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]

[filmscanners] Re: comments on using NikonScan/PC



I suspect this problem involves how "IR opaque" the dyes are and perhaps
other optical changes that occur in high contrast situations where
possibly there is internal reflection within the film base as a result
of fairly extreme changes in light transmission.  IR is a light source,
and like any light source, it's waveform can be defracted or otherwise
altered when the light passes through a solid (even is "transparent"
object, like plastic film bases and multiple layers which interact with
one another.  Since white light also does some weird things, it would
not surprise me that the IR scan is not 100% accurate.

Further, I wonder how issues like a dirty lens which can cause blurred
edges or halos in high contrast might effect IR scan readings.  Perhaps
the discrepancy is that the IR scan is more easily vulnerable to
deposits within the light/optical path than white light is so it
develops these artifacts even before it is visible in the white light
pathway.

Just a guess...

Art

Ed Verkaik wrote:

>>From Al Bond:
>
>>The loss of detail can be quite subtle and, if the result with ICE
>>
> still looks good, it
> might not be noticed.  I noticed it when looking at the fine detail of a
> jacket zip:
> without ICE, the shape of the teeth can be made out but once ICE is
> applied the
> teeth merge together.  I tried this on both a Minolta Elite (which has
> the original
> version of ICE) and the Elite II (which has ICE3) and the result was the
> same.
>
> I think the loss of fine detail is unacceptable - why go to the expense
> of getting
> high resolution lenses for your camera and a scanner which can resolve a
> good
> part of the detail just to have ICE throw some of it away?
>
>
> Very interesting. I would really like to get to the truth on this, darn
> it!  I hope Jack Phipps will comment further on your specific example,
> because I want to know ONCE-AND-FOR-ALL whether ICE (as implemented in
> the 4000ED) set to "notmal" will or will not degrade an image.
>
> Ed Verkaik
>
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body



 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.