Filmscanners mailing list archive (email@example.com)
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: filmscanners: Nikon MF LED light source...
on 7/15/01 10:27 PM, Austin Franklin wrote:
>> I've told you before, I get
>> the sense that a lot of owners (not you, you are a special case altogether
>> ;-)) don't want to discuss any negatives about the Leaf other than it's
> I've never heard anyone have any "complaints" about it as you elude to
> here...except for soft red channel, which is typical of any CCD scanner.
> What "negatives" specifically, are you referring to?
Exorbitant to ship, slow, expensive to repair, limited driver controls, lack
of parts for older models, all are out of warranty, and some suffer from
excessive red channel bloom.
You know what I hate most about the Leaf? It's that each stage of the
process before you get to the scan is a separate operation, with too many
1) Do you want to make a new one or download an existing one. Hit Okay.
2) Please remove the film holder. Hit Okay.
Wait what, 3 mins for a calibration?
Please insert film. Hit Okay.
So even if you were to make NO adjustments to the scan, you'd still have hit
six buttons and taken about 8 minutes, just jockeying the film around and
hitting buttons. Mainly the problem really occurs when you hit an Okay
button and walk away, forgetting there's another dialog box behind it. I
know that's true for any device, but it's likelihood is increased the more
dialog boxes you have.
And I know YOU only scan 6x6 BW negs, but for those of us who change film
formats - which necessitates a new calibration; and those of us who shoot
color film - which triples scan times; and those of us who use optimum
exposure - which again doubles the time (lets just say for chromes); and for
those of us who scan to 16-bit HDR files - which for color makes for scan
times about 12-20x longer than your Minimum exposure Grayscale file..... It
But please, I hope you're not trying to trick me into bringing up what I
perceive to be negatives so you can then tell me that that's all I talk
> Also, what you may
> consider a negative, others may not consider a negative at all...like
> scanning MF at 2540, how is that a negative, if it is more than sufficient
> to give someone the results they need?
You misinterpreted my comment. It wasn't to denigrate the Leaf for only
being 2540 vs 4000 ppi for the Nikon. My point was that it wasn't a valid
speed comparison when the two are scanning at different resolutions.
>> But let's keep perspective here. You're taking issue with me for pointing
>> out that the time you quoted for a leaf scan was based upon a lower
>> resolution, and also you use the minimum exposure time, which reduces
>> quality (I know it's arguable whether it matters with negatives).
> It's not arguable, lowering the scan time for B&W negatives absolutely does
> not degrade the quality of the scans.
I'm not saying you are wrong about this, but have you tested this with dense
negs, thin negs, t-grain negs, C41 BW negs, infrared negs? I have not, so I
stick with the exposure labeled "optimum", as does Steven Helber, the guy
who repairs Leafs.
Again, my issue wasn't about quality so much as equal parameters for a
comparison. I have no idea if the Nikon has a similar
lesser-but-theoretically-sufficient-quality scan mode. But if it does, it
should be allowed to test in that mode too, knowing you are doing the same.
That was my point, anyway.
> The point was MF scan time of the two
> scanners, resolution was not at question.
Again, I think resolution *should* have been part of the equation.
>> As the
>> engineer that you are, I'm surprised you take issue with me trying to keep
>> the parameters the same when making comparisons.
> The only parameters that were part of that particular discussion were MF and
> B&W. We know what the resolution of these scanners are. If we were
> discussing 35mm, I don't believe I would have chimed in and claimed that
> any comparison is invalid/degraded because the Polaroid and Nikon scanners
> can only scan 35mm at 4000PPI, instead of 5080... What would be the point?
First of all, knowing how you stand up for your Leaf, I'd be willing to
wager a lot of money that you would have something to say about it had the
tables been reversed. You'd find a point. ;-)
Second, I guess we just differ on what are meaningful parameters for speed
comparisons. To my mind comparing at same resolutions is meaningful.
Otherwise, why not just scan at 72 dpi, while the competition scans at 4000
dpi. Then you could really wipe the floor with the competition - and
wouldn't that feel good. ;-)
>> I just don't think I have the
>> same allegiance to the machine as you.
> I have no allegiance to the Leafscan, just the results. If it did not do
> what I needed, or I found one that gave me significantly better results,
> while not
> compromising other needs, I'd buy it.
Cheers to that! Me too.
PS, I think I'm done with this - you?