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 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.


Looks like David got the same info as me and got the same results. Except
mine were in early June. The comaprative scans on my web page were using the
No USM and -60 as per Imacon recommendation.

The guy I spoke with went further. With an Imacon you get sharp edge to edge
scans EVERY time - with EVERY other make (excluding drum scanners) you get
sharp results ranging from some the time to most of the time, but rarely ALL
the time. As for edge to edge sharpness, glass carriers was his
recommendation. Judging from what I've see to date I am NOT about to argue
with his claims, just the price.





Ian Lyons
http://www.computer-darkroom.com






 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.