Re: filmscanners: Nikon film flatness (was Glass slide mounts)
- Original Message - From: Neil Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 3:37 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Nikon film flatness (was Glass slide mounts) and you thought this thread had died.. G Well, someone asked if the AN coatings of Glass Slides would show in a scan and I can say that with Quickpoint slides of the type I have at least, it most certainly DOES. You get a sort of grassy looking star pattern that is terrible especially in skys or continuous tone areas. Huge yuk! Yup... that was me... at least, i did ask and no one replied... till now :) Well, asked about the Nikon 4000ED in this very forum... was told it was great... no one mentioned the focus/sharpness problem... and now i'm stuck what makes matters worse is that i run a W2K, dual processor system and Nikon Scan keeps crashing configuring it run on a single PC is of no use. There was a very helpful suggestion from an individual (complete with all the necessary instructions) to boot as a single processor system whenever i want to run Nikon Scan. I'm getting more and more tempted to take him up on his suggestion. Its just a shame tho' that one expects so much from a company like Nikon and even the software doesn't work Shunith --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.282 / Virus Database: 150 - Release Date: 25/09/2001
Re: filmscanners: Nikon film flatness (was Glass slide mounts)
Supposedly, Nikon Scan 3.1.1 is round the corner. I can't imagine that Nikon would risk their reputation by _not_ solving the MP / Win2000 crashes. (Are you reading this Nikon? How could you release such a pile of crap as 3.1 ?) / Svante Kleist, Stockholm --On Wednesday, October 24, 2001 11:14 +0530 Shunith Dutt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Neil Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 3:37 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Nikon film flatness (was Glass slide mounts) and you thought this thread had died.. G Well, someone asked if the AN coatings of Glass Slides would show in a scan and I can say that with Quickpoint slides of the type I have at least, it most certainly DOES. You get a sort of grassy looking star pattern that is terrible especially in skys or continuous tone areas. Huge yuk! Yup... that was me... at least, i did ask and no one replied... till now :) Well, asked about the Nikon 4000ED in this very forum... was told it was great... no one mentioned the focus/sharpness problem... and now i'm stuck what makes matters worse is that i run a W2K, dual processor system and Nikon Scan keeps crashing configuring it run on a single PC is of no use. There was a very helpful suggestion from an individual (complete with all the necessary instructions) to boot as a single processor system whenever i want to run Nikon Scan. I'm getting more and more tempted to take him up on his suggestion. Its just a shame tho' that one expects so much from a company like Nikon and even the software doesn't work Shunith --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.282 / Virus Database: 150 - Release Date: 25/09/2001
Re: filmscanners: Nikon film flatness (was Glass slide mounts)
Svante Kleist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can't imagine that Nikon would risk their reputation by _not_ solving the MP / Win2000 crashes. They risked their reputation by not fixing the jaggies problem with Nikonscan 2.x for how long? :) Rob
Re: filmscanners: Nikon film flatness (was Glass slide mounts)
- Original Message - From: Svante Kleist [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 12:41 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon film flatness (was Glass slide mounts) Supposedly, Nikon Scan 3.1.1 is round the corner. I can't imagine that Nikon would risk their reputation by _not_ solving the MP / Win2000 crashes. (Are you reading this Nikon? How could you release such a pile of crap as 3.1 ?) Doubt it... there were a couple of links i've stumbled across in searches and definitely Nikon has no plans to solve this problem... http://www.mail-archive.com/filmscanners@halftone.co.uk/msg14230.html To quote from the above link... which, incidentally, is this very one! : It is known by Nikon that there are problems with Dual Processor PC's, both Windows and Mac. Although the Product Brochures do not specifically say the 2CPU machines will not work, neither do they say it does. Dual Processors are good but only for applications that are designed for them like Photoshop. Ours is not and probably will not be for the foreseeable future The effing nerve --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.282 / Virus Database: 150 - Release Date: 25/09/2001
