ðòïåëôù 


  áòèé÷ 


Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

  óôáôøé 


  ðåòóïîáìøîïå 


  ðòïçòáííù 



ðéûéôå
ðéóøíá












     áòèé÷ :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000?




> From October MacWorld review.
> "We found that the Super Coolscan, for which Nikon claims a dMax
> of 4.2, did
> a somewhat poorer job of pulling detail out of shadow areas than the more
> conservatively rated scanners when used in single-pass mode. The
> only way we
> could get the Super Coolscan to live up to its dMax claim was to
> enable the
> 16* multiscanning option (which averages 16 separate scans and hence takes
> 16 times longer than a single pass) and to turn off both auto exposure and
> color management."

I don't know that I really believe this.  What did they use for a source
that had a dMax of 4.2?




 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.