|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
This would all make a lot more sense if there were not a number of previous owners of this scanner who traded it in due to the exact problem (banding/DOF) they personally encountered with the scanner. In fact, I know of more people who traded it in than have kept it. You also are selective in what you read from my postings, because you are looking to make me "wrong". I have indicated the Nikon is appropriate for certain people. I have also indicated the DOF problem is a greater problem with the SL40 and 4000ED than the LS-8000, although the problem isn't fully resolved with the LS-8000. The medium format scans can take up to 20 minutes in super-fine mode with dICE. dICE is less necessary with the LS-8000 than the other Nikon scanners since it has a more diffused lighting source. You yourself have termed the the banding as "ugly". People have a right to know about these problems with these and other scanners. As to people paying you for scans, if you provide me with their names, I have a bridge they might be interested in buying. ;-) Obviously, the LS-8000 is one alternative to drum scans of medium format films. There are other options. I'm sure if you had an SS120 they would have paid the same amount for you to scan their film, they might have been more please, who knows... what does that prove? I've seen drum scans I wouldn't pay for at all. Art email@example.com wrote: > On 8 Apr 2002 at 18:43, Arthur Entlich wrote: > > >>This is just one reason to bring these matters up in a public forum. >>Often people have no frame of reference as to what to expect from their >>scanner, and it is only after they are made aware of known problems that >>they start to look for whether their scanner is suffering. It is >>irrelevant if the person who informs them owns and uses the scanner or >>not if the information is accurate. >> > > > Art, you're so full of BS it's hard to know where to begin. > > The fact is, your information isn't accurate. The banding is > an extremely rare occurrence, but that's not something we'd > ever learn from your reports on the subject. > > The "penalty" is longer scan times. To you, that's an un- > pardonable imposition, but apparently the owners of this > scanner don't share your hysterical view on the matter. > > The fact is, this scanner holds its own in several user-conducted > studies of image sharpness and quality. When presented with > that evidence, you chose to distort and reinterpret it. > > The fact is, in spite of its limited DOF (according to your reports) > I have a client who has paid me several hundred dollars for a > few dozen marvelously sharp scans of 6x7 cm. chromes, > done with the standard, glassless carrier on my LS-8000. > > The fact is, you've gone far beyond "educating" anybody on the > subject of Nikon scanners. It's clear to anyone with half a brain > that you're involved in a personal vendetta against Nikon. The > information that you choose to divulge is completely selective -- > it's divulged only so long as it discredits Nikon. > > The notion that you're doing all this for the benefit of the scanning > public is ludicrous. > > > rafe b. > - Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.