Re: filmscanners: Nikon film flatness (was Glass slide mounts)
Nikon is wrong. This is simply not the case with Windows NT/2K/XP, which all evolved from the same core. Software can benefit from being optimized for multiprocessors, but optimization is not necessary unless the software vendor is using non standard calls into the OS. The hardware abstraction layer will make the number of processors transparent to any application. The extent to which optimization is needed, and the nature of the optimization is in the area of threading. The more threads an application has, the greater the performance increase additional processors will be observed. It sounds like Nikon is not observing published API calls, probably in the area of memory management, which is a shame, because NT really does handle these things quite well, especially in latest versions (e.g. NT4 SP6, Win2K and presumably XP). The Mac OS (at least prior to version X, and maybe that, too) *do* specifically need custom versions of an application in order to take advantage of multiple processors. If Nikon want to take a weasely way out by saying that it isn't specifically stated as supporting any given hardware, then they are, in my opinion, obligated to list the specific hardware it is *only* certified to work on, or else offer extremely wide latitude for returns due to unsupported, but not documented as such, hardware incompatibilities. Pat - Original Message - From: Shunith Dutt [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Svante Kleist [EMAIL PROTECTED] Supposedly, Nikon Scan 3.1.1 is round the corner. I can't imagine that Nikon would risk their reputation by _not_ solving the MP / Win2000 crashes. (Are you reading this Nikon? How could you release such a pile of crap as 3.1 ?) Doubt it... there were a couple of links i've stumbled across in searches and definitely Nikon has no plans to solve this problem... http://www.mail-archive.com/filmscanners@halftone.co.uk/msg14230.html To quote from the above link... which, incidentally, is this very one! : It is known by Nikon that there are problems with Dual Processor PC's, both Windows and Mac. Although the Product Brochures do not specifically say the 2CPU machines will not work, neither do they say it does. Dual Processors are good but only for applications that are designed for them like Photoshop. Ours is not and probably will not be for the foreseeable future The effing nerve _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
RE: filmscanners: Nikon film flatness (was Glass slide mounts)
is in the area of threading. The more threads an application has, the Absolutely, and the thread(s - yeah right) monopolise the CPU. Have you ever noticed how with a fast PC you can surf the net, check email, work on an image in PS AND scan a 128mb file in Vuescan, play a CD and the CPU is doing virtually zilch, then with NS3.1 a lot of the time the CPU is pegged at 95-100% - by itself! Exhibiting typical highest priority, single thread behaviour if you ask me. They need to hire a few decent developers IMO! NS is way too resource hungry, it acts like it owns the system and that is part of the problem with all these crashes IMO. Whats funny compared to others on W2K, I personally haven't had many crashes with NS3.1 (like 2?!) and I like it's interface and think it's better than Vuescan in a number of ways - namely pre scan curve adjustments, gain, manual focus points etc - but I use NS now only for chrome. Vuescan somehow seems to smack NS when it comes to BW negs - oh and it has _never crashed on me, even on an 'ancient' Celeron 400. N
Re: filmscanners: Nikon film flatness (was Glass slide mounts)
You could have, if you wanted to... Art PS: At least I can have final words... and then drop it. Austin Franklin wrote: Since you felt the need to get in your final word (actually several hundred... but who is counting ;-) I'll do the same... My, how entirely uncharacteristic of you, Arthur! Sorry, I couldn't resist ;-) .
