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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |