Thanks for the informativ information Arthur.
Here is a another picture to discusse.
Hope all can se the extra lines in the Nikon test
Best regards
Mikael Risedal
>From: Arthur Entlich <artistic@ampsc.com>
>Reply-To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
>To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
>Subject: Re: filmscanners: Light Source (Nikon LS40 vs. Minolta Scan Elite
>II)
>Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 05:47:45 -0800
>
>Sorry I'm a little late with this reply, but this last week was a wipe
>out, averaging 2-3 hours of sleep a night while we put a series of
>nearly 100 new images into commercial production (a series of
>bookmarks). The whole project from selection process (that took 3 days
>alone), to scanning, cropping, digitally enhancing, adding captions and
>logos, outputting, printing, laminating, cutting and display design was
>accomplish in less than a week. I'm paying for that with barely the
>energy to type ;-)
>
>Whew!
>
>Nikon's lighting system is unique. They claim no one else uses it
>because they own the patent, which I'm sure they do. However, there
>might be other reasons it is not being used or licensed.
>
>The lighting source allows for Nikon to use a CCD sensor without any
>color filters (monochrome). This probably saves money on that aspect,
>although the LED array might be considerably more costly than cold
>cathode (fluorescent) lighting. The advantage to the LED light source
>might be that they are less likely to burn out, or uneven lighting with
>age, but it might eventually dim. Further it might actually allow (in
>theory) for sharper imaging, as the light source can be controlled for
>exact color, and sensitivity, and the light waves have less scattering.
>The CCD is also unencumbered with any filters.
>
>This same benefit might also be problematic, however, on several
>grounds. One thing is that this type of lighting tends to accentuate
>surface defects like scratches, finger prints, and dust on the film.
>Nikon gets around this to some extent using dICE software. That IR
>cleaning software does add time to the scan.
>
>This lighting design might also allow for a quicker scan as it can use
>all three lines in the tri-line CCD sensor at once to do the scan, but
>this might also be the cause of some reported banding problems due to
>calibration issues between each sensor light. On some models users have
>been forced to use the single scan light mode to prevent banding, but
>this also slows the acquire process.
>
>However, this light source has other potential and real problems. For
>one thing, should a LED fail, the cost to replace the light source would
>be more costly.
>
>The most common complaint about the Nikon scanners (other than buggy
>software) is that the depth of field is limited by the low brightness of
>the LED lighting source. This might cause even minimally bowed images
>(slides or negs) to become out of focus around the edges. Some suggest
>that mounting images in glass slide mounts might resolve the problem,
>but that introduces others, like another 4 surfaces to keep clean of
>dirt and scratches, and removing images from their original mounts.
>
>So, the choice is yours. There are obviously reasons for both systems.
>
>Art
>
>
>
>Friedrich Bloeser wrote:
>
>>Until recently I had planned to purchase the Nikon LS40 Coolscan IV
>>filmscanner. But now that I had learned of the brand-new Minolta
>>Dimage Scan Elite II, I have to think this decision all over.
>>
>>There are a few features in favor of the Minolta:
>>- color depth 48bit vs. 36bit (I don't know if this is relevant for
>> an amateur),
>>- multi-pass scanning (Nikon only with VueScan),
>>- batch-scanning of four mounted slides.
>>
>>While every manufacturer except Nikon seems to use a fluorescent
>>lamp as light source, the Nikon scanner comes with a RGB LED array.
>>Does one type of light source have advantages over the other?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>-fritz
>>
>>.
>>
>>
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
