Compared to what I can get from an enlarger, my Nikon 4000 is a god-send-no problem with depth of focus problems either.
Brian -------------------------------------------------------------- respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shunith Dutt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2002 2:13 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Black and white scans onLS4000EDandotherissues No problem here either :) SD ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce M. Burnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2002 8:48 AM Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Black and white scans onLS4000EDandotherissues Austin, You assume that everyone with a Nikon scanner has depth of focus issues. But not me nor the three others that I personally know who use them. No depth of focus problems. I am not saying that there isn't an issue with depth of focus, but that some units(or maybe we just have flat film)do not exhibit the problem. Bruce Burnett -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Austin Franklin Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2002 8:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Black and white scans onLS4000EDandotherissues Hi Todd, > Most of the sources I've seen discuss the Callier effect show the same neg > printed through the two light sources. Unfortunately, what they've done is > taken a neg that was tailored to print well on a coldlight and printed it > with a condenser, then claim the highlights burn out...DUH. > Likewise if they > print a neg that was tailored to a condenser and print it with a coldlight > it will look flat. Well, it has been well proven that you can get the same density range from the same negative with a cold light or a point light source, using appropriate exposure time, aperture and grade of paper (or filter), so that is a non-issue. The other issues are the "Callier effect", sharpness, dust, scratches and tonality (dynamic range). > the > Callier effect is predicable, and in some cases useful, and can be > compensated for as needed. What about the limited depth of focus, as well as scratches and dust? How do you compensate for that? > Not sure if depth of focus is of any real relevance. Snark, snark...ask people who own Nikon scanners if depth of focus is an issue or not ;-) > Anyway, just my experience, not out to tell anyone theirs is wrong. Understood. Me too. Austin ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------- 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 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 13/06/2002 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ 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
