Filmscanners mailing list archive (firstname.lastname@example.org)
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: filmscanners: LS4000 and sharpness
All points well taken. My whole point of switching from the Polaroid to the
Nikon, though, was the I wanted the roll film carrier. Now, what I am
reading seems to imply that I have to manually adjust the focus on each
individual frame. Perhaps I am misreading that, and a generic focus at a
middle spot would work, but why didn't Nikon do their software right then?
I want to be able to load a roll of film, go to bed, and wake up to 36
properly exposed, properly focused scans. Why else have the roll film
I might as well keep doing them 6 at a time.
Bottom line, it feels like a scanner that is late to the market and was
rushed. Given time and releases of the software, it might be an incredible
scanner, but for now, I'll wait.
P.S. David, hint hint, give me the roll film adapter and I won't defect.
> Tom Scales writes ...
> > But should you really have to do that? Isn't that adding a lot of
> > intervention to compensate for a design flaw? I'm really interested
> in the
> > LS4000, but I never have to go to this trouble with my SS4000.
> Was it a design flaw or a tradeoff? I won't claim to know for
> sure ... except to point out we've always been confronted with similar
> tradeoffs. The best enlargers have always offered diffused
> illumination or better contrast with point source illumination.
> However, to take best advantage of point source illumination and
> potential edge sharpness we needed better resolution. And then, we
> were confronted with a need for glass carriers because of the
> ^inherent^ loss of depth of focus (a law of physics).
> With regard to SS4000 vs LS-4000, there are analogies here. A
> choice of illumination, the optimum optics and a subsequent need for
> decreased depth-of-focus. For a buyer the question which remains is
> which type of illumination suits your exposures and films best.
> Independent of the need for IR, an educated guess would be, for
> negatives and better color gamut, you might opt for increased edge
> contrast and the Nikon (and flat film) ... but for an all around
> better solution, negatives or slides, the Polaroid.
> What remains is an A-B comparison for both print film and a slide,
> of the same 2mm area, Nikon vs Polaroid (... Tony? ...)
> my US$0.02 ... shAf :o)