>I believe Minolta has carried this to its logical
>extreme with their upcoming medium-format scanner,
>claiming a 4.8 dynamic range -- presumably on the
>basis of its 16-bit A/Ds. Do they suppose we're
>all that stupid? Er.. no need to answer that.
This must be the filmscanner equivalent o
On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Lynn Allen wrote:
> Oh, well, enough of this. We all know they exagerate.
I believe Minolta has carried this to its logical
extreme with their upcoming medium-format scanner,
claiming a 4.8 dynamic range -- presumably on the
basis of its 16-bit A/Ds. Do they suppose
gt;From: "Austin Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: filmscanners: Nikon MF LED light source...
>Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 11:00:15 -0400
>
>
> > >...the problem is that the only logical referen
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001 14:51:45 - Lynn Allen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> The difference in
> light transmission might be miniscule, but sensitive CCDs might also be
> able to record it.
Try scanning something like TMax3200 or Delta3200. Both have substantial
amounts of base fog, and hefty
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Jawed Ashraf wrote:
> May I just jump in here briefly and make an observation about the way Nikon
> Scan 3.x works when scanning negatives?:
>
> Negatives plainly have quite a high DMin. The curious thing is that Nikon
> Scan doesn't tweak the black point at all when doin
f as relatively immune to marketing...
Jawed
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Shough, Dean
> Sent: 18 July 2001 18:11
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: filmscanners: Nikon MF LED light source...
>
&g
gt; From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Lynn Allen
> Sent: 18 July 2001 15:52
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: filmscanners: Nikon MF LED light source...
>
>
> Julian wrote:
>
> >...the problem is that the only logical reference whe
> Number of bits? Did we forget to mention that the14 bits is
> internally only?
> And that the last 2 bits are extrapolated from our 12 bit ADC?
> Or that the
> system has so much noise that we could have used a 10 bit ADC?
That's an interesting issue. A design can use a 12 bit ADC, and take
mu
> > **In any case as we know and has already been discussed many times on
> > this list, the **quoted** dynamic range is usually based on the num of
> > A/D bits and so is not related to either Dmax OR Dmin in any case!
>
Once one manufacture starts doing this the others would be crazy not to
f
PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: filmscanners: Nikon MF LED light source...
>Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 12:19 +0100 (BST)
>
>On Tue, 17 Jul 2001 23:46:27 - Lynn Allen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> > Pissing contest. Admittedly funny, but it takes up Tony's bandwidth.
>
>So
> DMax *does* have a particular meaning in photography and it ain't
> 'dynamic range'. It is an absolute value of opacity - a densitometric
> measurement relative only to the illuminant intensity unimpeded by film.
Yes, film and paper can be measured by a calibrated densitometer, but what
you ar
> >...the problem is that the only logical reference when Dmax is quoted on
> >its own is against full transparency, as you state - i.e. no
> film, nothing
> >in the way of the path betw the light source and the detector.
>
> IMHO (and I don't really want to get into this discussion *at all*), it
Julian wrote:
>...the problem is that the only logical reference when Dmax is quoted on
>its own is against full transparency, as you state - i.e. no film, nothing
>in the way of the path betw the light source and the detector.
IMHO (and I don't really want to get into this discussion *at all*
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2001 13:27:46 +1000 Julian Robinson
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> > **In any case as we know and has already been discussed many times on
> > this list, the **quoted** dynamic range is usually based on the num of
> > A/D bits and so is not related to either Dmax OR Dmin in any
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001 13:27:46 +1000 Julian Robinson
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> **In any case as we know and has already been discussed many times on
> this list, the **quoted** dynamic range is usually based on the num of
> A/D bits and so is not related to either Dmax OR Dmin in any case!
On Tue, 17 Jul 2001 23:46:27 - Lynn Allen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Pissing contest. Admittedly funny, but it takes up Tony's bandwidth.
So did that:) So did this:)
Regards
Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info
& comparisons
On Tue, 17 Jul 2001 20:11:27 -0400 Austin Franklin
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> DMax is of no value what so ever unless there is a DMin associated with
> it
> (and vice versa).
Hmm, I don't want to sound like a tiresome pedant who gets all worked up
over precise use of language, but (to be t
I think I almost agree with you here Austin (heaven forbid!) but the
problem is that the only logical reference when Dmax is quoted on its own
is against full transparency, as you state - i.e. no film, nothing in the
way of the path betw the light source and the detector. Trouble is there
is
Austin wrote:
>I believe, and I could be wrong, that companies are required to provide
>sufficient documentation for a product such that one can maintain it ones
>self, of course with sufficient technical skills.
