Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: New Nikon performance

[Arthur Entlich <artistic@ampsc.com>]

Dave King wrote:


> 
> 
> 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.  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:)
> 
> Dave

To bring this into a slightly different realm...

Let's say you had a choice between a car which has a bit of vibration in 
the steering column, and tends to require just a bit of steering 
adjustment to keep it going perfectly straight, but handles over 
steering and other human aspects of imprecise driving without creating 
any real danger.

Then, on the other hand you had a choice of a car that had hardly any 
vibration in the steering and tended to handle somewhat better on the 
road as long as you used perfect driving habits, but if you over 
steered, for instance -(hey, your fault, right?) it skidded right off 
the road.

Which would you prefer to drive?

Being human, I'll take car number 1, thanks.

Art