[filmscanners] Re: FINALLY, why Nikon LS-8000 bands
Major A wrote: > Art, > > So this is where the German language is now going. I know that this is > a word that is often misspelt, but only the internet allows people to > write "entlich" without being corrected. Knowing what the correct > spelling is (I lived in Germany for 18 years and did most of my > education there), I tend to shiver for a second, then read on every > time I encounter something like that (there are lots more of this > kind). > Particularly in American English, over time, the masses win. That is how words like "lite" or "brite" end up in the language, or brands like Kleenex and scotch tape, become dictionary words. I suppose it is revenge upon those elitists who either used roots from other languages to develop words, or just decided something should be spelled differently than the way something is pronounced. Over time, the more the "incorrect" spelling is used the more it is reinforced in people's minds, and slowly it becomes general usage. Personally, I think language should be flexible and evolving. English is often the first to come up with new words for new inventions and concepts, while other languages struggle with trying to find word combinations to describe devices. German and French are both bad for this, and create words that even Volkswagen ads have "fun" with. Just today, I was informed that the plural of octopus, is NOT octopi (which would be correct, if the root was in latin). However, since it is a Greek route, (okto -eight pous - foot) the correct plural is either octopodes (which no one uses, and is a Greek plural, not English) or in English, octopuses, however, I don't know that I have ever heard that word used either. So, for most, we have octopi, incorrect based upon academic word use, but in common use. My spell checker accepts both octopi and octopuses, but not octopodes. So much for word origins... now back to scanners Art Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: FINALLY, why Nikon LS-8000 bands
Major, Jack & Julian, My LS4000 Users Guide states that it has a "3964-pixel, linear CCD image sensor". Bob Frost. On 6/13/02 9:53 AM, "Jack Phipps" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Major A [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > I'd like to add here that, apparently, the LS-4000 ED has the same > problem, since it also uses a 3-line sensor. I'm not sure how large > the effect is in that case. > > Hello Major! > I just went to the Nikon site and looked at the technical specification for > an LS-4000. I can't find where it uses a 3-line sensor. Also, the LS-4000 > doesn't give the option of "Fine-mode" (which makes the LS-8000 use only one > of the three sensors) like the LS-8000 does. > > Are you sure it uses a 3-line sensor? - Original Message - From: "Julian Vrieslander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I have an LS-4000. I've never dissassembled it to the point where I could examine the sensor assembly. But I've never seen banding, even when I view 4000 dpi scans onscreen at 100%. If I print the scans on my Epson 1280 *then* I can sometimes see bands. But that's due to clogging of the nozzles on the printer, not the scanner. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: FINALLY, why Nikon LS-8000 bands
Art, > So, in conclusion, I don't think necessarily the other scanners don't > have some of the same mechanical problems the Nikon manifests, it is > just that the design of the other scanners tends to HIDE these problems > by the way they capture and reconstruct the image, while, in fact, the > Nikon LS-8000 would drastically EMPHASIZE these defects by its design > and manner of reconstruction the image. I'd like to add here that, apparently, the LS-4000 ED has the same problem, since it also uses a 3-line sensor. I'm not sure how large the effect is in that case. > Unfortunately, so far, at any cost approaching reasonable, these factors > apparently cannot be designed out of scanners yet, and Nikon, it would > appear, did not factor these physical limitations into the LS-8000. In > fact, this banding problem showed up long before the LS-8000, in some of > the LS-2000 models. I suspect it was further aggravated by the size of > the structures needed in the LS-8000 to handle larger film sizes. I > also suspect this banding problem will become more noticeable with aging > of the device, as tolerances get sloppier still. Really? As far as I can tell, none of the previous scanners had more than one CCD line (LS-2000 certainly didn't), and all Nikon Coolscans had a LED light source, so where did the banding come from? > If I knew that my last name translates from higher German to "Eureka!" > or "Enlightenment". Actually, "endlich" means "at last", and there is no such word in German as "entlich". And I'm not a military official either. Andras === Major Andras e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] www:http://andras.webhop.org/ === Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
