ðòïåëôù 


  áòèé÷ 


Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

  óôáôøé 


  ðåòóïîáìøîïå 


  ðòïçòáííù 



ðéûéôå
ðéóøíá












     áòèé÷ :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[filmscanners] Re: Better DOF than Nikon?




"Paul D. DeRocco" <pderocco@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>
It's hard to measure, but just eyeballing it, I'd say that I have easily a
millimeter of warpage on some of them. And it's not necessarily a smooth
domed curve from one edge to the other--some slides have ripples down one
edge. (Although a simple curve of sufficient magnitude would be an adequate
DOF test.)

I've remounted slides in anti-Newton glass mounts, and got somewhat better
focus, but noticeable grain from the glass. However, there are two problems
with remounting. First, it's extremely time-consuming. Second, some of the
slides have ripples in them that even glass sandwiches won't take out. I
really think that increased DOF is the only way I'll ever get decent files
out of these.
<<<<<<<<<<

I wonder if this is your answer:

http://www5e.biglobe.ne.jp/~longnose/scanner_test.html

It looks to be a bit softer than a 2700 dpi scan, but quite a bit better
than the 2450 or 3200, both of which have great DOF...

David J. Littleboy
davidjl@gol.com
Tokyo, Japan


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body



 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.