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
----- Original Message -----
From: rafeb <rafeb@channel1.com>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 5:47 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Test Imacon, Nikon.Polaroid
> At 03:57 PM 7/13/01 -0400, Austin wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> >Same thing with the Leafscan, it also has a straight light path, no
mirrors.
> >Also, one feature of the Imacon is the magnetic curved film
holders. I am
> >not sure if it actually is better or not, but it is a feature.
>
>
> Are we certain that the 8000 ED and/or the LS-120 use
> mirrors? Where does this information come from?
>
> This was commonly "reported" to be the case on some
> other scanners. I can tell you that it is categorically
> not true for the Microtek 35t+ and the SprintScan Plus --
> no mirrors in either of those; the both use the
> identical optical/mechanical bench.
>
>
> rafe b.
You're right, the focal length of a good medium format lens might be
as short as 4-6". Easily contained in either scanner. Perhaps
someone will have a look inside and tell us.
If there are no mirrors in either, what would explain better sharpness
in the Imacon (assuming flat film in the Polaroid and Nikon)?
Dave
|
