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: Nikon MF LED light source...



> On Mon, 16 Jul 2001, Austin Franklin wrote:
>
> > 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't help but note...
>
> You got rid of your SS 4000, because 4000 dpi
> wasn't good enough, that you really really had
> to have 5080 dpi for your 35 mm scans.

Well, and that it didn't scan MF...  No, I wasn't happy with 4000PPI for
35mm.  It ran out of steam with 160ASA and below.

> Yet when scanning 6x6, the Leaf's 2540 dpi is
> good enough, and you continue to defend the
> Leaf against the newer machines.

Those resolutions give me the same output size for each of the formats I
use.  If I was shooting 645, 4000PPI might become more important, but I
really am not a 645 fan at this point.  What the Leaf offers is completely
sufficient for what I need a scanner for at this point in time.  Why is that
so difficult to understand?  If at some point in time, I find that I need a
different scanner, I'll buy it...but why would I want to get a new scanner
(mind you at top dollar) when I don't need it?  Perhaps an Imacon for $2k
;-)

> You either have to admit that a) You could be
> getting more data from your Hasselblad negatives,
> or b) Those Hasselblad lenses only have 1/2 the
> resolution of your Contax lenses.  (Comparing
> "cream of the crop" optics in both categories.)

Of course I could get more data from my Hasselblad lenses using a higher
resolution scanner, but I have no need for it.  Cripes, I could get a 10k
drum scanner and waste my time mounting film if I thought it would do me any
good...but talk about a SLOW process!

> As for scanning 4x5 at 1000 dpi, that really
> isn't saying much -- my Epson 1640SU,
> even with severely downgraded specs -- can
> almost match that.

It's 1270 BTW.  I'd put the Leaf up against the 1640 any day, as far as
quality of scan goes.





 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.