'Because the 35mm film scanners Nikon Coolscan V and Super Coolscan 5000 came
up with an excellent resolution of 3900dpi the Super Coolscan 9000 raised
expectations. The question is if the 9000 can make real 4000dpi or if it's a
few percent less just like with its smaller brothers.
If you analyze the scan of an USAF1951 target you'll quickly realize the
Super Coolscan 9000's horizontal resolution differs from its vertical resolution
just like with its smaller brothers. With large magnification you can
differentiate the horizontal lines up to element 6.3 from the background - this
matches 4000 dpi resolution! The vertical lines can barely be differentiated
with element 6.2, which matches a resolution of 3650 dpi. The average of these
two resolutions is 3900 dpi. This effective resolution is just 2,5% below the
specified resolution of 4000 dpi. This is very creditable and remarkable - it
simply distinguishes a Nikon scanner from its competitors.-
-from an old on line review
I tend to agree with this. The limitation of the 9000 is it's lenses, as
stated in the previous post. Other scanners do better, not because of better
glass, but a better and brighter light source (florescent tubes not dim LED's).
Consequently, the 9000's lenses must operate wide open, which is not the best
for optimum performance. However, LEDs do have some advantages of their own.
In a message dated 5/13/2008 9:25:03 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time,
rafeb%40speakeasy.net">rafeb
speakeasy.net writes:
At 10:35 PM 5/13/2008 +0000, hassiman wrote:
>I was informed by Silverfast that the real native resolution of the
>CoolScan 9000 is actually 3000 dpi. If this is true it's in keeping
>with other manufacturer'with other manufacturer'<WBR>s habit of ove
>of their scanners. Another 9000 user said that he had seen target
>tests that also showed the 9000's native resolution at 3000 dpi.
>;
>Anyone here confirm this?
I'd say that's wrong. Years ago some scanner company
got in serious hot water for "inflating" their scanner
resolution.
Now if you were to say that the *effective* or *practical*
resolution is around 3000 spi, I'd be inclined to agree.
But that's not the same thing as "native" resolution.
I'm willing to bet that the LS-8000 and LS-9000 are
"native" 4000 spi. That's not hard to achieve.
Epson's V750 is 6400 spi "native" and they're not
lying either. Native resolution is quite straightforward.
Length of sensor (# of pixels) divided by the width of
film "mapped" into the sensor.
What's hard to achieve is getting the optics, focusing
and film flatness to match that. Bottom line, native
resolution is cheap and easy to achieve. True optical
resolution (ie., MTF) is not.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.www
the native resolution.
**************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family
favorites at AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
.
