My Polaroid is still chugging along with a cold cathode fluorescent. It
is seldom that it has an image that needs the special tools regularly
required on LED scanners. Not only does the dimness of an LED require a
fast lens with small depth of field it is also a harsh point light
source that accentuates every flaw on the film as well as the grain.
Not having to use those correction tools makes for faster scans.
Why not a Canon film scanner? The 4000F still uses a cold cathode
fluorescent lamp. I would not worry about the lower resolution. I have
seen convincing arguments backed by images that 4000 dpi extracts just
about all the information from a piece of film.
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?
act=ModelTechSpecsAct&fcategoryid=121&modelid=7460
At least that is my take.
Winsor
Long Beach, California, USA
On Mar 7, 2005, at 8:06 PM, BllPear@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> I am in the processing of selecting a film scanner. I had decided on
> the Minolta 5400, but it is NLA, replaced by the 5400II. I looked up
> the specs, and the light source has been changed, from a cold cathode
> flourescent to a white LED.
>
> I have had experience using a friend's Nikon 4000, which I also
> believe has an LED light source. It has the well known dof problems.
>
> I am therefore reconsidering. Can anyone comment?
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|