I believe that they *should* be, but my HP scanner came with a setup card
and an
Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Lynn Allen
> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 6:13 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: filmscanners: Nikon MF LED light source...
>
>
> I'll give HP another try, Austin. What I got from my l
> > Many
> > scanner documents have used the term DMax interchangeably with dynamic
> > range.
>
> They are wrong to do so :)
I disagree that it is "wrong". There may be another way that you believe is
clearer (and I don't disagree), but that doesn't make this way wrong.
> DMax is a measure of
Someone wrote:
>And none are as good as Contax with Zeiss
Pissing contest. Admittedly funny, but it takes up Tony's bandwidth.
_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>Surely the bottom line is : if a bit of kit works for you, gets you where
>you want to get to, that's all that needs to be said. It's not an ego
>issue.
Thank you, Tony. Thank you, thank you, thank you!!! :-)
--LRA
_
Get your FREE
pe not.
In a Me or Them contest, 'Them' definitely has the upper hand. But things
change. I hope this is one of them.
Best regards--LRA
>From: Arthur Entlich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon M
On Tue, 17 Jul 2001 08:11:58 -0400 Austin Franklin
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Many
> scanner documents have used the term DMax interchangeably with dynamic
> range.
They are wrong to do so :)
DMax is a measure of the minimum transmissive opacity of a film. DMin is a
measure of the maximum
o: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: filmscanners: Nikon MF LED light source...
>Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 00:18:09 -0400
>
>
> > Does anyone on the List know a good source for these? I for one
> > would pay a
> > few dollars (US, and cash ;-) ) for one that detailed
Rafe wrote:
>I was able to get a parts manual quite easily for
>my Mamiya 645E. $20 and it's a done deal.
>
>Only trouble is, when I called up to order
>specific parts, not one of the critical parts
>was in stock.
Well *that's* reassuring as hell! :-)
This is even worse than I thought. Well, t
And none are as good as Contax with Zeiss
Pat
--- Tony Sleep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Whoa! Gentlemen, please!! Scanner wars are as
> fruitless as Mac vs. PC and
> Nikon vs Canon and both vs Leica.
>
>
> Regards
>
> Tony Sleep
__
> >It's 1270 BTW. I'd put the Leaf up against the 1640 any day, as far as
> >quality of scan goes.
>
> On 4x5 media?
Well, I haven't personally measured it...but I have conflicting info. In
some places it says 1200 and some others say 1270. 1270 would be
arithmetically correct if the 2:1 resol
On Tue, 17 Jul 2001 00:18:12 -0400 Austin Franklin
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Austin I can only suggest that the opportunities I take to dis
> > the Leaf are
> > only as annoying to you, as your chest puffing comments about the Leaf
> > are
> > to every one else. Okay, can't speak for ever
> >> Why would you ever use the "long" exposure
> >> option if the short one yielded a scan that
> >> was as good?
> >
> > Increase DMax for positives...
>
>
> Just for the sake of clarity, I think you mean dynamic range.
I did mean DMax, and I do agree it is better to call it dynamic range. As
At 12:18 AM 7/17/01 -0400, Austin Franklin wrote:
>It's 1270 BTW. I'd put the Leaf up against the 1640 any day, as far as
>quality of scan goes.
On 4x5 media? Remember, that's where I posed the comparison.
Yes, I suspect the Leaf would win, but not by a huge amount,
unless dynamic range were
HP does make service manuals for many of their products, but they are
very costly. Very few companies want non-"professional" service
providers buying these things, so they make them too expensive to be
worthwhile owning if you are only repairing "one ofs".
I think there are a mixture of issues
Austin Franklin wrote:
>
> I believe this says it all:
>
> > Austin I can only suggest that the opportunities I take to dis
> > the Leaf are
> > only as annoying to you, as your chest puffing comments about the Leaf are
> > to every one else. Okay, can't speak for every one else - annoying to
on 7/17/01 12:24 AM, Austin Franklin wrote:
>> Why would you ever use the "long" exposure
>> option if the short one yielded a scan that
>> was as good?
>
> Increase DMax for positives...
Just for the sake of clarity, I think you mean dynamic range.
Todd
I believe this says it all:
> Austin I can only suggest that the opportunities I take to dis
> the Leaf are
> only as annoying to you, as your chest puffing comments about the Leaf are
> to every one else. Okay, can't speak for every one else - annoying to me.
