RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...

[rafeb <rafeb@channel1.com>]

At 01:20 AM 7/19/01 +0100, Jawed wrote:
>I agree - I was just about to write as much.
>
>I don't really know how big a 645 neg is, but the thought of a 4000 dpi scan
>across two or three inches (guess) of film makes the mind boggle.  Hmm, are
>you prints 36 inches square?  Crikey

I'm not Lawrence, but I'll weigh in on this.  If 
there had been an $1500 scanner that delivered 
an honest 2500 dpi on MF film, I'd have bought 
it in an instant.  I'm not convinced I need 4000 
dpi.  Scans of 645 negatives at 4000 dpi yield 
160-170 MByte images (24-bit color.)  For Lawrence, 
double those sizes since he's using 48-bit color.

>Lawrence, have you verified that you *need* to do multi-scanning?  Surely
>the DMax of the 8000 is way beyond any negative you might be scanning.  And
>have you evaluated a scan with no multi-scanning to see if it has banding?


I can attest that the banding issue occurs even at 
1x scanning.  Though I also wonder whether Lawrence 
really "needs" to to 16x scans.

On the larger issue -- I disgree strongly with 
the poster who suggested that a $3000 scanner 
couldn't (or shouldn't) be expected to do better.

Oh, heck, I know that Imacon scans, drum scans, 
and Eversmart scans may well be better, but for 
$3K, I expect an absence of banding.


rafe b.