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: LS 4000 depth of field issue - what about LS 30/LS 2000?

All scanners from Nikon have the same problem.
Mikael Risedal

>From: Arthur Entlich <artistic@ampsc.com>
>Reply-To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
>To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
>Subject: Re: filmscanners: LS 4000 depth of field issue - what about LS 
>30/LS 2000?
>Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 22:04:17 -0800
>I can't say for sure, but the loss of resolution due to reduced DOF with
>bowed source film frames with the Nikon LS4000 ED may have been
>happening with the LS2000 and LS30 also.  However, it may have been less
>observable due to lower native resolution and less highly resolved
>lenses.  Its possible that Nikon is now pushing the lighting and optical
>path design beyond its limitations.  Further many camera lenses soften
>the edges of film frames to begin with, so we've grown to accept a
>certain amount of softness as our eye migrates to the edge.
>Some people feel Nikon's design is the best for its cost, since it
>allows for quite sharp result within the focal area, so anyone needing
>that level of resolution might be willing to use special mounts to
>maintain flatness within the frame.
>That doesn't fit into my workflow, because I have no interest in
>remounting my slides for scanning.  One of the reasons I bought a film
>scanner is to avoid taking risks with non-replacable images being
>damaged by lab people, or lost by couriers.  Personally, I prefer
>keeping sharp knife blades away from my film, and slide mounts do a
>pretty good jobs of keeping film frames safe.  I keep catalogue info on
>my mounts and I don't want to have to remove them and copy it, or return
>film frames to cut mounts.
>I don't know what National Geo does, but I recently saw some of their
>most used images, and most of the slide mounts seemed to be intact.
>Maybe they make use larger format dupes and leave the originals alone
>after making the dupes.  I know at one time they were making Cibas at
>100% of size used in the magazine.  I'm sure today they use digital
>technologies to get the images onto plate.
>Anyway, whatever the deal is, I want the best scanner for scanning
>originally mounted slides, and therefore for me, the Nikon film scanners
>aren't the answer.
>Ralf Schmode wrote:
>>Hi everybody,
>>after reading all that stuff as to the LS 4000 DOF issue, I'd be
>>interested in learning what the LS 30 and LS 2000 owners have
>>experienced in that respect. I have a LS 30 with which I have never run
>>across DOF problems - however, I don't use the motor driven film strip
>>feeder but the tiny metal/plastic film strip holder. If I had to buy a
>>new unit tomorrow, I would, in evaluation of what was written here, most
>>likely go for the LS 2000 or even the LS 30 again rather than pick the
>>newer models that seem problematic in that respect.
>>BTW, *if* there is a difference between LS-30/2000 and LS-40/4000 as to
>>DOF there must be a reason for it. The newer units are said to be
>>equipped with different optical elements (such as new lenses). Can that
>>possibly be a key to that change in depth of field?
>>Thoughts anyone?
>>Greetings from good (c)old Germany -

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


Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.