Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/10/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 6:10 PM -0400 10/14/99, Aaron Ruby wrote: >Pascal wrote: > >> On 14-10-1999 23:25 Robert G. Stevens wrote: >> >> > The scanners with a DMAX of 3 or so will not scan slides and give >> >sufficient shadow detail, particularily slightly dark slides. At 3,5 or >> >more, the Nikon is better than the 3.4 of the Polaroid. Nikon scanner >> >owners always quote the ice feature, but they should be quoting the high >> >Dmax of the LS2000. >> >> You're right, Robert. >> The Dmax of the LS-2000 is even 3.6 ! >> > >This raises an intersting question that I've never been able to get >answered. Maybe one of you more knowledgable people can help. From what I >understand, there is no standard method for measuring the actual Dmax of a >given film scanner. Each manufacturer has their own and therefore >manufacturer claims are very hard to compare across brands. Is this true? >How accurate are the manufacturer data? I'll take your word for it that the >LS-2000 has better shadow rendition, but is that because of its ability to >rescan up to 16X or its greater Dmax? I wanted to get the 2000, but I found >a refurbished Sprintscan 35+ on ebay for around $800 and it FAR exceeds the >quality of the LS-30 I returned due to excessive noise and poor shadow >quality. The Sprintscan 35+ has better Dmax and dynamic range capability than the LS-30, but the LS-2000 is substantially better than both. With respect to actual Dmax, see my previous post, or get on the scanning mailing list at scan@leben.com. * Henning J. Wulff /|\ Wulff Photography & Design /###\ mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com |[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com