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: film scanner light source




Art is absolutely correct on this, in my experience, and has stated the
issue quite well.

Austin



>
> Hi Barry,
>
> The answer is "it is, and it does".
>
>
> It is like the condenser versus diffusion debate (almost exactly), and
> it does make a difference.
>
> Overall cold cathode tubes lighting provides a diffuse light source.
> The exception appears to be Minolta scanners, which seem to need an
> auxiliary defuser.  And in fact, that scanner series may be the perfect
> example of the problem.
>
> People often complain with ether Minolta scanners that the dust and
> scratches are very obvious, and grain seems exaggerated.  A private
> company now makes a diffuser for one Minolta model and claims to made
> the scanner from being one of the worst to the best. (this is their
> Minolta Pro medium format, but the principle is the same).
>
> By scattering the light a bit, all the junk on the non-emulsion side,
> the dust, dirt, fingerprints, scratches, etc. as well as defects within
> the film base.  By scattering the lightsource, they get generalized
> lighting that tends to diminish the visibility of these defects while
> having little to none effect on the image content.
>
> The Nikon uses LED lighting elements which are collimated light sources.
>   It very definitely brings out the nasties on film, but dICE can help
> to remove it (but not on true black and white film - IR can't go through
> silver images).
>
> The other problem some Nikon's have is likely due to the lower light
> intensity of the LED light source.  As a result, Nikon had to open the
> lens aperture within the scanner wider, and therefore depth of field can
> be compromised, when scanning films that are not nearly perfectly flat.
>
>   Art
>
>
> barry wrote:
>
> >  I ask this group does it really matter what the scanner light
> source is.
> > Some suggested to me that there were two kinds and that the
> Nikon IV would
> > be a bad choice. I suspect this would be like the old diffusion versus
> > condenser enlarger debate but thought I would ask anyway just in case
> > someone has practical experience.
> >
> > Barry T
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------
> 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



 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.