Filmscanners mailing list archive (firstname.lastname@example.org)
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: filmscanners: Nikon MF LED light source...
Here we go again.
>>>> 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
> Hardy a "design flaw"...but it cost me $200. Any shipping should be
> factored into the purchase price.
> 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
>> 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.
Well, Rick Boden just found a camera board for $800. But he'd been holding
out for months/years because erstwhile the price had been $1700 from Creo.
Plus RT shipping, if a given user isn't capable of making the repair
The estimate to repair my scanners problem was $800. But with RT shipping
that's $1200. Rich for my blood.
>> limited driver
> 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.
Austin, I'll short cut here. You yourself have already gone to what appears
to be great effort because *you* want to rewrite the driver.
>> 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.
That's not what I was told by Rick at leaf. Not for the metal case design. I
said older models.
>> 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!
Austin, if I'm not mistaken, you are on the Leafscan list aren't you? Did
you ever look at the files Andrew Cassino posted to the files section of
And when I was talking about the softness of the red channel, and asked
twice, with a chime from another member too, for other list members (of
which there are 100) speak out if their red channels were anywhere near as
sharp as their others, not a one spoke up.
When people post samples of their Nikons, Imacons, and Polaroids, I check
the channels. The red channel is invariably sharper than mine. I know mine
is in for a $400 shipping charge for repair, before we start itemising parts
>> 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.
So when you say only slide film, you mean to suggest that color negative s
don't require three passes? That's where the triple scan time comes from.
>> 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.
It doubles scan times in my experience. The progress window says it'll take
about 10+ minutes for an HDR grayscale, but it takes 15-20.
> 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.
If I felt like you do about my Leaf my wife would shoot me, and I'd be
expecting baby Leafs soon.
>> 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.
Austin I can only suggest that the opportunities I take to dis the Leaf are
only as annoying to you, as your chest puffing comments about the Leaf are
to every one else. Okay, can't speak for every one else - annoying to me.
>> 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?
Austin, you responded to his post on the Leafscan list about it. I cant help
you if you have selective memory.
> Also, the Leaf documentation says to use minimum,
It says you *may* use minimum. It's a ten year old document, based on ten
year old materials. But if it works for you I'm pleased. I already said I
should test it more thoroughly.
> 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
> 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'm starting to see how you relate to the world. Very little scientific
objectivity. Heavy bias based on what's necessary for 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.
> 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 ;-)
Austin, I'm only talking about my experience with my scanner. It's not your
sister I'm talking about. Cool it.
All this started when you compared your scan time with the Nikons, and I
made a short quip intended to show I didn't consider it an valid comparison
because of differing resolutions, and later, the possibility of different
Why does this get so intense for you?
Look, this is unhealthy, lets put it to bed. Have the last say.