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

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

> I've told you before, I get
> the sense that a lot of owners (not you, you are a special case altogether
> ;-)) don't want to discuss any negatives about the Leaf other than it's
> weight.

I've never heard anyone have any "complaints" about it as you elude to
here...except for soft red channel, which is typical of any CCD scanner.
What "negatives" specifically, are you referring to?  Also, what you may
consider a negative, others may not consider a negative at all...like
scanning MF at 2540, how is that a negative, if it is more than sufficient
to give someone the results they need?

> But let's keep perspective here. You're taking issue with me for pointing
> out that the time you quoted for a leaf scan was based upon a lower
> resolution, and also you use the minimum exposure time, which reduces
> quality (I know it's arguable whether it matters with negatives).

It's not arguable, lowering the scan time for B&W negatives absolutely does
not degrade the quality of the scans.  The point was MF scan time of the two
scanners, resolution was not at question.

> As the
> engineer that you are, I'm surprised you take issue with me trying to keep
> the parameters the same when making comparisons.

The only parameters that were part of that particular discussion were MF and
B&W.  We know what the resolution of these scanners are.  If we were
discussing  35mm, I don't believe I would have chimed in and claimed that
any comparison is invalid/degraded because the Polaroid and Nikon scanners
can only scan 35mm at 4000PPI, instead of 5080...  What would be the point?

> I just don't think I have the
> same allegiance to the machine as you.

I have no allegiance to the Leafscan, just the results.  If it did not do
what I needed, or I found one that gave me significantly better results,
while not
compromising other needs, I'd buy it.