Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: scanner question

Subject: [OM] Re: scanner question
From: Winsor Crosby <wincros@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 23:38:06 -0800
My Polaroid is still chugging along with a cold cathode fluorescent. It  
is seldom that it has an image that needs the special tools regularly  
required on LED scanners. Not only does the dimness of an LED require a  
fast lens with small depth of field it is also a harsh point light  
source that accentuates every flaw on the film as well as the grain.  
Not having to use those correction tools makes for faster scans.

Why not a Canon film scanner? The 4000F still uses a cold cathode  
fluorescent lamp. I would not worry about the lower resolution. I have  
seen convincing arguments backed by images that 4000 dpi extracts just  
about all the information from a piece of film.

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller? 
act=ModelTechSpecsAct&fcategoryid=121&modelid=7460

At least that is my take.



Winsor
Long Beach, California, USA
On Mar 7, 2005, at 8:06 PM, BllPear@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> I am in the processing of selecting a film scanner. I had decided on  
> the Minolta 5400, but it is NLA, replaced by the 5400II. I looked up  
> the specs, and the light source has been changed, from a cold cathode  
> flourescent to a white LED.
>
> I have had experience using a friend's Nikon 4000, which I also  
> believe has an LED light source. It has the well known dof problems.
>
> I am therefore reconsidering. Can anyone comment?


==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz