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]

[filmscanners] Re: Where can I actually *buy* an Nikon 8000ED?



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 http://www.lwsphoto.com/banding.htm
>  >>
>  >
>  > Wow. Very noticeable. This was consistent, eh?
>  >
>  >
>  >>Soft focus at edges: dont have an example posted
> but might get around to
>  >>it.
>  >>
>  >
>  > 35mm, 120? Both?
>  >
>  >
>  >>Nikon scan clips highlights, compresses tonal
> ranges.
>  >>See http://www.lwsphoto.com/scancompare.htm
>  >>
>  >
>  >>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
> http://www.doogle.com
>  >
>  >
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  > 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
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body



 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.