Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/07/16
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 11:39 AM -0400 7/16/00, Isaac Crawford wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Tim Spragens" <t.spragens@cityweb.de> >To: "Leica Users digest" <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> >Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2000 4:57 AM >Subject: [Leica] Re: Slightly OT:Artixscan 1100 > > >> > From: "Henning J. Wulff" <henningw@archiphoto.com> >> > >> > At 9:54 PM -0400 7/14/00, Isaac Crawford wrote: >> > > I've been thinking about getting into the digital end of things >> > > for a while... >> > > >> > >Isaac >> > >> > ... the LS2000. It is >> > particulary in getting information out of the densest areas of a film >> > that the LS2000 has an advantage. The Polaroid 4000 has higher >> > resolution, but the Nikon does better in getting into the shadows, and >> > only the $5000+ flatbeds even start to approach either one of these as >> > far as the dynamic range is concerned. > > Actually, the Artixscan 1100 has a *published* DR of 3.9... That's kinda >what I was going after... This particular scanner is one of those dual >reflective/transmission scanners, kinda like the Agfa duoscan. That's why I >was comparing it to the Nikon... > >Isaac >> Go to the scanner list. There have been numerous posts by many people much more knowledgeable than I on the published vs. actual dynmic ranges of scanners. Basically, since there are no standards, most manufacturers publish whatever specs they can get away with, or rather, test their equipment in whatever manner they choose and then publish that. Don't trust 'em. Try 'em. * Henning J. Wulff /|\ Wulff Photography & Design /###\ mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com |[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com