Re: filmscanners: film flatness in Nikon 4000

["Dave King" <kingphoto@mindspring.com>]

I'll corroborate Paul on this one, I've used Apo El-Nikkors at a dye
lab I used to work in.  The difference between them and anything else
is truly amazing.  But even more amazing, they have highest resolution
wide open.  There's not too much DOF there, as you might imagine.  So
it's quality wasted except when used in the most critical
circumstances, such as Paul works in.  For most of us, air mounting
and normal lenses, used with care, is sufficient most of the time.

To draw a parallel and stay on topic: as others have pointed out (to
considerable controversy), scanner resolution beyond a certain point
(2500 if designed and used correctly) is enough to resolve image
detail in most photographs.  It makes me wonder if the 2900 dpi Nikon
wouldn't be the better choice for most of us.  Perhaps in the 4000
Nikon has deliberately traded DOF for resolution never seen in the
typical printing and repro work most of us do.  The LS-30 and the
LS-2000 are essentially the same scanner with the same resolution, but
apparently that's not the case with the new scanners.

I've spent alot of effort learning how to get the best 24x36" prints
possible from an Epson 7000 (it's been fun:), but at no point along
the way have I felt the LS-30 was the weakest link in the chain, far
from it in fact.  I'm sort of amazed it's as good as it is for the
money.

Dave

----- Original Message -----
From: PAUL GRAHAM <peegee@btinternet.com>
To: Filmscanners@Halftone. Co. Uk <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 3:06 AM
Subject: filmscanners: film flatness in Nikon 4000


> Art,
>
> well... I've got a liquid gate for my DeVere's, and I've got
carriers with
> no glass, regular glass, anti newton glass, and vacuum coated anti
newton
> glass (best)
> I use $2500 Apo-El-Nikkor lenses imported from Japan, (unavailable
here)
> (none of the others are really Apo's) and I would *never* make a
serious
> print without glass of some sort holding the film flat. (35mm or
10x8")
> sorry but all my tests show the opposite of yours, and any tiniest
> intereference from the glass is vastly more than compensated for by
the
> *dramatic* improvement in sharpness over the whole film plane, but
> especially the corners/edges.
> keeping the glass clean is not such a problem, and I replace it once
every
> few months anyway.
>
> But then I work very large (40x50" colour prints are average), so
things do
> get hyper-critical.  Then again, that's why I'm interested in a 4000
dpi m/f
> scanner!
>
> Before this gets too OT, see my next posting: (follows)
>
>
> Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 21:54:29 -0800
> From: Arthur Entlich <artistic@ampsc.com>
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: film flatness in Nikon 4000
>
> (snip...)
> Yes, enlargers can be bought with glass neg carriers, but guess
what,
> they actually degrade the image result. I've tested this with my own
> enlarging system. (Besseler, Nikkor lenses) You are adding 4 new
> surfaces, none of which are perfect in surface or color, even if
they
> are optical glass, and all of which are very close to the focal
point at
> the film plane.  Add to that internal reflections within each sheet
of
> glass, potential dust scratches and dirt, if they are not perfectly
> clean, and potential damage to the film.  Glass sandwiching is done
> sometimes with a viscose wet gate, to help reduce the internal
> reflections of two of the surfaces, and having the outer surfaces
far
> enough away from the film plane to me out of the focal range.  But
using
> a glass carrier with a 35mm film scanner doesn't make it, as far as
I'm
> concerned.  Further, it requires removing the film from slide mounts
> (more potential damage).
> (snip)...
>
>
>
>