Re: filmscanners: LS 4000 depth of field issue - what about LS 30/LS 2000?

[Arthur Entlich <artistic@ampsc.com>]

I can't say for sure, but the loss of resolution due to reduced DOF with 
bowed source film frames with the Nikon LS4000 ED may have been 
happening with the LS2000 and LS30 also.  However, it may have been less 
observable due to lower native resolution and less highly resolved 
lenses.  Its possible that Nikon is now pushing the lighting and optical 
path design beyond its limitations.  Further many camera lenses soften 
the edges of film frames to begin with, so we've grown to accept a 
certain amount of softness as our eye migrates to the edge.

Some people feel Nikon's design is the best for its cost, since it 
allows for quite sharp result within the focal area, so anyone needing 
that level of resolution might be willing to use special mounts to 
maintain flatness within the frame.


That doesn't fit into my workflow, because I have no interest in 
remounting my slides for scanning.  One of the reasons I bought a film 
scanner is to avoid taking risks with non-replacable images being 
damaged by lab people, or lost by couriers.  Personally, I prefer 
keeping sharp knife blades away from my film, and slide mounts do a 
pretty good jobs of keeping film frames safe.  I keep catalogue info on 
my mounts and I don't want to have to remove them and copy it, or return 
film frames to cut mounts.

I don't know what National Geo does, but I recently saw some of their 
most used images, and most of the slide mounts seemed to be intact. 
Maybe they make use larger format dupes and leave the originals alone 
after making the dupes.  I know at one time they were making Cibas at 
100% of size used in the magazine.  I'm sure today they use digital 
technologies to get the images onto plate.

Anyway, whatever the deal is, I want the best scanner for scanning 
originally mounted slides, and therefore for me, the Nikon film scanners 
aren't the answer.

Art




Ralf Schmode wrote:

> Hi everybody,
> 
> after reading all that stuff as to the LS 4000 DOF issue, I'd be
> interested in learning what the LS 30 and LS 2000 owners have
> experienced in that respect. I have a LS 30 with which I have never run
> across DOF problems - however, I don't use the motor driven film strip
> feeder but the tiny metal/plastic film strip holder. If I had to buy a
> new unit tomorrow, I would, in evaluation of what was written here, most
> likely go for the LS 2000 or even the LS 30 again rather than pick the
> newer models that seem problematic in that respect.
> 
> BTW, *if* there is a difference between LS-30/2000 and LS-40/4000 as to
> DOF there must be a reason for it. The newer units are said to be
> equipped with different optical elements (such as new lenses). Can that
> possibly be a key to that change in depth of field?
> 
> Thoughts anyone?
> 
> Greetings from good (c)old Germany -
> 
> Ralf 
> 
>