RE: filmscanners: Nikon film flatness (was Glass slide mounts)
and you thought this thread had died.. G Well, someone asked if the AN coatings of Glass Slides would show in a scan and I can say that with Quickpoint slides of the type I have at least, it most certainly DOES. You get a sort of grassy looking star pattern that is terrible especially in skys or continuous tone areas. Huge yuk! Basically I've decided I either use Glass slides and mount them reversed away from the AN coatings, or if I get Newton rings then stuff them in the FH-3 or in a std Slide mount (urgh). I am really wondering whether or not I should have got a Polaroid. Especially since I've found how easy it is to correct dust problems etc in PS6 not being a digital type before. This sharpness issue is a real pain IMO. Some scans I just can't get sharp, even with some of my best chromes (tack sharp under a loupe and shot on Leica glass, tripod mounted yadda yadda) and PS sharpening using various methods, actions etc just introduce too much noise when I want to blow them up to say Super A3. Have to live with it now I guess... Hmph. I've basically settled on the above mounting procedures with manual focus point selection in NS3.1, 14bit scanning, 16x sampling, ICE/GEM etc off, Color management off and color editing the file in 16bit mode in PS. Scanner pumps out 130mb files - ok on a grunt box PC like mine but a MPITA for a lot of others out there I bet having lived with a 433 Celeron laptop for ages. I do sharpening in 8bit, LAB mode using various PS actions. Any other suggestions for improving sharpness gratefully received! :) I really would love to see a crop from Polaroid scan of the same chrome side by side with one from a LS4000. Would be interesting.. 'ave a good one, Neil
RE: filmscanners: Nikon film flatness (was Glass slide mounts)
I really would love to see a crop from Polaroid scan of the same chrome side by side with one from a LS4000. Would be interesting.. 'ave a good one, Neil Try http://www.imaging-resource.com/. Mike Duncan
Re: filmscanners: Nikon film flatness (was Glass slide mounts)
Since you felt the need to get in your final word (actually several hundred... but who is counting ;-) I'll do the same... I would agree with most of what you said IF, 1) Nikon made this matter clear in their advertising, or at least somewhere that the consumer could read it 2) Knowing this fact, they provided a glass carrier included with the scanner, since they must realize that people spending the amount they ask for a higher end consumer scanner are looking for edge to edge sharpness 3) other 4000 dpi scanners were unable to do any better in this department. Clearly (excuse the pun) this is NOT the case in any of the above. Personally, I don't care if the problem with these scanners is due to low lux light sources, bad lenses, optical design or because Nikon is from the planet Mars. The point is, the problem not only exists and is left basically unacknowledged, but a good many people apparently don't much like it, and it would appear the same good many people do not want to ravage their mounted slides to place them into glass carriers, and deal with that whole range of problems. I guess the real question for many is, does whatever advantage the Nikon film scanners provide (if any) over the competition (SS4000, SS4000+, Canon FS4000, etc) justify all the problems this shallow DOF creates in the work flow? That is up to each individual, but I think they ALL deserved the right to have known what to expect BEFORE they made their purchase. If Nikon was more forthright about this matter, I'd have little more, if anything, to say about it. Art PAUL GRAHAM wrote: Hi all, My opinion on film flatness has been explained before, so this will be my final word on the topic. I've worked in very high end darkrooms for 20 years, typically making 4 foot to 6 foot prints (110 to 180cm) every day, from 35mm and medium format negs. That is an enlargement factor of 5000%. I have the brightest enlarger heads for these formats - 1000W of halogen lamps, BUT.. I still have problems with film flatness. Brighter light sources make no difference - you simply have to use a glass film holder for this type of high quality work to get edge to edge film flatness.. there is no other way, and there has been no real alternative in 100 years of darkroom technique/ equipment. Now a regular home enthusiast with a small enlarger won't use a glass holder because they don't look so closely at detail corner sharpness plus typically they stop down too much (enlarger lenses are at their optimum 2 stops down, any more degrades the resolution) to get the depth of field/ corner sharpness, which masks any uneveness of film. Or perhaps their lenses are not as wide in aperture to begin with. My point is that the higher your demands get, the more you notice things like film flatness becoming critical. Cheap scanners, or low resolution scanners, like cheap enlargers, dont show the best from the film, but neither do they show the faults in the technique, such as absolutely flat film. it's a good compromise - a stopped down aperture masks a lot of alignment issues that look good up to a point but ask for resolution beyond that point, and the problems begin. I think this is what we are coming across with the new high end prosumer scanners. If you want the ultimate - a 4000 dpi scan, with edge to edge sharpness, then you may have to accept that you need to use glass holders or take other measures to ensure flat film. My point has always been that it is wrong to expect ultimate resolution corner to corner by just dropping a strip of film in a holder and pressing 'scan'. Nobody in the pro-scanning world of drum scanners does that or gets that. Nobody in professional darkroom work does that or gets that. So lets get realistic here... Maybe, just maybe, Nikons approach has been to use a light source that requires a wider lens aperture, gaining very high resolution (they come top in most critical resolution tests) and long term colour stability. Polaroid have taken a different path, used a different (brighter) light source, a smaller aperture and gained depth of field, trading off against ultimate resolution. Nikon make and sell glass holders for their scanners, so... You pay your money and you makes your choice... paul
RE: filmscanners: Nikon film flatness (was Glass slide mounts)
For someone with time, Photoshop savvy, and an important slide that suffers from the focus problem, I would like to recommend A Multifocus Method for Controlling Depth of Field at http://www.sgi.com/grafica/depth/index.html The author, Paul Haeberli, takes two images of the same scene and performs some manipulations to create a single image that retains the sharpest portions of each individual image. When applied to scanners, the two images would be scans with the focus set to different places on the slide. It should not be hard to create Photoshop action that will combine the sharpest portion of two scans using this technique.
