Re: High End 35mm slide scanner
Re: High End 35mm slide scanner
- Subject: Re: High End 35mm slide scanner
- From: Ernst Dinkla <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 15:55:06 +0200
Richard Frederickson [Contr] wrote:
As a service provider, I see a lot of "sow's ears" seeking to become
silk purses
The opposite happens with information .........
Yes, there is a significant difference in price--but the benefit is
higher productivity with significantly less grief. 2 min for Imacon vs
60 min for Nikon w/ICE? Humm, let me think about that...
On a Nikon 8000 a 14 bit RGB scan with Nikonscan 4 of a 35 mm
slide,
4000 PPI with the normal ICE setting is less than 3 minutes. 1x
sampling. Auto focusing just before the scan included. Saving not
counted. Slow system = a 1200 Mhz AMD + XP.
The same with Vuescan but Long Exposure = one normal sampling
+ one
longer time sampling, Vuescan's semi ICE, + the fact that
Vuescan
doesn't use the 3 sensors but only one (= fine scan in
NikonScan). Less
than 8 minutes. Worst case scenario.
The Nikon 9000 is faster.
There are 5 slides in the slide carrier, there are 12 frames
in the 35
mm film carrier.
BTW, the request was for a 35 mm hi-end scanner. The Nikon
5000 or the
latest Minolta would be more appropriate for that task. If better
quality is needed a PMT drum scanner should be the answer.
True optical resolution for the Nikon's is about 3600 PPI.
Dmax and
dynamic range of the modern film and flatbed models like the
Nikon's and
Epson's is remarkably high, a result of the sensors arrangements.
Maybe the man who started this thread better asks whether
Getty actually
accepts 35 mm material. There's more quality gain in using MF
and a
prosumer scanner than in using 35 mm and a hi-end scanner. But
that
wasn't question.
Ernst
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden