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: 3 year wait

I don't understand what you mean by 'limitation'.  The same image scanned on
two scanners of different specifications look identical.  USM was off in
both cases and there was no other image manipulation being done.  Given that
the image is the same one then any limitation of the kit, such as film
flatness would apply to both scanners, although the Flextight is probably
keeping the film flatter than the SS120 when scanning it.

There are not many lenses that have the resolving power of the Leica 90 AA
and Zeiss 180 Sonnar.

Tell mw what is a more valid test than using the exact same image in both
scanners and I will give it a try.


on 9/5/02 11:10 pm, Arthur Entlich at artistic-1@shaw.ca wrote:

> It is possible that the limitation is your "kit" (I think that's how
> they say it in the UK)... lens, camera, film flatness, etc.
> I have been told that the Flexlight adds USM to scans in default mode,
> and needs to have it removed to see the true scan result.
> Art
> Simon Lamb wrote:
>> I still ask the question, does the quality of the scanner hardware also have
>> any significant effect, such as light path, lens, CCD, electronic
>> suppression etc.  This question I raise as a result of comparing Flextight
>> Photo scans with SS120 and Multi Pro, where I cannot see any difference in
>> detail even under extreme enlargement in Photoshop and careful examination.
>> Simon

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


Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.