A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » Medium Format Photography Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

MF Scanners: More questions.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 7th 04, 03:16 AM
Gregory Blank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default MF Scanners: More questions.

Well I've got it down to 2 scanners Nikon 9000 & Microtek Artix Scan
120TF . The Nikon 9000 out of stock at most dealers and about $500 more
I could wait 6 more months for this on Nikons time frame. The biggest
differences are the:

A) Density-Dynamic Range/ Nikon 4.8 -Microtek 4.2

B) Color Depth 42 bit Microtek versus 16 Per channel Nikon 48 bit?
Kinda unclear on that.

C) Microtek has a lot of features like MF batch scanning and the Silver
Fast HDR (6)+ Genuine Fractels which makes it seem a better choice. Are
the two bits per channel enough to make the Nikon worth 500 more?

Plus the Nikon does not list batch scanning MF Film.

Thoughts?

Thanks.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
  #2  
Old October 7th 04, 03:42 AM
David J. Littleboy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Gregory Blank" wrote:

Well I've got it down to 2 scanners Nikon 9000 & Microtek Artix Scan
120TF . The Nikon 9000 out of stock at most dealers and about $500 more
I could wait 6 more months for this on Nikons time frame. The biggest
differences are the:

A) Density-Dynamic Range/ Nikon 4.8 -Microtek 4.2

B) Color Depth 42 bit Microtek versus 16 Per channel Nikon 48 bit?
Kinda unclear on that.

C) Microtek has a lot of features like MF batch scanning and the Silver
Fast HDR (6)+ Genuine Fractels which makes it seem a better choice. Are
the two bits per channel enough to make the Nikon worth 500 more?

Plus the Nikon does not list batch scanning MF Film.

Thoughts?


The MicroTek doesn't have ICE, and the Nikon has the feature that RGB
registration does not depend on the mechanics. It stops the film, measures
all 3, and then moves to the next line. This comes at the cost of increased
visibility of grain.

The Nikon is an amazing pain in the butt on film flatness. Minimal DOF means
that it's very hard to get the film flat. It rained cats and dogs here for
two days, and my Velvia 100F is curling like crazy leaving me dead in the
water. The previous day I was scanning, I had no problems. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaarg.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan



  #3  
Old October 7th 04, 03:42 AM
David J. Littleboy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Gregory Blank" wrote:

Well I've got it down to 2 scanners Nikon 9000 & Microtek Artix Scan
120TF . The Nikon 9000 out of stock at most dealers and about $500 more
I could wait 6 more months for this on Nikons time frame. The biggest
differences are the:

A) Density-Dynamic Range/ Nikon 4.8 -Microtek 4.2

B) Color Depth 42 bit Microtek versus 16 Per channel Nikon 48 bit?
Kinda unclear on that.

C) Microtek has a lot of features like MF batch scanning and the Silver
Fast HDR (6)+ Genuine Fractels which makes it seem a better choice. Are
the two bits per channel enough to make the Nikon worth 500 more?

Plus the Nikon does not list batch scanning MF Film.

Thoughts?


The MicroTek doesn't have ICE, and the Nikon has the feature that RGB
registration does not depend on the mechanics. It stops the film, measures
all 3, and then moves to the next line. This comes at the cost of increased
visibility of grain.

The Nikon is an amazing pain in the butt on film flatness. Minimal DOF means
that it's very hard to get the film flat. It rained cats and dogs here for
two days, and my Velvia 100F is curling like crazy leaving me dead in the
water. The previous day I was scanning, I had no problems. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaarg.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan



  #4  
Old October 7th 04, 09:09 AM
Lassi Hippeläinen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Gregory Blank wrote:

A) Density-Dynamic Range/ Nikon 4.8 -Microtek 4.2

B) Color Depth 42 bit Microtek versus 16 Per channel Nikon 48 bit?
Kinda unclear on that.


A and B mean the same thing: lg(2^14) = 4.21, lg(2^16) = 4.82, i.e. they
are useless. The salesdroid only checked the nominal performance of the
A/D converter.

In order to find out which performs better, you need test results. Since
there aren't any real 16 or even 14 bit ADCs around, due to the noise
floor, they probably perfrom pretty close to each other in this respect.