RE: filmscanners: Nikon film flatness (was Glass slide mounts)
Since you felt the need to get in your final word (actually several hundred... but who is counting ;-) I'll do the same... My, how entirely uncharacteristic of you, Arthur! Sorry, I couldn't resist ;-)
RE: filmscanners: Nikon film flatness (was Glass slide mounts)
Do Nikon make glass holders for the LS2000? I have never had this suggested to me by Nikon, but this may be because in Australia we are several light years away from the manufacturer and thus accurate information. Julian At 10:23 21/10/01, you wrote: Nikon make and sell glass holders for their scanners, so... You pay your money and you makes your choice...
RE: filmscanners: Nikon film flatness (was Glass slide mounts)
Bill, My only conclusion is that something must be up with the 4000 (which I don't have) compared to the 8000 (which I do). By rights, the medium format 8000 should by far have the bigger problem with film flatness, but I can assure you that it's fine - no more nor less than one would expect. I use glassless carriers for most work, and glass ones for any dimensionally challenged (!) film. But I have nothing like the problems you describe, and no idea why. A smaller format should be far easier to control than a larger one. so assuming we have similar expectations, your problems seem greater than mine, with no logical explanation. As for glass mounting, I was mainly talking about unmounted strips of film (easy to put in a glass carrrier) rather than individual slides, so I appreciate your reluctance. My only caveat is that there are very well known problems with bowing of cardboard slide mounts, which you do specifically mention yours being, so... how much flatness should you expect from an ageing (warping) piece of card and glue? and how much should you expect a scanner to deal with that issue? I would ship some of them over to plastic mounts and see what changes that makes. Of course if your film has been sitting for years in a bowed card mount, then it would have to be a glass slide to force it back into shape. Do you find exactly the same problem with plastic mounted kodachromes? The other thought: all the posts complaining about this issue have been from 4000 owners too. none from 8000 people. hmmm. hope you find a workable answer to your frustrations, bests, paul -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bill Fernandez Sent: 20 October 2001 15:28 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Nikon film flatness (was Glass slide mounts) Paul-- Your post was very sane and reasonable and after reading it I was feeling that maybe life isn't so bad after all... until I turned back to my shiny new, $1,600 Nikon LS-4000ED and returned to wrestling with focus problems. Your final word is a good one so you don't have to respond, but I'd at least like to share my thoughts with the list. Three years ago I bought a 2,400 dpi Minolta Scan Dual for $500 which was the best I could afford at the time. It scans one of my favorite Kodachrome 64 slides with even sharpness across the entire field, even into the corners, albeit only at 2,400 dpi. Now, three years later, I spend three times as much for a top of the line scanner with two or three generations of improvement. I find that on this favorite slide I can get it sharp in the center and fuzzy in the corners or vice versa. Or, if I set the focus point (numerically) halfway in between then I get maximum sharpness in a ring-shaped region, while the center and corners are BOTH out of focus. Now there's nothing wrong with this in principle, and I wouldn't mind if it was only a little bit out of focus, it's just that (with the focus at the halfway point) the center and corners are no sharper than my three year old scanner is across it's entire field. So it's very disappointing to wait three years and spend three times as much to get no better sharpness across the field than what I've already got (other things are LOTS better, but here I'm concentrating on the focus problem). Now even this wouldn't be so bad if all the other scanners had the same problem. But I've never heard about this as an issue with the Polariod SprintScan 4000, or the Canon FS4000, or higher end scanners such as the Imacon flextites (although there was a recent post by a person who's had this issue with his Artixscan 4000). So here I am with thousands of cardboard mounted Kodachromes, of which perhaps a hundred are worth some serious attention, and I have to think: If I focus near the center and let the edges and corners go so fuzzy that (depending on the slide) they're no better than a 1,000 to 2,400 dpi scanner, is that good enough for images I really care about? Will the fuzziness show on the largest prints I'm likely to make? Am I willing to put up with the incredible hassle of glass mounting a hundred (or hundreds?) of slides? And when I get to my negative strips, will I have to slice the good ones out of the middles and glass mount them too? Would I have avoided this problem entirely had I bought a Polaroid or Canon? I wouldn't mind if the sharpness only varied a little bit across the field. But losing half the resolution of the scanner is highly unsatisfactory, both intellectually and visually. --Bill
