Warren,
Ironically I would not pay a lot of attention to dynamic range specs when
comparing between brands given the willingness of manufacturers to exploit
the confusion that exists in understanding and application of this term.
There are two things you can probably take away from the long winded
arguments that you saw on this list:
a) the topic is confusing to many people, and this allows manufacturers
some freedom to be loose in their use of this specification. (Given the
tone of my participation in the 'interminable' argument, you can understand
that I don't know WHY it is so confusing, but obviously I am not good at
explaining what seems to me to be a simple enough business).
b) if and when ISO publish their standard, and if manufacturers then use
that standard, you should *then* be able to meaningfully compare between
brands.
I think the better way of judging performance at the moment is to go by
price, reviews, and general discussion on lists like this. If you get the
chance, try your own difficult slide on your short listed scanners.
You can learn a lot by searching list archives for the model of your choice.
As so often happens, what makes a good scanner is not necessarily what
appears on specs, and what is important to one person is not necessarily
important to you. An example is the much discussed "problem" of low depth
of field of the Nikon scanner optics. This issue does not appear in specs,
but for some of us is a real problem. If your films have significant curl,
it can be difficult or impossible to get accurate focus across the whole
image. For many people using particular film or slide mounts this is not a
problem, but for me and others it is a real pain in the butt at times.
Another non-specifiable issue which makes a significant difference to the
quality of your output and the time it takes to do a scan is the degree to
which it shows scratches and dust, and the degree to which is shows grain
on particular films. All discussable points and worthy of your thought
before buying.
To emphasise the point about reliance on specs, my first film scanner was
an HP one. I bought it on the basis of specs and value for money, because
I had no opportunity to compare or look at any others. The end of a long
story was that I later got to use someone else's old Nikon (LS30) and was
amazed to find that the LS30scans were vastly superior to the HP scans,
even though there was nothing obvious in the specs to explain that
difference. I returned the HP and bought a Nikon. This was a hard one to
pick because the reviews that were around at the time for the HP were very
positive, and it was only later that people started to become more critical.
The only use I see for dynamic range and "Dmax" figures at the moment is to
compare between different models from the same manufacturer. You could
presume they would be measured consistently, thus this would give you a
fair idea of the performance tradeoffs between say, two Nikon models.
Good luck in your choice,
Julian
At 05:04 04/09/02, you wrote:
>I've been following this discussion intermittently
>looking for some resolution but it seems that there is
>no end in sight. So, to be practical, what specs
>should I look for when shopping for a scanner, and,
>with the ambiguity in the use of terms such as
>"dynamic range" how do I shop and how does one
>manufacturer's use of the term differ from the other's
>use?
>
>Warren
>
>__
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
>http://finance.yahoo.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
