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: film flatness in Nikon's



Paul !
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. '

Mikael Risedal
Lund
Sweden





>From: "PAUL GRAHAM" <peegee@btinternet.com>
>Reply-To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
>To: "Filmscanners@Halftone. Co. Uk" <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
>Subject: filmscanners: film flatness in Nikon's
>Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 21:34:18 -0700
>
>Mikael:
>
>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..."
>(etc)
>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 
>choice
>of carriers:
>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
>negative...
>
>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
>machine too..
>
>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 
>laser
>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 
>approach
>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 
>of
>image resolution (and I don't want to get into circles of confusion here!)
>
>paul
>

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.




 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.