RE: filmscanners: Nikon MF LED light source...

["Austin Franklin" <darkroom@ix.netcom.com>]

> >> 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
> >> weight.
> >
> > 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

Hardy a "design flaw"...but it cost me $200.  Any shipping should be
factored into the purchase price.

> slow,

But it really isn't that slow, yes it is slowER, but if you are doing B&W,
it is quite close in speed to other comparable scanners.  If you do color,
yes, it is quite a bit slower.  Some people just don't care about this, like
me.

> expensive to repair,

Do you have any actual numbers to support this?  EVERY scanner of this
magnitude is expensive to repair.  In fact, I would say it is far cheaper to
repair than any of the other comparable scanners.

> limited driver
> controls,

Like what?  It has every control you need to get the best scans you can from
any scanner.  People who have seen how clean the Leafscan interface is, say
it's the best interface they've seen...  A lot of the control available in
the Leafscan interface is either not available, or difficult to do, in other
scanner interfaces.

> lack
> of parts for older models,

That's not true.  Every part is available from Scitex, as well as parts
available from www.leafstuff.com for very reasonable prices.

> all are out of warranty,

No kidding...  So are '57 Chevys.

> and some suffer from
> excessive red channel bloom.

How do you know it's "excessive"?  Have you compared it to all other CCD
scanners?  It may be that those scanners need either an adjustment or a new
CCD.  Hardly the scanners fault!

> 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
> dialog boxes.
>
> Hit "Calibrate":
> 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?

Every scanner has to calibrate, and it is only done prior to the first scan
for a particular magnification.

> 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;

Only slide film.  You can use minimum for color negative film also.

> 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
> adds up!

16 bit files don't increase the time, in my experience.

Well, gee, it sounds to me like the Leafscan just isn't the scanner for you.
So many problems...so much trouble.  If I felt like you do, I certainly
would get another scanner...and I'd probably run over mine with my RR.

> 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.

No, I disagree that I misrepresented anything.  The conversation wasn't
about resolution, so what was the point of you bringing that up?  It was
nit-picking, and not relevant to my comment.  You don't need to chime in
with every little point.  If you do, I would expect that you would also
chime in, every time that someone mentions the Leaf and any other
scanner...that the other scanners can't do 4x5, and can't do 35mm at
5080PPI...  Honestly, it's really annoying.

> 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.

Where did Steve say that?  Also, the Leaf documentation says to use minimum,
and I have tested it with scans I do.  You are being the eternal skeptic.
What I say is correct for me.  If you feel like wasting your time scanning,
then by all means, keep scanning at optimum...but if I were you, instead of
complaining about it, and doubting me, why not just test it for your self.

> Again, my issue wasn't about quality so much as equal parameters for a
> comparison.

I feel this is foolish.  They aren't the same scanner, and there are always
differences.  By your criteria, you could not compare the Nikon and the
Polaroid, since they use diffrent light sources...so the comparison is
unfair.  You could only compare two of the identical models.  What is
important to you isn't necessarily important to everyone else.

> Second, I guess we just differ on what are meaningful parameters for speed
> comparisons. To my mind comparing at same resolutions is meaningful.

There is no same resolution, and as I said, this becomes entirely foolish.
If the resolution is sufficient for the output you require, than it is
sufficient.  Anything more than that just isn't necessary, at least for me.

> > 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.

Given your general displeasure with the Leafscan, you really ought to!  I
think you would gain back all the time you claim this scanner wastes, if you
weren't so prolific ;-)