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: Nikon 8000ED

rafeb wrote:

> However... there IS a price to pay, and it gets back
> to the LEDs vs. cold-cathode lighting issue, I think.
> If I'm not mistaken, ICE requires IR-LED illumination.
> The Nikons have this, the Polaroids don't.  But it
> also seems that shallow depth-of-focus may be a side-
> effect of LED illumination, at least according to one
> of theories floating around.  To wit:  the LEDs are
> less bright than cold-cathode, hence wider apertures
> (and lower depth-of-focus) in the internal optics.

Visible light does not need to be an LED source for dICE to work.  Acer
2740 uses a hybrid situation, with an IR LED, but cold cathode light
source.  Canon FS 4000 has FARE, which is also an infrared defect repair
system and is not, to my knowledge using an LED visible lighting
system.  Finally, the Minolta Elite doesn't use an LED visible lighting
source, and it also has dICE.  I think the cheapest way to provide good
IR is an LED array, but it doesn't seem to preclude use of cold cathode
for the rest of the lighting.



Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.