Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!feeder.erje.net!news-1.dfn.de!news.dfn.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_F=F6rster?= Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.apps Subject: Re: Scanner software for Mac Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 19:42:49 +0200 Lines: 26 Message-ID: <9tu6opFequU1@mid.individual.net> References: <9tdhcpFtthU1@mid.individual.net> <4f71ab0f$0$1656$c3e8da3$f017e9df@news.astraweb.com> <9tdq8cFguU1@mid.individual.net> <9tr2avFibnU1@mid.individual.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net qP7EMj5lTmhTVGGI11qPmAYs43KBtU+JUKw2PgPGCx3ZR1LQ== Cancel-Lock: sha1:tfgYmDiEwpWC/MwMGTghnRenpvE= User-Agent: Unison/2.1.7 Xref: csiph.com comp.sys.mac.apps:8837 Hi Isaac, > My sense of it is that a scanner's depth of field is quite sufficient to > deal with a modest amount of film warpage insofar as focus is concerned. > My Microtek scanner's transparency holder could accommodate both > positives (slides) and negatives, but because of the way the holder was > built, the two were held at different distances from the imaging > mechanism. I tried both positions, and could not see any difference in > sharpness even at 4800 dpi. I suppose it's possible that your technique > would reduce geometric distortion (by a very little bit), but I didn't > notice it being a problem. Plus, every extra piece of glass means two > more surfaces to cause reflections and collect dust ... ... I found a huge gradient in sharpness changing with warpage. Putting an extra glass layer on top of any transparency, no matter whether negative or positive, improves the situation here a lot. But then, the warpage of my old negatives is really really bad. Imagine a third of a pipe. They're rounded up to that point, length-wise. So I don't just get steady sharpness thoughout the whole image but a huge geometry correction. -- cul8er Paul paul.foerster@gmx.net