It would get irritating, Ed.
You do good work!
Hersch
At 03:30 AM 11/24/2001, you wrote:
In a message dated 11/24/2001
6:05:20 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I think someone just quoted Nikon's own manual in one of the
groups
> (maybe this one) and it stated that the LED brightness was
alte
Nikon might be approaching the limits of linearity in the LEDs. They
also need to be able to have a range of brightness available to them for
the "analog exposure" they offer. Since Blue LEDs are (or at least
were) the least bright, they might be the limiting factor.
Art
Julian Robinson wro
In a message dated 11/21/2001 8:07:15 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Nikon might be approaching the limits of linearity in the LEDs. They
> also need to be able to have a range of brightness available to them for
> the "analog exposure" they offer.
No, Nikon scanners don't vary the bri
I don't believe this is correct. I own quite a few Kodak and Navitar
lenses for projectors, going back many years. Kodak originally produced
flat field lenses which were designed for flat slides, but it caused
Kodak's own mounted slides, (paper mounts) for Kodachrome and Ektachrome
to look bad
I don't believe this is correct. I own quite a few Kodak and Navitar
lenses for projectors. Kodak originally produced flat field lenses
which were designed for flat slides, but it caused Kodak's own mounted
slides, (paper mounts) for Kodachrome and Ektachrome to look bad. So
they introduced
>From: Julian Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000
>Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 11:43:41 +1100
>
>
>>At 9:44 AM -0500 20-11-01, Bruce Kinch wrote:
>>>
&
AIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 4:28 PM
Subject: Re: Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000
> Thanks Bruce - yes, as soon as I started projecting Kchromes, I
encountered this problem, so I went back to the shop to ask how I could get
on 11/20/01 2:26 PM, Bill Fernandez at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> At 9:44 AM -0500 20-11-01, Bruce Kinch wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps it's worth noting that Kodak now provides "curved field"
>> projection lenses as standard for normal (cardboard, presumably)
>> mounted slides in their Carousel projector
>At 9:44 AM -0500 20-11-01, Bruce Kinch wrote:
>>
>>Perhaps it's worth noting that Kodak now provides "curved field"
>>projection lenses as standard for normal (cardboard, presumably) mounted
>>slides in their Carousel projectors, but their older "flat field" design
>>is recommended for glass
Mikael - thanks for this useful info. It is interesting that the different
generations of scanners have the same depth of field although they have
totally different optics. Means that Nikon must be holding a firm line
against other constraints (such as LED brightness).
Cheers
Julian
At 20:1
Thanks Bruce - yes, as soon as I started projecting Kchromes, I encountered this
problem, so I went back to the shop to ask how I could get them sharp edge-to-edge on
screen.. I ended up buying one of those curved field lenses (I think it's a Leitz?)
to suit my Rollei projector, and it gives s
At 9:44 AM -0500 20-11-01, Bruce Kinch wrote:
>
>Perhaps it's worth noting that Kodak now provides "curved field"
>projection lenses as standard for normal (cardboard, presumably)
>mounted slides in their Carousel projectors, but their older "flat
>field" design is recommended for glass mounted
etter in LS4000 than LS2000.
Best regards
Mikael Risedal
>From: Julian Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000 >Mikael
>Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 17:30:16 +1100
>
>Mik
"Bill Fernandez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> this regard, but the comments were mild. Other than that I don't
> remember anyone anywhere mentioning FOCUS as a problem with the
> Polaroid.
Strictly speaking, the problem with the Nikon is depth of field, not focus.
:)
[question to all]
Has anyon
quot; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000
>Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 17:11:52 -0500
>
>But a number of months ago you claimed success in focusing by selecting a
>focus po
>From: "Brian D. Plikaytis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000
>Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 17:11:52 -0500
>
>But a number of months ago you claimed succ
I also have just done some tests with my LS4000 and can conclude exactly the
same. Differences in 10 or or focus units shows a definite blur in those
areas.
Some people are mentioning that they use glass and I suppose I must also
do this if I am to get sharp scans - what a pain!
Are there any re
: "Mikael Risedal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 2:25 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000
> The answer is NO to your question below Brian.
