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 8000/ digital ICE, was: Scanner Buying Dilemma

I have been writing about focus problem with LS 4000 and LS2000 please keep 
me out from any questions regarding the LS 8000 scanner.
Mikael Risedal

>From: "PAUL GRAHAM" <peegee@btinternet.com>
>Reply-To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
>To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
>Subject: filmscanners: Nikon 8000/ digital ICE, was: Scanner Buying Dilemma
>Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 13:39:13 -0700
> >Buy the SS120.  I have one and I like it.  The Nikon is probably a fine
>scanner if you could find one, but is reported to have problems keeping
>medium format film in focus at the edges due to the type of light source it
>uses, which also evidently accentuates dust which means you need to use ICE
>with it.
>Well, I have the Nikon 8000, and I can quite frankly tell you that the 
>issue is a complete non starter. I have no idea where it came from - Mikael
>in Sweden maybe, but no, it is not an issue. I am hypercritical, and it
>simply isn't true on any normally flat negative.
>Digital Ice I dismissed till I tried it, but was shocked how effective it
>was. I am a pro and have pretty clean m/f negs, but this saves an age of
>spotting, wasting my time combing over each 550Mb 6x7 file. Really, don't
>knock it till you try it! I can tell no difference in sharpness on the
>normal setting at all, and I use Zeiss m/f lenses.
>Gem is another matter. did nothing for me, shame.
>Roc is way too strong even at its lowest settting (Jack!!) but effective.
>The 8000 is an excellent scanner. Nikonscan sets the standard for UI of all
>scanner programmes and is easy to learn, yet powerful in its hidden depths.
>Lawrences tests showed the Nikon to be the sharper of the 2 scanners (only
>just though, the polaroid is very sharp too), and that was it for me,
>nothing else mattered really.
>The new Minolta Mulit Pro is one of those machines with different
>resolutions for different format. for m/f I belive it is 3200 or 3400 dpi,
>if that is plenty for you, then its a fine trade off for higher res on 
>The $12,000 Imacons that advertise themselves at 5800 dpi do that same
>trick, and are in fact 3200 dpi for M/F.

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp


Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.