Nikon claims in their text that ED4000 are a professional product.
You call it earlier a semi professional product, and we shall not expect
more of the scanner. What kind of logic is that? Why shall we not expect
that the scanner are 100% sharp over the whole picture and still be easy to
use and handle
Who many of us who are daily working with pictures are interested to put a
film in a carrier made of glass.???
I don't know who many scanners you have tried and tested recently.
I have been testing scanners since 1994
Please take a look at: http://www.imacon.dk and the scanner Flextight
Photo or Polaroid.
This film scanners have not the Nikons problem with film holders and curved
film and un sharp pictures. '
>From: "PAUL GRAHAM" <email@example.com>
>To: "Filmscanners@Halftone. Co. Uk" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Subject: filmscanners: film flatness in Nikon's
>Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 21:34:18 -0700
>don't see what any of that text you quote from Nikon:
> "Coolscan® Film Scanners:
> The Coolscan IV ED, Super
> Coolscan 4000 ED and Super
> Coolscan 8000 ED, take film
> scanning to a new level by..."
>has to do with the choice of carriers...
>I'm not critical of your findings - they are probably true, I just don't
>feel it is a total failure on the scanners part, when they give you a
>If you are just making quick scans for proofs - use the glassless carrier,
>but if you are making critical scans for the ultimate 4000dpi results, then
>use the glass carrier - that was my point.
>It is precisely what all pro darkroom people have done for years, and its
>what I do, even with 1000 watts of halogen bulbs shining through a
>maybe other scanners use a brighter lightsource and so gain depth of focus
>etc, but this one doesn't. I expect there is some trade made by Nikon
>against using tubes for LED spectrum, long life, heat, consistency or ?...
>I notice that the recent ZBE Chromira printer, which (like a
>Lightjet/Lambda) writes digital files direct to photo paper, is an LED
>Film flatness is a problem with all scanners/enlargers. Flatbeds don't
>suffer so much from it because the film is pressed against the glass - in
>other words - it's glass mounted! Even with high end drum scanners and
>light sources you have to ensure negative flatness with oil mounting and
>pressure rollers etc, so, why should it be any different here as we
>drum scanner resolutions in desktop boxes?
>Nobody in decades of making enlarger negative holders has come up with a
>glassless way of holding a negative perfectly flat, the only solution has
>been glass carriers, or stopping down the depth of focus to the detriment
>image resolution (and I don't want to get into circles of confusion here!)
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.