> Do a test by your self. Take a slide or negative film
Hello Lawrence
Nice to here from you again.
What kind of drum scanner and price?
Best regards Mikael Risedal
--
>From: Lawrence Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: "filmscanners halftone.co.uk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: f
> I had the same focus issues with my 8000 although I did not know it at the
> time. When I replaced it with a drum scanner and compared scans (120
film)
> from the drum to those from the 8000, I discovered that the nikon scans
were
> not sharp to the edges. When viewed by themselves, the nikon
I had the same focus issues with my 8000 although I did not know it at the
time. When I replaced it with a drum scanner and compared scans (120 film)
from the drum to those from the 8000, I discovered that the nikon scans were
not sharp to the edges. When viewed by themselves, the nikon scans lo
I agree with you Bill absolutely. LS IVED behaves in the same way. I agree
with units you mentioned - which applied to real word mean to "measure" via
the software uneveness of film position in the holder which must not be more
than 12 units and to put focus in the middle. If the number is higher
> Nikon LS 4000 are sharp in the middle of the film area but un sharp out
> against the sides and corner . The example are from the right side of a
> slide film.
I have to support Mikel. Recently I was able to scan photos with my FS4000 and
the same negatives/slides were scanned with Nikon. The
Bill wrote:
>o I have thousands of Kodachrome slides dating back twenty years in
>both plastic and cardboard mounts with what I consider "normal"
>degrees of curvature for slides.
Hi Bill,
I was wondering whether you've tried scanning any of these slides on a Polaroid
SS4000 and compared the re
Greetings all--
I'm a bit surprised to see the nature of the comments about Mikael
Risedal's report of focus problems; as if this is a new and unheard
of issue. Surely anyone who's been on this list awhile is aware that
this is a perennial issue with the Nikon filmscanners!
Web reviews that
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000
>Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 19:49:22 -0500
>
>OK Mikael, let me ask a follow-up question. I am a beginner so your
>knowledge clearly surpasses
On 16/11/01 12:01 am, "Mikael Risedal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello Brian. The Nikon scanner is not out of focus.
> Nikon LS 4000 are sharp in the middle of the film area but un sharp out
> against the sides and corner . The example are from the right side of a
> slide film.
>
> Next sm
MAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000
>
> To illustrate what I mean with poor Nikon Ls 4000 sharpness, I
have
> put a attachment with a jpg file. Vuescan as a reference sofw
Brian
--
respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "Mikael Risedal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 12:01 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000
> Hel
are from the right side of the film. Glass less
mounted.
Please read and se example 2 .
Best regards Mikael Risedal
>From: "Brian D. Plikaytis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000
cus
>Nikon scan to an in-focus Canon scan?
>
>Brian
>--
>respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Mikael Risedal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 4:
ECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "Mikael Risedal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000
>
> To illustrate what I mean with poor Nikon Ls 4000 sharpness, I have
&
To illustrate what I mean with poor Nikon Ls 4000 sharpness, I have
put a attachment with a jpg file. Vuescan as a reference sofware and same
settings to the 2 scanners
>Nikon Ls 4000 can not produce equal sharpness over the whole film area if
>the film are mounted glass less or in a filmstr
rio Teixeira
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "Tomasz Zakrzewski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, 14 November, 2001 9:36 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000
| Mikael Risedal wrote:
| > Test of Cano
> Canon scanner and Canon software. Pre scan with calibration = 50 sec
> Main scan 4000 ppi= 7 min (slow like a old Imaconscanner 6x7)
Hi,
It seems that I am getting diffrent results for Canon FS4000
Conditions: USB, Windows 2000, 256MB RAM, Pentium III 750, FilmGet
FARE OFF
Preview ti
Mikael Risedal wrote:
> Test of Canon and Nikon 4000 ppi scanner
> The test shows that a combination of Canons sharpness and Nikons scanning
> speed, colors and Dmax should be a nearly perfect mid end scanner.
> The complete test result will be publicized in next Photodo Magazine.
And can user
36 matches
Mail list logo
