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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >>On 2/21/02 12:23 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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: don�t 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 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] 865-540-1308 > http://www.doogle.com > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], > with 'unsubscribe > filmscanners' > > or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as > appropriate) in the message > title or body > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], > 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
