moves the scan "head".  The HP S20 seems to be the classic 
case.  Obviously multi-scanning in the LS4000/8000 doesn't require multiple 
passes, but the LS40 does (Vuescan does multiple passes, Nikon Scan can't).  
I've noticed that the LS40's multi-pass scans, and my old Primefilm 1800's 
(el-cheapo scanner) multi-pass scans line up "perfectly" - so dare I say it, 
but it seems like an "easy" thing to manufacture these days.

Unless the scanner is trying to resolve 4000ppi.  Oops.

Jawed




 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.