RE: filmscanners: Nikon MF LED light source...

["Austin Franklin" <darkroom@ix.netcom.com>]

> >>>> 2 minutes, 10 seconds with "Super Fine Scan" OFF.
> >>>> 5 minutes, 15 seconds with "Super Fine Scan" ON.
> >>>
> >>> FYI, the Leafscan is well under 4 minutes.
> >>>
> >>
> >> At 4000 DPI?
> >>
> >> Todd
> >
> > Todd, don't you own a Leafscan?  I do believe you're on the
> Leafscan emaiil
> > list.  I can send you the manual if you like ;-)
> >
> > I believe you know (then why ask?) the Leafscan scans 1:1 (6cm wide) at
> > 2540PPI, as well as 35mm at 5080PPI and 4x5 at 1200PPI.
> >
> > For a 6x6, the Leafscan provides enough resolution to print a 24" by 24"
> > image at 240PPI, and a 12" x 12" at 480PPI.  There is a point
> of diminishing
> > returns, at least for Piezography output, where more resolution does not
> > give any better output.
>
> Right you are Austin,
>
> I should have added a winkie, or something to imply I was asking
> rhetorically, but I thought it worthy to show that it wasn't an apples to
> apples comparison. Especially if you add in the warm up time, calibration
> time, focus time, prescan time, etc.
>
> Sorry.

All scanners go through calibration and focus and pre-scan.  The lamp
warm-up  is certainly long (15 minutes), but certainly doesn't take away
from usable scan time if you just turn it on some time before you decide to
do work.  Same with calibration, just click the mouse prior to doing
something else...it's not like you have to sit and monitor it!

Also, from what I can tell, most people spend more time putzing in PS than
scanning...  The Leaf certainly has it's got its cons as all scanners I am
aware of do.  I can tell you all the cons equally as I can tell you the
pros, but to me, the cons aren't in my way, at this point in time, and
therefore don't effect my use of it.  Certainly when people ask me about the
Leafscan, and are considering buying one, I give them both sides of the
coin.

I'm a bit puzzled though.  If you have one of these, why do you dislike it
so much, and continue to bring up only (what you perceive as) "negative"
things about it (or things that other scanners do better)?  I've not
(certainly recently at least) heard you say one good thing that is has going
for it, even though it has a LOT good going for it, even against technology
that is 10 years newer!

Certainly nothing wrong with the new crop of scanner, in fact, they are darn
nice, and if I was to start today, I'd certainly have a much harder
decision.  There is no direct apples for apples comparison, unless you limit
some of the variables.  I can't do with 4000DPI for 35mm, it isn't enough.
I tried that with the SS4k, and it was pretty good, but with really nice
film, like Delta 100, I just ran out of room, and 5080 is just right.

An interesting aside thought, at least for me...since the Nikon uses RGB
LEDs as a light source...and no filters over the CCD, does it, or could it,
NOT scan B&W in color, but make a white light (all three LEDs on
simultaneously) to use for scanning B&W, therefore eliminating not only the
need for three different colors (and therefore scan 3x faster since you can
use all three CCDs at the same time...except for that possible banding
"issue"), but eliminate the problem with the red channel?