A small comparison between Imacon Photo 3200 ppi , Polaroid SS120 4000
ppi, and Nikon LS4000 at 4000 ppi.
Test slide 24 x 36 by Leitz was used as reference. ( glass mounted)
Test slide 24 x36 un mounted.
1. Imacon at 3200 ppi was a lot sharper and show significant more details
than the Nikon and Polaroid scanner does.
2. Polaroid SS 120 did not wipe the floor with Nikon LS4000. ( Ian Lyons
statement) Non of us how made the test could se
any difference between Nikon Ls 4000 and Polaroid SS 120 in sharpness and
resolution of a 24 x 36 test slide.
3. Test with un mounted slide strip . This test slide is little bit curved
as a normal slide film are. Here have Nikon LS 4000 problem
with over all sharpness, excellent in the middle but unsharp out against the
sides and corner. (manual film holder)
Same manual film holder and a negative film how are extremely flat = no
problem with over all sharpness in the Nikon scanner.
4. Scratches and dust are more visible in scannings by Nikon LS 4000 than
Polaroid and Imacon.
Discussion: How can we se more dust and scratches from the Nikon scanner
but not have more resolution and details from
the test slide and the Nikon scanner ?? We turned around the slide with
emulsion side up ( mounted like in Imacon) and have the same
results.?????????
Where is the maximum focus in the Nikon scanner?
Conclusion: Imacon best scanner but slow in final scanning , up to 6 min.
to scan a 24 x36 slide at 3200ppi.
SS 120 good scanner at 24 x 36 fast but not better than Nikon LS4000. SS
120 have less problem with curved film than Nikon LS 4000..
Nikon LS 4000 not sharp at all as the Imacon scanner, have problem with
curved film and depth of field , small and fast.
So what can we expect from Nikon LS 8000. Im thrilled to hear from Rafe and
Lawrence what they have discovered about
sharpness, curved film problem on a 6 x 7 cm slide or negative film.
Mikael Risedal
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at .
