Re: FS4000 vs SS4000plus (thick fuji film base)

[Jerry Olson <jerryolson@xxxxxxx>]

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.