This is a bunch of crap. It really
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2001, Austin Franklin wrote:
>
> > No, I disagree that I misrepresented anything. The conversation wasn't
> > about resolution, so what was the point of you bringing that up? It was
> > nit-picking, and not relevant to my comment. You don't need to chime in
> > with every littl
> These "exposure" options -- what is the range
> of variations? 2:1? 4:1? 8:1?
>From memory...16ms to whatever...in the 100ms+ range I believe.
> Why would you ever use the "long" exposure
> option if the short one yielded a scan that
> was as good?
Increase DMax for positives...
> Does anyone on the List know a good source for these? I for one
> would pay a
> few dollars (US, and cash ;-) ) for one that detailed the HP 5000-6800
> flatbed scanners.
I have manuals for most of my equipment, and they are available from the
manufacturer parts resource. They typically are q
At 06:42 PM 7/16/01 -, Lynn Allen wrote:
>Does anyone on the List know a good source for these? I for one would pay a
>few dollars (US, and cash ;-) ) for one that detailed the HP 5000-6800
>flatbed scanners. I may not be an engineer, but (at least so far) my hands
>and my brain still work
At 06:42 PM 7/16/01 -, Lynn Allen wrote:
>OK, I've seen many posts similar to this in the last few months (even made a
>few, myself). If it's a "given" that service and repair are such terrible
>problems (and believe me, they are), why can't/don't mfgrs make service
>manuals more availabl
tflash wrote:
>I like the leaf, I'm glad I bought it, but mine has some problems, and the
>cost for shipping and repair is prohibitive. So I live with it in it's
>compromised condition.
OK, I've seen many posts similar to this in the last few months (even made a
few, myself). If it's a "give
> There's this mantra that capturing the scan
> data in 16 bits obviates all other
> responsibilities at the scanner-driver stage,
> and I've never bought into that. Seems I
> get by nicely with 24-bit (8 bit/color) scans,
> in spite of all I read here and elsewhere
> about the advantages of 48
On Mon, 16 Jul 2001, tflash wrote:
> on 7/16/01 5:29 AM, rafeb wrote:
>
> >> You know what I hate most about the Leaf? It's that each stage of the
> >> process before you get to the scan is a separate operation, with too many
> >> dialog boxes.
> >
> >
> > Todd -- I'm not taking sides in you
On Mon, 16 Jul 2001, Austin Franklin wrote:
> No, I disagree that I misrepresented anything. The conversation wasn't
> about resolution, so what was the point of you bringing that up? It was
> nit-picking, and not relevant to my comment. You don't need to chime in
> with every little point.
On Mon, 16 Jul 2001, Austin Franklin wrote:
> > I've also questioned Austin before (and agree with
> > your skepticism) that exposure times can be varied
> > willy-nilly with no effect on scan quality. This
> > is quite contrary to my experience with film
> > scanners and photography in genera
Here we go again.
I've told you before, I get
the sense that a lot of owners (not you, you are a special
>> case altogether
;-)) don't want to discuss any negatives about the Leaf other than it's
weight.
>>>
>>> I've never heard anyone have any "complaints" about it as you el
on 7/16/01 5:29 AM, rafeb wrote:
>> You know what I hate most about the Leaf? It's that each stage of the
>> process before you get to the scan is a separate operation, with too many
>> dialog boxes.
>
>
> Todd -- I'm not taking sides in your debate with Austin,
> though enjoying the dialog, no
> >> I've told you before, I get
> >> the sense that a lot of owners (not you, you are a special
> case altogether
> >> ;-)) don't want to discuss any negatives about the Leaf other than it's
> >> weight.
> >
> > I've never heard anyone have any "complaints" about it as you elude to
> > here...exc
> I've also questioned Austin before (and agree with
> your skepticism) that exposure times can be varied
> willy-nilly with no effect on scan quality. This
> is quite contrary to my experience with film
> scanners and photography in general.
Not only does the Leafscan manual say you can do this
At 01:09 AM 7/16/01 -0400, Todd wrote:
>You know what I hate most about the Leaf? It's that each stage of the
>process before you get to the scan is a separate operation, with too many
>dialog boxes.
Todd -- I'm not taking sides in your debate with Austin,
though enjoying the dialog, nonethele
on 7/15/01 10:27 PM, Austin Franklin wrote:
>> I've told you before, I get
>> the sense that a lot of owners (not you, you are a special case altogether
>> ;-)) don't want to discuss any negatives about the Leaf other than it's
>> weight.
