Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: New Nikon performance

[Isaac Crawford <isaac@visi.net>]

> > I guess my take is that the "adding" of dust is just a corollary to
> > having a really sharp scan... It's hardly the scanner's fault that
> there
> > is dust or damage to the film...
> >
> > Isaac
> 
> Yes, I agree in principle, but sharpness gains have to be weighed
> against other performance factors.  How much sharper in real terms is
> the Nikon 8000 vs the Polaroid 120, if at all?  And how much
> difference is there in the ability to scan Kodachrome and B&W without
> artifacting and time spent retouching?
> 
> This is the issue I'm trying to get a handle on.  And while it
> certainly isn't the scanner's "fault" if there is dust on film, there
> is an entire range of performance differences in how film is rendered
> depending on the quality of the light source.  Point source light can
> give a "crunchy" quality to the tonal structure some would not want.
> Some prefer the extra "punch" of this light.  

        I have always preferred the Omega D5-XL's diffused source... oh wait a
minute, what were we talking about?:-)



But all of these tonal
> and sharpness issues are ultimately splitting hairs with these new
> scanners as far as I'm concerned.  I'm quite sure they are all capable
> of incredible results when used with skill.  What I really want to
> know is how the new Nikons perform with Kodachrome and B&W!
> 
> There, I've said it!  (For the last time, I promise:)

        Aha! A question that I can't make a smart alec response to... er, um...
sorry...:-)

Isaac
> 
> Dave