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



I don't know for sure the optical effect of the mirrors. I guess I should
ask someone.
David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave King [mailto:kingphoto@mindspring.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 3:09 PM
> To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: Test Imacon, Nikon.Polaroid
> 
> 
> The primary advantage of the Imacon design is the unfolded light path
> correct?  The mirrors can't be helping with the less expensive
> scanners.  Only absolute disadvantage to the straight path approach is
> physical size of the scanner(?), and of course, in the case of the
> Imacon, cost.
> 
> Dave
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Mikael Risedal <risedal@hotmail.com>
> To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
> Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 4:23 PM
> 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.
> >
> 




 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.