I will leave this for those using this model to respond. There were reports with older models about banding, and Nikon's response at that time was to go to the super fine mode which used one CCD line only, at the cost of speed.
Some people claimed the banding was rare or never occurred, others stated it only showed up in certain types of slides or subject matter, some returned the machine due to the banding unhappy with the result. Art [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I can see how banding would be a problem. So is the 5000 ED > significantly better than the Minolta 5400 II? The nikon is nearly twice > the cost and slides are 99% of what I scan, i.e. no problem with film > strips. > > Arthur Entlich wrote: > > >>Speed. >> >>It can scan 2 or 3 scan lines at the same time, using the same lighting >>sequencing and same stepper motor position. The lines are not necessary >>right next to one another, in fact, they probably aren't. >> >>The only problem Nikon has run into with this technique is banding, >>since by doing several lines at once, spaced apart, by the time the >>adjacent line gets next ti it on one side, the dimensions or position >>might have changes due to thermal changes or other factors. This was a >>problem with earlier medium format models, but perhaps it was resolved. >> >>On those models Nikon suggested moving to ultra fine scanning mode which >>used only one CCD line, but also slowed the unit down by 1/3rd or so. >> >>Art >> >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> >> >> >>>Any ideas why Nikon would need multiline CCDs? The 5000 uses 2 lines, >>>and the 9000 uses 3 lines. >>> >>>Since Nikon doesn't use color masks, you would think a one line CCD >>>would be sufficient. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
