The minolta scanner also "enhances" defects but uses a different light
source than the nikon. Someone pointed out to me, that despite the
light source, most scanners use kohler illumination, which is used in
microscopes to enhance contrast and detail through non-zero thick
material. I would be curious if anyone knows more about this? I also
wonder if the Polaroid Sprintscan does not use kohler illumination,
since it does not seem to enhance film defects as much? The problem
with these defect enhancing scanners is they then *require* the IR
channel defect removal, which renders the scanner poor at doing silver
based B&W, or else you convert to using a (non-archival) chromogenic
B&W film.
Wasn't there a process someone developed where the film was digitized
as it was being developed, producing superior scans but that ultimately
destroyed the film in the process? Imagine dropping off your film and
picking up your DVD two hours later with drum quality scans for the
price of a set of prints. Would you go for it? I would.
Wayne
At 03:04 PM 9/11/2002, Bill wrote:
>I have been using a friend's Nikon 4000. I don't think I would buy one,
>unless I have tried a Polaroid. The Nikon really needs ICE and GEM, as it
>"enhances" every little thing, and reproduces the grain to excess.
>
>I understand the light source in the polaroid reduces that problem.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|