Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/10/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]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. Thanks, Aaron