My Nikon LS4000 has always suffered from the widely reported "narrow depth of
focus" problem, which means that in most cases it is impossible to get the
entire slide (or even most of it) in critical focus without resorting to glass
slide mounts. The description of the LS5000 sounds to me as though it is pretty
similar mechanically and optically. Is there any reason to suppose this problem
is less severe with the new model?

And a related question--does the "grain dissolver" diffuser on the Minolta 5400
improve its performance in this respect? My old Polaroid 4000 SprintScan was
never as sharp as the LS4000, but its focus uniformity was very good indeed. With
the Nikon, I wind up having to manually focus it most of the time on a compromise
setting.

Gary Hunt <(E-Mail Removed)>

"Gary L Hunt" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
SNIP
> And a related question--does the "grain dissolver" diffuser on the Minolta
5400
> improve its performance in this respect?

No, and Yes...

Technically it affects neither resolution* nor depth of field (lens aperture
and distance is unchanged). However, the first giveaway with
out-of-critical-focus is the different rendering of the grain structure,
especially in the corners.
Since graininess is reduced, lack of critical focus is harder to spot.

* It does modify contrast depending on density, so that may affect the
tonality, depending of grain/dye-cloud structure.

Bart

On 16 Mar 2004 22:57:32 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) (Gary L Hunt) wrote:

>My Nikon LS4000 has always suffered from the widely reported "narrow depth of
>focus" problem, which means that in most cases it is impossible to get the
>entire slide (or even most of it) in critical focus without resorting to glass

Maybe I'm just not discerning enough but in over 6000 slides in the
last few weeks, I've never noted this problem.

>slide mounts. The description of the LS5000 sounds to me as though it is pretty
>similar mechanically and optically. Is there any reason to suppose this problem
>is less severe with the new model?

I haven't seen any problem. OTHO ask me again in another year of use.
<:-))
I'm currently running a whole series of problem negatives through that
require adjustment of the analog gain, color correction, and are super
dense (under exposed). So far, it has make all but one look like new.

>
>And a related question--does the "grain dissolver" diffuser on the Minolta 5400
>improve its performance in this respect? My old Polaroid 4000 SprintScan was
>never as sharp as the LS4000, but its focus uniformity was very good indeed. With
>the Nikon, I wind up having to manually focus it most of the time on a compromise
>setting.

In over 6000 slides I've not had to touch the focus once.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>
>Gary Hunt <(E-Mail Removed)>

I don't think it's a matter of how discerning you are but rather what uses you
are making of the scans. If I look at them on the monitor, or make smaller
prints from them, it's not noticeable. And no one else has ever admitted to
noticing it on my enlargements (which are never larger than 11x17 or so).
But if I use the default focus point (in the center), I can see it very clearly
in the corners and edges, although some slides are MUCH worse than others.
(Home-mounted cardboard slide mounts are the worst for me.) And of course
it's partly annoying because I know it's not an optical limitation--if I mount
the slide in glass, then the whole image is sharp. I'm reluctant to archive
scans where all parts of the image are not equally usable for future printing.

Roger Halstead <Delete-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed)>...
> On 16 Mar 2004 22:57:32 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) (Gary L Hunt) wrote:
>
> >My Nikon LS4000 has always suffered from the widely reported "narrow depth of
> >focus" problem, which means that in most cases it is impossible to get the
> >entire slide (or even most of it) in critical focus without resorting to glass
>
> Maybe I'm just not discerning enough but in over 6000 slides in the
> last few weeks, I've never noted this problem.

On 17 Mar 2004 16:39:48 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) (Gary L Hunt) wrote:

>I don't think it's a matter of how discerning you are but rather what uses you
>are making of the scans. If I look at them on the monitor, or make smaller
>prints from them, it's not noticeable. And no one else has ever admitted to
>noticing it on my enlargements (which are never larger than 11x17 or so).
>But if I use the default focus point (in the center), I can see it very clearly
>in the corners and edges, although some slides are MUCH worse than others.
>(Home-mounted cardboard slide mounts are the worst for me.) And of course
>it's partly annoying because I know it's not an optical limitation--if I mount
>the slide in glass, then the whole image is sharp. I'm reluctant to archive
>scans where all parts of the image are not equally usable for future printing.
>
That would explain the difference.
All of the slildes are either Kodak paper mounts (from Kodak), or I
use plastic mounts. Although I do have to admint some of those Kodak
mounts that are 50 years old and have been through a projector or two
a few hundered times... or more <:-)) are't all that straight. Then
again those slides are only saved for reference and possibly small
prints at 2000 or 2400 dpi and not 4000.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>Roger Halstead <Delete-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed)>...
>> On 16 Mar 2004 22:57:32 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) (Gary L Hunt) wrote:
>>
>> >My Nikon LS4000 has always suffered from the widely reported "narrow depth of
>> >focus" problem, which means that in most cases it is impossible to get the
>> >entire slide (or even most of it) in critical focus without resorting to glass
>>
>> Maybe I'm just not discerning enough but in over 6000 slides in the
>> last few weeks, I've never noted this problem.

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Roger Halstead
<Delete-(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>
>I haven't seen any problem. OTHO ask me again in another year of use.
><:-))
>I'm currently running a whole series of problem negatives through that
>require adjustment of the analog gain, color correction, and are super
>dense (under exposed).

Why do your negatives need analogue gain adjustment? Negatives usually
don't have enough dynamic range to cause a problem with exposure. Super
dense negatives are usually extremely over-exposed, not under-exposed.

