We did the test with USM of and on , on all scanners, we also set USM in
photoshop, increased contrast etc. etc.
The test shows that Imacon realy are superior to the 2 other scanner in
resolution. (How can you get a 6 x 6 in a LS4000 ? ) or was it LS 8000 you
have in your test?
>From: "Hemingway, David J" <HEMINGD@POLAROID.COM>
>To: "'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Subject: RE: filmscanners: Test Imacon, Nikon.Polaroid
>Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 14:33:41 -0400
>I did this test myself with a 6x6 transparency. To do a fair test it is
>important to have USM of on all scanners. With the Imacon that it not so
>straight forward. When you uncheck the USM box it is not really off. When
>you set the slider to zero it is not really off. I specifically discussed
>this with Imacon technical support and they confirmed that the "developers"
>did not want users to get fuzzy scans so there is some unsharp mask even
>when it says there is none. You need to have unsharp mask checked AND have
>the slider set to -60. The image I used to look at sharpness has a picture
>frame hanging by two pieces of mono-filament line. I looked at this line
>with all three scanners. The Imacon was just slightly sharper than the
>and the Nikon was significantly less sharp enough so I was concerned I had
>done something wrong. The part of the image I was scanning was in the upper
>third so I need to go back and see if it is an issue of center to edge
>My testing on the dust stuff concurs with yours.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mikael Risedal [mailto:email@example.com]
> > Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 12:23 PM
> > To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > Subject: filmscanners: Test Imacon, Nikon.Polaroid
> > 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
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.