|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
I probably had a substandard lens on my scanner. Anybody know what lens is actually used? Jerry Arthur Entlich wrote: > > Even before these numbers came up, I was left with some incredulity > about Polaroid's comments. > > First off, I use almost exclusively Fuji slide films, and I have never > noticed any of this, and I place the film in the scanner emulsion side down. > > Secondly, the depth of field with this scanner is considerable, and I am > quite surprised that the emulsion thickness or film thickness or both > could be great enough to cause a focusing problem when the film > curvature in a slide mount, which can be fairly substantial, is not > enough to create a focusing problem. Something is very odd here. > > I'm not doubting that Howard and Jerry both experienced this situation, > but there seems to be a need for a better explanation. > > Art > > gary wrote: > > > Please let me know when you will be doing your Vegas act. > > > > I was hoping another geek would do this, but alas, let's check the net and > > find the thickness of various slide films in 135-36: > > velvia rdp: 127um > > provia 100F rdpiii : 127um > > provia 400R rhpiii : 127um > > kodak e100s: 130um > > kodak e100vs: 130um > > > > Well, looks like Polaroid was inhaling since the base thickness is virtually > > equal. How about print film? > > > > Kodak portra 160vc: 130um > > > > OK, now I know from experience that print film is not as thick as slide > > film. Something is fishy here! Maybe the "base" thickness is not the > > thickness of the film. > > > > - > Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate > subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions. - Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.