The Minolta Scan Multi Pro suffers none of these
problems except possibly some clipping with negatives,
comes with glass holders, dICE, etc and is cheaper
than Nikon or Polaroid scanners.
--- Arthur Entlich <artistic-1@shaw.ca> wrote: >
>From reports I have received, the problem with the
> banding is a design
> flaw, and one in firmware.
>
> Most CCD based scanners use a tri-line CCD sensor
> which has each line
> represent one of the standard color separations. In
> other words, one is
> filtered red, one green and one blue. Since each
> captures only that one
> separation, it is very important that each line be
> calibrated before the
> scan is made so that there is no general
> inconsistency between the
> lines, and little inconsistency between individual
> sensor elements
> within the line.
>
> The Nikon film scanners don't work this way. Rather
> than a tri-line
> sensor each line capturing one separation and using
> a white light
> source, the Nikons use an LED light source which
> switches between red,
> green and blue (and Infra red for the dICE) As a
> result, Nikon still
> uses the tri-line sensor, but each can act
> independently capturing all
> three separations, as the LED light changes. In
> theory, this should
> speed up the process quite a bit.
>
> In actuality, it causes banding. Why? Because
> Nikon decided that they
> only need to calibrate one of the sensor lines,
> leaving two
> uncalibrated. As most people know, CCD sensors
> response is not that
> accurately maintained. The sensors elements don't
> come out of the
> factory perfectly calibrated, and they don't stay
> calibrated over time
> either. Why Nikon would decide to make this design
> in this manner is
> the subject of much discussion.
>
> Can you get rid of the banding? Yes, but it
> requires you to slow the
> scanning down by using just one line, the calibrated
> one. They call
> this super fine scanning mode or something, and it
> obviously slows the
> process considerable since you are taking 1/3rd of
> the "width" of
> information with each "pulse".
>
> The soft edge problem is something that became more
> obvious with the
> higher resolution scanners, although it has existed
> for a number of
> earlier Nikon models as well. Conjecture is that
> the problem is the LED
> lighting source not being bright enough to allow for
> a well stopped down
> lens to work within the scanner. This causes them
> to use a very wide
> apertured lens and ultimately very shallow depth of
> field meaning bowed
> film, such as often results in paper mounted 35mm
> slides, and some negs
> and unmounted works which were overheated during the
> drying process tend
> to have soft edges. I have been told that it is
> more obvious on 35mm
> than other formats, but it may be a lesser problem
> overall with the
> medium format scanner.
>
> Pretty much all CCD scanners clip highlights and
> have some noise in
> shadow regions. The answer is typically to consider
> a drum scanner, at
> considerable higher costs and maintenance. Most
> ain't pretty, but they
> do a nice job. They are more complex pieces of
> equipment.
>
> If a drum scanner isn't in your future, consider the
> Polaroid 120 for
> medium format films. Reports I have received
> indicate it neither
> suffers from banding or soft edges. Some people
> here could tell you
> more about their experiences with it. However, it
> does not have dICE or
> any clone of it, so if you treat your film poorly,
> you might find it more
> labor intensive without the use of an IR channel and
> IR defect removal.
>
> Art
>
> doogle@doogle.com wrote:
>
> >>On 2/21/02 12:23 AM, "doogle@doogle.com"
> <doogle@doogle.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>How 'bout quick list of the probs?
> >>>TIA,
> >>>Mac
> >>>
> >>These are the issues I found.
> >>
> >>
> >>Banding:
> >>See
> >>
> >
> > Wow. Very noticeable. This was consistent, eh?
> >
> >
> >>Soft focus at edges: don¹t have an example posted
> but might get around to
> >>it.
> >>
> >
> > 35mm, 120? Both?
> >
> >
> >>Nikon scan clips highlights, compresses tonal
> ranges.
> >>See
> >>
> >
> >>Lawrence W. Smith Photography
> >>
> >
> > Ever try VueScan with it? That shoulda given you
> better tonal range
> to start
> > with.
> >
> > The banding looks like fatal flaw if that was a
> consistent prob,
> > though...wonder if this is one of main reasons
> it's "not available"
> for the most
> > part right now?
> >
> > Thanks for your input...
> >
> > Mac
> >
> >
> >
> > Mac McDougald -- DOOGLE DIGITAL
> > 500 Prestwick Ridge Way # 39 - Knoxville, TN
> 37919
> > doogle@doogle.com 865-540-1308
>
> >
> >
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk,
> with 'unsubscribe
> filmscanners'
> > or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as
> appropriate) in the message
> title or body
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk,
> with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
> or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as
> appropriate) in the message title or body
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
