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: Test Imacon, Nikon.Polaroid



LS8000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mikael Risedal [mailto:risedal@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 3:03 PM
> To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> Subject: RE: filmscanners: Test Imacon, Nikon.Polaroid
> 
> 
> David
> 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?
> 
> Mikael Risedal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >From: "Hemingway, David J" <HEMINGD@POLAROID.COM>
> >Reply-To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> >To: "'filmscanners@halftone.co.uk'" <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
> >Subject: RE: filmscanners: Test Imacon, Nikon.Polaroid
> >Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 14:33:41 -0400
> >
> >Mikael,
> >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 
> >SS120
> >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
> >focus.
> >My testing on the dust stuff concurs with yours.
> >David
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Mikael Risedal [mailto:risedal@hotmail.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 12:23 PM
> > > To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> > > 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
> >http://www.hotmail.com.
> 
> ______________________________________________________________
> ___________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at 
http://www.hotmail.com.




 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.