RESOLUTION FLEXTIGHT 646

[jotloob]

Hi Austin

Did you have a look to the FLEXTIGHT CONCEPT FLASH MOVIE i mentioned earlier in this thread ? ? That convinces me that far , that i believe , the part of the film , which is scanned at a time , is flat , at least much flatter , than using a flat-bed scanner , like my ARTIXSCAN 1800f .
With the 1800f your negatives , using the appropriate holders , will never be really "flat" , but as flat as possible for this design and for the format you scan . The smaller negatives you scan the better the flatness you achive , but never a 100% , because of the tension in the film itself .
So every scanner (flat-bed scanners , virtual drum scanners or real drum scanners) has its advantage and also disadvantage , looking at design , resolution and price .

 

[afranklin]

Hi Jürgen,

> Did you have a look to the FLEXTIGHT CONCEPT FLASH MOVIE i mentioned > earlier in this thread ?

No, I didn't.

> That convinces me that far , that i believe > , the part of the film , which is scanned at a time , is flat , at > least much flatter , than using a flat-bed scanner , like my ARTIXSCAN > 1800f . With the 1800f your negatives , using the appropriate > holders , will > never be really "flat"

Well, given I've been scanning film for over a decade (and design design digital imaging equipment, including film scanners), and I've never had an issue with film flatness with my scans (on a Leafscan 45 which uses Beseler 45 type holders), nor has anyone I've heard anyway using say, a Beseler 45 enlarger, complained about film flatness...I'm going to believe it's not an issue in %99.99 of the time for anything up to 6cm wide film. I don't disagree that for 4x5 it *may* be an issue...and that is where a glass holder mitigates this issue.

There is a depth of field issue with the Nikon scanners that use LED light sources...but again, I think that though the film *may* be flatter, that is not an issue...at least it hasn't ever been an issue for me. I believe the Imacon scanners use a cold cathode light source, so DOF should not be a problem.

As I mentioned, until I see a properly done test that shows not only the testing procedure but ALL the data etc., I'll stand by my assertion that this "virtual drum" thing is mostly marketing puffery.

Regards,

Austin

 

[jsmisc]

Hi Austin,
Long time no see. How are things?
I just wondered what you think of the Nikon LS 9000 ED scanner. I have been thinking about it but it would be a huge investment for me and I want to be sure that it is pretty good before I jump.
I already have a Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 which is very good but very slow with ICE and only 35mm whereas I like 6x6.
Cheers,
John

 

[afranklin]

Hi John,

Thank you for asking, things are well...three children later ;-) I hope things are well with you.

> I just wondered what you think of the Nikon LS 9000 ED scanner.

Unfortunately, I have no opinion on most new scanners. But, as I mentioned, the Nikon scanners that use LEDs as a light source have had depth of field/focusing problems in the past. Personally, if I was look ing for a MF scanner, I'd take a good look at the Polariod 120 film scanner an d especially the Microtek version the Polaroid is based on. Sorry, I don' t remember the model numbers.

If you only scan B&W, and are reasonably computer literate, the Leafscan 4 5 is the best B&W film scanner I know of due to it having a separate grayscale channel, which no other film scanners (that I am aware of) have. It does 6cm at 2540SPI, 4x5 at 1200 and 35mm at 5080, which can make some nice size prints. They go for well under $1000 these days. There is a Yahoo group for them as well.

Regards,

Austin

 

[jsmisc]

Hi Austin,
Thanks for that. I will check out the Polaroid/Microtek and the Leafscan.
Cheers,
John

 

[rcyoung]

> I have a Nikon Coolscan 8000 ( the unit that preceded the 9000) and > have no problem with it. However, I use the glass carrier normally. > I know the arguments for/against glass & glassless carriers with > enlargers (as similar argument holds for scanners), but I have > always found the glass carrier (869G) to be better at holding the > 6x6 film flat, esp 220 film. I also use the additional glass > carrier with various size film masks (869GR) for my XPan quite > successfully. Now that the Coolscan 9000 is out, you may find the > Coolscan 8000s fairly reasonable on the second hand market. The > only real difference between them is a few software features that > you can already find it Photoshop.

 

[jsmisc]

Thanks Robert,
I'll bear that in mind too. Are the glass carriers very expensive?
John

 

[rcyoung]

> Here is a B&H link showigng prices

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home? ci=1&sb=ps&pn=1&sq=desc&InitialSearch=yes&O=RootPage.jsp&A=search&Q=*&bh s=t&shs=coolscan+8000&image.x=0&image.y=0

The glass carriers are around $300-350. The "glassless" around $100.

Here is an interesting carrier I had "heard about" a year or two ago ( from the B&H link) ,

Cachet Image Mechanics Fluid Mount Tray for Nikon Super Coolscan 8000 & 9000 ED Scanners

and someone finally made it. A carrier where you can imbed the negative in a fluid layer before scanning. Certain very high end optical microscopes ( oil immersion microscopes--think of something that makes a Hasselblad look cheap) use this technique to eliminate optical aberrations, and achieve extremely flat image fields. A heard someone was trying to make one a couple of years ago for the Coolscan, and it looks like it finally came to fruition.

It runs about $500, but should give "extremely...EXTREMELY " good results.

 

[qnu]

Oil immersion in microscopy is used to increase the numerical aperture, and with it the obtainable resolution beyond what would be possible without oil. Not to get flat image fields.

Fluids in scanning are used to make the film stick to the glass in the carrier, i.e. keep it as flat as the thing it is sticking to.

Two quite separate thingies, so not much point in thinking about microscopes.

 

[afranklin]

As a note on glass carriers and fluid mounting for CCD film scanners, ther e is a guy who has a fluid mounting glass carrier for the Leafscan 45. I have not bought one, but perhaps should. It is only $200 or something l ike that. It has been claimed that it reduces the grain significantly.

I doubt anyone will be making a glass carrier for the Imacon, since it is a curved carrier...or if they did, it would be quite fragile and expen sive, as the two pieces can't be identical.

Regards,

Austin