RE: filmscanners: Nikon film flatness (was Glass slide mounts)
Hi Paul-- In fact the favorite slide I mentioned has been in a Spiratone SnapIt plastic mount for the past 10 years at least. It IS visibly curved, but not by cardboard. It is interesting that, as you say, I've never heard this complaint from LS-8000 owners. --Thanks, Bill At 2:05 PM -0700 21-10-01, Paul Graham wrote: I would ship some of them over to plastic mounts and see what changes that makes. Of course if your film has been sitting for years in a bowed card mount, then it would have to be a glass slide to force it back into shape. Do you find exactly the same problem with plastic mounted kodachromes? The other thought: all the posts complaining about this issue have been from 4000 owners too. none from 8000 people. hmmm. -- == Bill Fernandez * User Interface Architect * Bill Fernandez Design (505) 346-3080 * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://billfernandez.com ==
Re: filmscanners: Nikon film flatness (was Glass slide mounts)
I was the first person to write about the focus problem with curved film and the LS4000 scanner in mars 2001. Some people in the scanner group almost hang me because of my criticism about the LS2000 and LS 4000 scanners . I have still the same problem when I use my two Nikon scanners but no problem with my old Polaroid 35+ regarding ower all sharpness of a picture. Take a look at http://members.austarmetro.com.au/~julian/ls2000-focus.htm Nice conclusion Best regards Mikael Risedal Happy Nikon D1X owner (no problem with curved film , grain and dirty colors) From: Peter Marquis-Kyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: Nikon film flatness (was Glass slide mounts) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 13:19:03 +1000 Neil Cotty reported that, with his Nikon LS4000 scanner, the SA-21 Strip Film Feeder does a better job of holding the film flat than the FH-3 Strip Film Holder. His results (listed from worst to best) were Std. Mounted Slides FH-3 Strip Film Holder in Slide Carrier SA-21 Strip Film Feeder Glass Slide Mounts I suspect different specimens of Nikon scanners, and their film holding gadgets, vary in their accuracy. Getting the film flat and parallel with the plane of focus is critical in Nikon scanners because of the shallow depth of field. If you are lucky, some of the misalignments in the different components will cancel out. For someone used to the solidity and accuracy of a Leitz enlarger, its a wonder these bits of Nikon plastic work as well as they do... With my LS-30, I found the Holder held the film flat enough for a grain-sharp scan of the whole frame, while the Feeder did not. I used the test method developed by Julian Robinson ( http://members.austarmetro.com.au/~julian/ls2000-focus.htm ) which I commend to anyone with a Nikon film scanner. An hour of testing was enough to show me what works well (and what doesn't) with my scanner. Peter Marquis-Kyle _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
RE: filmscanners: Nikon film flatness (was Glass slide mounts)
Hi all, My opinion on film flatness has been explained before, so this will be my final word on the topic. I've worked in very high end darkrooms for 20 years, typically making 4 foot to 6 foot prints (110 to 180cm) every day, from 35mm and medium format negs. That is an enlargement factor of 5000%. I have the brightest enlarger heads for these formats - 1000W of halogen lamps, BUT.. I still have problems with film flatness. Brighter light sources make no difference - you simply have to use a glass film holder for this type of high quality work to get edge to edge film flatness.. there is no other way, and there has been no real alternative in 100 years of darkroom technique/ equipment. Now a regular home enthusiast with a small enlarger won't use a glass holder because they don't look so closely at detail corner sharpness plus typically they stop down too much (enlarger lenses are at their optimum 2 stops down, any more degrades the resolution) to get the depth of field/ corner sharpness, which masks any uneveness of film. Or perhaps their lenses