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: Medium Format Scanner



> The Nikon dust removing feature also tends to blur the image.

No, it doesn't. Maybe it might have on some of the earlier versions of ICE.
I've done scans with and without ICE on the 8000, and I can't tell the
difference between the two other than one image doesn't require spotting.

> So, if you normally store your film on the floor of a well traveled
hallway, then the Nikon is better.

That pretty much rules out most people, doesn't it. Could Nikon be going
after a new market segment? The well-travelled-hallway slide-storage crowd?

> If you take care of your film, the Polaroid is better.

I take care of my film, but found the Nikon better. The 8000 scans (with
ICE) were sharper than those from the Polaroid. And the Polaroid images
still required spotting.

There are many reasons why a person would choose one scanner over the over.
In my case it was simply the quality of scans. Price and availablility are
other factors. The 8000's are readily available in Canada (my dealer has a
few in stock), while it seems that supply in the US is still tight.

I'd suggest anyone interested in either scanner to try and visit a store
that has demos of both, and run some sample scans on each. There's a lot of
opinions and mis-information given out in newsgroups, and it's really hard
to separate fact from fiction.





 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.