>
> I've never heard anyone have any "complaints" about i
> I've told you before, I get
> the sense that a lot of owners (not you, you are a special case altogether
> ;-)) don't want to discuss any negatives about the Leaf other than it's
> weight.
I've never heard anyone have any "complaints" about it as you elude to
here...except for soft red channel,
> I'm a bit puzzled though. If you have one of these, why do you dislike it
> so much, and continue to bring up only (what you perceive as) "negative"
> things about it (or things that other scanners do better)? I've not
> (certainly recently at least) heard you say one good thing that is has
> 2 minutes, 10 seconds with "Super Fine Scan" OFF.
> 5 minutes, 15 seconds with "Super Fine Scan" ON.
> >>>
> >>> FYI, the Leafscan is well under 4 minutes.
> >>>
> >>
> >> At 4000 DPI?
> >>
> >> Todd
> >
> > Todd, don't you own a Leafscan? I do believe you're on the
> Leafscan emaiil
on 7/15/01 11:11 AM, Austin Franklin wrote:
How fast can it scan a 6x6 B&W?
On a 700 MHz Athlon PC:
2 minutes, 10 seconds with "Super Fine Scan" OFF.
5 minutes, 15 seconds with "Super Fine Scan" ON.
>>>
>>> FYI, the Leafscan is well under 4 minutes.
>>>
>>
>> At
>>> How fast can it scan a 6x6 B&W?
> >>
> >> On a 700 MHz Athlon PC:
> >>
> >> 2 minutes, 10 seconds with "Super Fine Scan" OFF.
> >> 5 minutes, 15 seconds with "Super Fine Scan" ON.
> >
> > FYI, the Leafscan is well under 4 minutes.
> >
>
> At 4000 DPI?
>
> Todd
Todd, don't you own a Leafscan?
At 07:47 AM 7/15/01 -0400, Todd wrote:
>on 7/14/01 3:28 PM, Austin Franklin wrote:
>
>>
How fast can it scan a 6x6 B&W?
>>>
>>> On a 700 MHz Athlon PC:
>>>
>>> 2 minutes, 10 seconds with "Super Fine Scan" OFF.
>>> 5 minutes, 15 seconds with "Super Fine Scan" ON.
>>
>> FYI, the Leafscan is
on 7/14/01 3:28 PM, Austin Franklin wrote:
>
>>> How fast can it scan a 6x6 B&W?
>>
>> On a 700 MHz Athlon PC:
>>
>> 2 minutes, 10 seconds with "Super Fine Scan" OFF.
>> 5 minutes, 15 seconds with "Super Fine Scan" ON.
>
> FYI, the Leafscan is well under 4 minutes.
>
At 4000 DPI?
Todd
> >How fast can it scan a 6x6 B&W?
>
> On a 700 MHz Athlon PC:
>
> 2 minutes, 10 seconds with "Super Fine Scan" OFF.
> 5 minutes, 15 seconds with "Super Fine Scan" ON.
FYI, the Leafscan is well under 4 minutes.
At 09:19 AM 7/14/01 -0400, Austin wrote:
>How fast can it scan a 6x6 B&W?
On a 700 MHz Athlon PC:
2 minutes, 10 seconds with "Super Fine Scan" OFF.
5 minutes, 15 seconds with "Super Fine Scan" ON.
If using NS in TWAIN mode, that's about the
extent of it.
However, if using NS in Stand-Alone m
On Sat, 14 Jul 2001 00:18:45 -0400 Austin Franklin
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Nikon gurus... I believe we discussed that the new Nikon MF scanner
> uses
> LEDs as the light source, but does it use only one CCD row, and switch
> each
> color on/off and scan each row three times?
AFAIK all
> It uses a 3-row *monochrome* CCD sensor. That's in the
> specs on the Nikon website, I believe.
>
> In normal operation it uses all 3 rows, but I believe
> that's for speed's sake only.
Three rows at once? It must then change the lighting three times for each
step of the film, and record thre
At 12:18 AM 7/14/01 -0400, Austin wrote:
>Nikon gurus... I believe we discussed that the new Nikon MF scanner uses
>LEDs as the light source, but does it use only one CCD row, and switch each
>color on/off and scan each row three times?
>
>Wouldn't that make it quite a bit slower than using a tr
64 matches
Mail list logo