Are you sure you are not talking about slides?
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 18:51:34 +0000, Kennedy McEwen
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Roger Halstead
><Delete-(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>>
>>I haven't seen any problem. OTHO ask me again in another year of use.
>><:-))
>>I'm currently running a whole series of problem negatives through that
>>require adjustment of the analog gain, color correction, and are super
>>dense (under exposed).
>
>Why do your negatives need analogue gain adjustment? Negatives usually
>don't have enough dynamic range to cause a problem with exposure. Super
>dense negatives are usually extremely over-exposed, not under-exposed.
>
>Are you sure you are not talking about slides?

I'm sure I am talking about slides, but the guy you are answering was
talking about negatives...I think.

There are two posts mixed in there<:-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Roger Halstead wrote:
>
> On 16 Mar 2004 22:57:32 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) (Gary L Hunt) wrote:
>
> >My Nikon LS4000 has always suffered from the widely reported "narrow depth of
> >focus" problem, which means that in most cases it is impossible to get the
> >entire slide (or even most of it) in critical focus without resorting to glass
>
> Maybe I'm just not discerning enough but in over 6000 slides in the
> last few weeks, I've never noted this problem.

Same here. I think that is gossip and rumor, which as always
might have something true in its origin: Maybe some of the
LS4000 were misaligned or maybe some of the users tried to
scan (too) warped film?


>
> >slide mounts. The description of the LS5000 sounds to me as though it is pretty
> >similar mechanically and optically. Is there any reason to suppose this problem
> >is less severe with the new model?
>
> I haven't seen any problem. OTHO ask me again in another year of use.
> <:-))
> I'm currently running a whole series of problem negatives through that
> require adjustment of the analog gain, color correction, and are super
> dense (under exposed). So far, it has make all but one look like new.
>

Exposure problems and foremost color balance handling: yes,
this are the problems which I also experience with NikonScan.
Vuescan is of great help here.

Scan of negatives with NikonScan is also very troubled.
Especially, I notice from the histograms that NikonScan
never maps darkest gray to 0. All histograms seem to
indicate an offset of approx. 25%!

Thomas

> >
> >And a related question--does the "grain dissolver" diffuser on the Minolta 5400
> >improve its performance in this respect? My old Polaroid 4000 SprintScan was
> >never as sharp as the LS4000, but its focus uniformity was very good indeed. With
> >the Nikon, I wind up having to manually focus it most of the time on a compromise
> >setting.
>
> In over 6000 slides I've not had to touch the focus once.
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com
>
> >
> >Gary Hunt <(E-Mail Removed)>

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Roger Halstead
<Delete-(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 18:51:34 +0000, Kennedy McEwen
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Roger Halstead
>><Delete-(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>>>
>>>I haven't seen any problem. OTHO ask me again in another year of use.
>>><:-))
>>>I'm currently running a whole series of problem negatives through that
>>>require adjustment of the analog gain, color correction, and are super
>>>dense (under exposed).
>>
>>Why do your negatives need analogue gain adjustment? Negatives usually
>>don't have enough dynamic range to cause a problem with exposure. Super
>>dense negatives are usually extremely over-exposed, not under-exposed.
>>
>>Are you sure you are not talking about slides?
>
>I'm sure I am talking about slides,

I thought you must be.

> but the guy you are answering was
>talking about negatives...I think.
>
I wasn't answering anyone - I was asking you a question about what you
wrote. Negatives were introduced in the thread in your post - up till
then it had been only Gary's question about focus across glass-less
mounted slides. Did you reply to the correct article? ;-)

>There are two posts mixed in there<:-))
>
Not in the section I quoted: 5 lines comprising two sentences separated
by an emoticon - all written by you and posted on 17th March 2004 at
18:11:07GMT (13:11:07 EST). That is the first place in the entire
thread that underexposed negatives were super dense, consequently
requiring analogue gain adjustment, was mentioned.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 13:02:17 +0100, Kennedy McEwen
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Roger Halstead
><Delete-(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>>On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 18:51:34 +0000, Kennedy McEwen
>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Roger Halstead
>>><Delete-(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>>>>
>>>>I haven't seen any problem. OTHO ask me again in another year of use.
>>>><:-))
>>>>I'm currently running a whole series of problem negatives through that
>>>>require adjustment of the analog gain, color correction, and are super
>>>>dense (under exposed).
>>>
>>>Why do your negatives need analogue gain adjustment? Negatives usually
>>>don't have enough dynamic range to cause a problem with exposure. Super
>>>dense negatives are usually extremely over-exposed, not under-exposed.
>>>
>>>Are you sure you are not talking about slides?
>>
>>I'm sure I am talking about slides,
>
>I thought you must be.
>
>> but the guy you are answering was
>>talking about negatives...I think.
>>
>I wasn't answering anyone - I was asking you a question about what you
>wrote. Negatives were introduced in the thread in your post - up till
>then it had been only Gary's question about focus across glass-less
>mounted slides. Did you reply to the correct article? ;-)
>
>>There are two posts mixed in there<:-))
>>
>Not in the section I quoted: 5 lines comprising two sentences separated
>by an emoticon - all written by you and posted on 17th March 2004 at
>18:11:07GMT (13:11:07 EST). That is the first place in the entire
>thread that underexposed negatives were super dense, consequently
>requiring analogue gain adjustment, was mentioned.

My apologies,

I didn't recall the wording and the post wasn't on my
server...However, I went back thorough the <Sent Messages> and lo and
behold, there it was.

Bout the only excuse I can think of at the moment is a plain old
fashioned "brain fart". I have no idea as to why I said negatives,
unless I was thinking of what I have to do after I get through the
slides.

I am going through a bunch of problem slides that are "old", warped,
discolored, scratched, and dirty. I'm definitely not using the SF-210
for these. They are strictly one-at-a-time.

Again, my apologies.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com