are not as wide in aperture to begin with. My point is that the higher your demands get, the more you notice things like film flatness becoming critical. Cheap scanners, or low resolution scanners, like cheap enlargers, dont show the best from the film, but neither do they show the faults in the technique, such as absolutely flat film. it's a good compromise - a stopped down aperture masks a lot of alignment issues that look good up to a point but ask for resolution beyond that point, and the problems begin. I think this is what we are coming across with the new high end prosumer scanners. If you want the ultimate - a 4000 dpi scan, with edge to edge sharpness, then you may have to accept that you need to use glass holders or take other measures to ensure flat film. My point has always been that it is wrong to expect ultimate resolution corner to corner by just dropping a strip of film in a holder and pressing 'scan'. Nobody in the pro-scanning world of drum scanners does that or gets that. Nobody in professional darkroom work does that or gets that. So lets get realistic here... Maybe, just maybe, Nikons approach has been to use a light source that requires a wider lens aperture, gaining very high resolution (they come top in most critical resolution tests) and long term colour stability. Polaroid have taken a different path, used a different (brighter) light source, a smaller aperture and gained depth of field, trading off against ultimate resolution. Nikon make and sell glass holders for their scanners, so... You pay your money and you makes your choice... paul
RE: filmscanners: Nikon film flatness (was Glass slide mounts)
Paul-- Your post was very sane and reasonable and after reading it I was feeling that maybe life isn't so bad after all... until I turned back to my shiny new, $1,600 Nikon LS-4000ED and returned to wrestling with focus problems. Your final word is a good one so you don't have to respond, but I'd at least like to share my thoughts with the list. Three years ago I bought a 2,400 dpi Minolta Scan Dual for $500 which was the best I could afford at the time. It scans one of my favorite Kodachrome 64 slides with even sharpness across the entire field, even into the corners, albeit only at 2,400 dpi. Now, three years later, I spend three times as much for a top of the line scanner with two or three generations of improvement. I find that on this favorite slide I can get it sharp in the center and fuzzy in the corners or vice versa. Or, if I set the focus point (numerically) halfway in between then I get maximum sharpness in a ring-shaped region, while the center and corners are BOTH out of focus. Now there's nothing wrong with this in principle, and I wouldn't mind if it was only a little bit out of focus, it's just that (with the focus at the halfway point) the center and corners are no sharper than my three year old scanner is across it's entire field. So it's very disappointing to wait three years and spend three times as much to get no better sharpness across the field than what I've already got (other things are LOTS better, but here I'm concentrating on the focus problem). Now even this wouldn't be so bad if all the other scanners had the same problem. But I've never heard about this as an issue with the Polariod SprintScan 4000, or the Canon FS4000, or higher end scanners such as the Imacon flextites (although there was a recent post by a person who's had this issue with his Artixscan 4000). So here I am with thousands of cardboard mounted Kodachromes, of which perhaps a hundred are worth some serious attention, and I have to think: If I focus near the center and let the edges and corners go so fuzzy that (depending on the slide) they're no better than a 1,000 to 2,400 dpi scanner, is that good enough for images I really care about? Will the fuzziness show on the largest prints I'm likely to make? Am I willing to put up with the incredible hassle of glass mounting a hundred (or hundreds?) of slides? And when I get to my negative strips, will I have to slice the good ones out of the middles and glass mount them too? Would I have avoided this problem entirely had I bought a Polaroid or Canon? I wouldn't mind if the sharpness only varied a little bit across the field. But losing half the resolution of the scanner is highly unsatisfactory, both intellectually and visually. --Bill At 5:23 PM -0700 20-10-01, PAUL GRAHAM wrote: Hi all, My opinion on film flatness has been explained before, so this will be my final word on the topic -- == Bill Fernandez * User Interface Architect * Bill Fernandez Design (505) 346-3080 * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://billfernandez.com ==
