[filmscanners] Re: Nikon LS4000 Depth of field
At 11:46 AM 4/26/2002 +1000, Julian wrote: >If you want to check your scanner, I describe an easy way on > >http://members.austarmetro.com.au/~julian/photography/ls2000-focus.htm Very interesting and straight forward test. Would it be possible for the scanning software to take multiple focus points and adjust the focus position as the ccd scans the film? Another feature for VueScan? Wayne Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Nikon LS4000 Depth of field
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > It would just gall me to spend that much on a scanner and still have to worry about > focus. (I cut my teeth on a Minolta Elite which had fixed focus and yet was sharp >over > the whole frame.) > > > > Al Bond A fixed focus scanner would likely be such because it has a very wide DOF. These scanners, in general, use a long optical path, allowing for a more DOF, but sometimes this design has other problems. As film scanners have heightened their resolution, ability to focus has been incorporated because even fixed focus has its limits which might have been less obvious when resolution wasn't as high. Art Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Nikon LS4000 Depth of field
Julian Robinson wrote: > If you want to check your scanner, I describe an easy way on > > http://members.austarmetro.com.au/~julian/photography/ls2000-focus.htm What a very useful page. Have you had any feedback from LS-40, LS-4000 or LS-8000 users on the effective DOF on these scanners? Are these different from your measurement on the LS-2000 of 24 Nikon focus units for general use and 12 focus units for the grain critical sharpness? (I know this assumes, quite possibly wrongly, that the focus units in Nikonscan are constant between the scanners.) >From recent posts, it's certainly clear that some LS4000 owners take a similar >approach to you to find the optimum focus point and still cannot always get the entire film plane within the effective DOF. I'm curious whether the design changes needed to achieve 4000dpi have made the DOF better or worse. From the number of posts about DOF problems, it sounds like it has got worse but only this sort of test separates the facts from hearsay. Ironically, the (mould damaged) films I have that would benefit from ICE are also quite bowed so solving one problem could easily introduce another :-) Al Bond Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Nikon LS4000 Depth of field
Thanks Julian. I'll take a look to your stuff and will get back. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Julian Robinson Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 3:46 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Nikon LS4000 Depth of field At 02:00 26/04/02, Alex Z wrote: >I wonder whether the IV ED also suffers from this problem since I suspect it >has almost the same hardware (except of the sensor). >In fact, I remember noticing uneven sharpness descending near slide mount >edges, but wasn't sure this is scanner's fault or the slide has been exposed >that way (didn't have time to check the original under the loupe or play >with manual focus point adjustment then) Yes AFAIK all Nikon scanners are the same - must be Nikon's design choice to use relatively large aperture lens, perhaps to make up for lower light output from LEDs? I don't know why they don't make the lens variable aperture, since they seem to have at least 2 stops of extra light (or exposure anyway, maybe it is partly extra exposure time) available using analogue gain control. Why not stop the lens down 2 stops and use max analog gain for normal exposure operations? Then you'd get a significant increase in Depth of Field and greatly reduce the unsharpness problems at edges and corners. If you want to check your scanner, I describe an easy way on http://members.austarmetro.com.au/~julian/photography/ls2000-focus.htm I'd be interested to hear your results on a couple of typical negs/slides, and also interested if you have trouble with the complexity of my instructions. I've had one person tell me they couldn't understand it, but a number seem to have found it useful so I am wondering if I need to re-word it. Julian 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
[filmscanners] Re: Nikon LS4000 Depth of field
Dickbo wrote: > I might also point out that comparing the Nikon scanner with the Polaroid > Sprintscan 120 is utter nonsense because in the UK a typical asking price > for the Nikon is £1299.00 while for the Polaroid it is £2,899.00 > > I would suggest that it is easier and cheaper to put glass around a film > image than it is to fork out the additional £1,600 not to have to so do. I must have missed a post somewhere - I don't recall this comparison being mentioned but it would certainly be an odd one given that the SS120 is an MF scanner! It would be more sensible to the compare the SS4000Plus (or the Microtek 4000tf) to the LS4000. Given that the I've seen the 4000tf priced at around £800, the arguament then becomes why fork out an additional £400+ and still have to put glass around the film. Al Bond Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Nikon LS4000 Depth of field
