Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: [OM][OT]Canon scanners

Subject: [OM] Re: [OM][OT]Canon scanners
From: Winsor Crosby <wincros@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:55:35 -0800
LED vs. fluorescent tube is sort of like the old argument of condenser  
enlarger vs. diffusion enlarger. It depends on what you want. LEDs are  
very small point light sources and surface irregularities get  
emphasized. That is one reason Nikon was one of the first film  
scanners to provide an IR channel and software to reduce surface  
scratches and dust. It was especially needed with their LED light  
source. That said, with a good lens they can be very sharp. The only  
reviews I have read regarding LED flat bed scannners is that they are  
ineffective at scanning objects compared to those with a fluorescent  
light source because of the light fall off and restricted depth of  
field. Some people like to put things like rocks, leaves or even their  
coin collections on the glass plate and scan them.


Winsor
Long Beach, CA
USA


On Nov 13, 2007, at 10:02 AM, Roger Key wrote:

> Does anyone have any experience of the Canon scanners? I am thinking
> specifically of the CanoScan 8800F and the CanoScan LiDE 600F (which  
> uses
> LEDs as the light source). In Denmark the 8800F costs about 30% more  
> than
> the 600F, but has the possible advantage for me that it can scan 120  
> film.


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

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