-- Lassi
  #5  
Old October 7th 04, 12:36 PM
Gregory Blank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Lassi Hippelainen wrote:

Gregory Blank wrote:

A) Density-Dynamic Range/ Nikon 4.8 -Microtek 4.2

B) Color Depth 42 bit Microtek versus 16 Per channel Nikon 48 bit?
Kinda unclear on that.


A and B mean the same thing: lg(2^14) = 4.21, lg(2^16) = 4.82, i.e. they
are useless. The salesdroid only checked the nominal performance of the
A/D converter.

In order to find out which performs better, you need test results. Since
there aren't any real 16 or even 14 bit ADCs around, due to the noise
floor, they probably perfrom pretty close to each other in this respect.

-- Lassi


Ya know last night I had the sneaking suspicion the 4.8= 48 bit
4.2 =42, my math went something like 3x14=42, 3x16=48. Whereas its just a
move of the decimal.

So how are they converting to 16 & 14 bit, via software?

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
  #6  
Old October 7th 04, 01:17 PM
Lassi Hippeläinen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Gregory Blank wrote:

In article ,
Lassi Hippelainen wrote:

Gregory Blank wrote:

A) Density-Dynamic Range/ Nikon 4.8 -Microtek 4.2

B) Color Depth 42 bit Microtek versus 16 Per channel Nikon 48 bit?
Kinda unclear on that.


A and B mean the same thing: lg(2^14) = 4.21, lg(2^16) = 4.82, i.e. they
are useless. The salesdroid only checked the nominal performance of the
A/D converter.

In order to find out which performs better, you need test results. Since
there aren't any real 16 or even 14 bit ADCs around, due to the noise
floor, they probably perfrom pretty close to each other in this respect.

-- Lassi


Ya know last night I had the sneaking suspicion the 4.8= 48 bit
4.2 =42, my math went something like 3x14=42, 3x16=48. Whereas its just a
move of the decimal.


You can approximate it with a move of the decimal point. It's a
numerical coincidence:
* The number of bits is really the binary logarithm of the max output
range, and converting it to decimal logarithms means multiplying with
log10(2) = 0.30103...
* On the other hand, you have three colours, so from 48 bits you get
48/3 = 16 bits per channel.
Combined, log10(2)/3 = 0.1003... which is close enough to 0.1 for all
purposes.

So how are they converting to 16 & 14 bit, via software?


The hardware may be producing that many bits, but the least significant
ones are just noise. Getting even 10 bits of real information is
difficult. BTW, the same is true also for digital cameras and backs.

-- Lassi
  #7  
Old October 7th 04, 01:30 PM
Gregory Blank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Lassi Hippelainen wrote:

The hardware may be producing that many bits, but the least significant
ones are just noise. Getting even 10 bits of real information is
difficult. BTW, the same is true also for digital cameras and backs.


So if I am reading between the lines correctly, Nikon maybe wishful
that their scanner is a lot better (if at all) than the Microtek.

Microtek does have a two year warranty with unlimited phone support and
will send a replacement unit if the scanner fails.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
  #8  
Old October 7th 04, 01:58 PM
Q.G. de Bakker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Gregory Blank wrote:

The hardware may be producing that many bits, but the least significant
ones are just noise. Getting even 10 bits of real information is
difficult. BTW, the same is true also for digital cameras and backs.


So if I am reading between the lines correctly, Nikon maybe wishful
that their scanner is a lot better (if at all) than the Microtek.


An AD converter with more bits will resolve the same dynamic range in more
separate tones?


  #9  
Old October 7th 04, 02:24 PM
Gregory Blank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"Q.G. de Bakker" wrote:

Gregory Blank wrote:

The hardware may be producing that many bits, but the least significant
ones are just noise. Getting even 10 bits of real information is
difficult. BTW, the same is true also for digital cameras and backs.


So if I am reading between the lines correctly, Nikon maybe wishful
that their scanner is a lot better (if at all) than the Microtek.


An AD converter with more bits will resolve the same dynamic range in more
separate tones?


Well my reason for asking is it seems that 2 bits per channel difference
is nominal especially if 10 bits of useful information is as is stated
the cut off.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Scanning glass mount slides ITMA 35mm Photo Equipment 21 September 16th 04 03:41 PM
below $1000 film vs digital Mike Henley Medium Format Photography Equipment 182 June 25th 04 03:37 AM
M/F film scanners - again? Rod Medium Format Photography Equipment 17 May 31st 04 04:14 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.