I wrote > > Firstly, does the setting of focus point in this way work for 100% of > > shots or are badly bowed slides still compromised? Tony Terlecki replied: > No it doesn't because film can be bowed differently depending on the mount, > etc. You personally need to find how far from the focus plane is acceptable > for you and then take it from there. I sample various points on the film and > then make a decision. It's time intensive but by far the best method. I > also now do my best to ensure film is flat before scanning - I don't mount > film anymore and also try and flatten it out prior to scanning (weighting it > under books etc.). If all else fails then I cut the frame from the strip and > mount on a glass mount. Tony, Thanks for your input. I don't think remounting the slides is an option for me - a lot of them are my wife's and she doesn't trust my dexterity enough (probably rightly so!). I guess I'm not surprised that positioning the focus point in a single position isn't a totally effective fix - if it were Nikon would have incorporated it into Nikonscan. It would just gall me to spend that much on a scanner and still have to worry about focus. (I cut my teeth on a Minolta Elite which had fixed focus and yet was sharp over the whole frame.) Al Bond Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Nikon LS4000 Depth of field
My dear sir if an individual spent their entire life being concerned with negative possibilities as against first hand actualities, then they would most certainly have developed a substantial facial twitch. I do not have a facial twitch and I do not concern myself with that which has not yet been seen to happen. - Original Message - From: "Peter Marquis-Kyle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 5:16 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Nikon LS4000 Depth of field dickbo discounts the problems of glass mounted slides deteriorating: > I have several carosel's here which contain glass mounted Kodachromes at > least 30 years old and nothing has happened yet. The worst that cane be said > is that every now and again it is necessary to re seat them in order to > remove newton rings. But there's a logical flaw in saying "I never saw it, so it doesn't exist". Storage conditions -- temperature, humidity, presence of fungal spores -- will have an influence. I have seen enough mouldy glass mounted slides to take this issue seriously (I live in the sub-tropical zone). As to out-gassing, I would keep an ear open to what the conservators say. Peter Marquis-Kyle 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
[filmscanners] Re: Nikon LS4000 Depth of field
On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 11:59:16PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi, > > I know there are regular posts about the limited depth of field of the > LS4000 and one work around was to set the focus to some point > between the centre and the corner of the frame. (I believe this is > how Vuescan focusses by default on this scanner.) > > Although I think most people accept this is a valid concern, I'm still > unclear how effective this approach is in getting round the issue. > So two questions for those who have used the LS4000. > > Firstly, does the setting of focus point in this way work for 100% of > shots or are badly bowed slides still compromised? > No it doesn't because film can be bowed differently depending on the mount, etc. You personally need to find how far from the focus plane is acceptable for you and then take it from there. I sample various points on the film and then make a decision. It's time intensive but by far the best method. I also now do my best to ensure film is flat before scanning - I don't mount film anymore and also try and flatten it out prior to scanning (weighting it under books etc.). If all else fails then I cut the frame from the strip and mount on a glass mount. -- Tony Terlecki [EMAIL PROTECTED] Running Debian/GNU 2.2 Linux Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Nikon LS4000 Depth of field
dickbo wrote: > Just mount in glass and the problem ceases to exist, not only that your > originals are better protected. > Most, if not all, photo archivists will tell you today that glass mounting of slides is considered to accelerate aging due to chemical off-gassing getting trapped between the glass and slide. Also, the risk of fungal growth or other moisture related problems are higher with glass mounted slides. You are correct that they are better protected from handling errors. Art Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Nikon LS4000 Depth of field
Just mount in glass and the problem ceases to exist, not only that your originals are better protected. - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 11:59 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Nikon LS4000 Depth of field Hi, I know there are regular posts about the limited depth of field of the LS4000 and one work around was to set the focus to some point between the centre and the corner of the frame. (I believe this is how Vuescan focusses by default on this scanner.) Although I think most people accept this is a valid concern, I'm still unclear how effective this approach is in getting round the issue. So two questions for those who have used the LS4000. Firstly, does the setting of focus point in this way work for 100% of shots or are badly bowed slides still compromised? Secondly, does Nikonscan allow you to set the manual focus point permanently to the optimum point or does it have to be reset for each scan? This issue seems to be the only real negative aspect of this scanner (well apart from the price and Nikon's notoriously poor customer support!). I hadn't intended to the stretch my budget to an LS4000 but recent posts on it's ability to get right into the shadows on dense slides (apparently without streaking or banding) have made me more interested in it. (I think I have also pursuaded myself that I do need the extra resolution of a 4000dpi scanner.) Given that the Canon FS4000 doesn't seem, by all accounts, to perform quite as well in the shadows and that Polaroid SS4000Plus may never reach Europe, my options are rather limited! Al Bond 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
