filmscanners: Light Source (Nikon LS40 vs. Minolta Scan Elite II)
Until recently I had planned to purchase the Nikon LS40 Coolscan IV filmscanner. But now that I had learned of the brand-new Minolta Dimage Scan Elite II, I have to think this decision all over. There are a few features in favor of the Minolta: - color depth 48bit vs. 36bit (I don't know if this is relevant for an amateur), - multi-pass scanning (Nikon only with VueScan), - batch-scanning of four mounted slides. While every manufacturer except Nikon seems to use a fluorescent lamp as light source, the Nikon scanner comes with a RGB LED array. Does one type of light source have advantages over the other? Thanks, -fritz
filmscanners: Howtek vs. the world
Dear Group, In what seems like my never ending search for an affordable great scanner, we are now considering a used Howtek. My question is: How does this compare to the quality of the Scitex Eversmart Supreme flatbed scanners (in dynamic range, d-max and overall quality of the scans, noise etc.) as well as the Imacons, especially the new one, the Flextite 848. All responses appreciated. Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC PS: This is cross posted to 2 different scanner groups.
Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000
Hi Tomasz, I missed this thread and I answer only because I have a Microtek Artixscan 4000T and it seems that this is not very frequent in the list. I cannot compare to other brand scanners, because this is my first scanner and I never saw another. This is the second 4000T that I own. The first had a serious problem during warranty and I got this one as a replacement. I had to wait about six months and I only managed to get the replacement after serious trouble and with the help of a consumer rights organism. In my country (Portugal) the filmscanner's market is very reduced and, at that time, Polaroid was much more expensive. I chose the Microtek because I thought that, having a distributor in my country this would be better in case the scanner would have a problem. The only positive aspect was that, as the reseller was in Portugal, I could ask for the help from the consumer rights organism in my country. When I searched in the net the Microtek's sites I saw (only after asking by email, which I think is a little strange) that the reseller in my country had changed. None of them was a big company and I suspected that I cannot trust so much in Microtek distribution partners and that Microtek is not very exigeant in this field. My second Microtek had a problem in the second day -- the power button froze (happily it is always ON, so I connect and disconnect directly with the power cable). With former experience, I didn't even thought about ask for a new replacment. In Microtek quality control I cannot trust, but it would be unfair not to say that I read similar stories about all the other brands. It seems that now Polaroid prices in other countries are very nive. Also there is a person from Polaroid in this list that offers much help (I think that this is very important). If I had to buy another scanner, surely I would ask if I could have a good technical support if I purchase it in another country. As to the scan's quality (slides and now B&W) I am very satisfied. I posted something in this list about serious retouching needs (SS4000 and Microtek 4000T don't have IR channel) that is not right (I was biased, confusing some things and not applying the correct technics). I told what happened to me and I hope it will be of some help in your choice. Good luck! (it is a very important side of the problem ...). Mário Teixeira [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "Tomasz Zakrzewski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, 14 November, 2001 9:36 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000 | Mikael Risedal wrote: | > Test of Canon and Nikon 4000 ppi scanner | > The test shows that a combination of Canons sharpness and Nikons scanning | > speed, colors and Dmax should be a nearly perfect mid end scanner. | > The complete test result will be publicized in next Photodo Magazine. | | And can users of Microtek ArticScan 4000T comment how their scanner compares | to Nikon and Canon? (scanning time, dmax, sharpness, colors, ) | I think this question also applies to Polaroid SS4000 users but I don't know | if Polaroids' performance is equal to Microteks' or are there any obvious | differences? | I don't consider buying the Polaroid since in Poland, where I live, they're | too expensive and service is not available. But Microteks 4000T are | available, I only don't know how they compare to Nikons and Canons. | | Regards | | Tomasz Zakrzewski | www.zakrzewski.art.pl | _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000
To illustrate what I mean with poor Nikon Ls 4000 sharpness, I have put a attachment with a jpg file. Vuescan as a reference sofware and same settings to the 2 scanners >Nikon Ls 4000 can not produce equal sharpness over the whole film area if >the film are mounted glass less or in a filmstrip. Lack of depth of field. > >The test shows that a combination of Canons sharpness and Nikons scanning >speed, colors and Dmax should be a nearly perfect mid end scanner. > >Mikael Risedal > > > > >_ >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp > _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp <>
filmscanners: Nikon LS40ED - first impressions
Well, I finally got around to picking up my Nikon Coolscan LS40ED this afternoon, and I'm very pleased with it. A surprisingly small machine (despite the *huge* cardboard box it came in!), it's produced some superb results so far. Installation was very easy - I plugged in the USB cable and XP immediately recognised it correctly and installed a driver. I installed Nikon Scan 3, and have already done a few decent scans. I particularly like the batch-scanning feature - just slipping a film strip in and letting the scanner do the rest (just what I wanted). A couple of questions: 1. For some reason the batch scanning facility defaults to assuming that each strip has 6 pictures on it. That's fine, except that some of mine don't - and it generates an error for the 'missing' pics. A minor annoyance, but not the end of the world. 2. Is VueScan going to be a better option for scanning than Nikon Scan 3? What's the batch scanning handling like? Small questions, but all in all I'm very pleased so far. :-) Mark
Re: filmscanners: Nikon LS40ED - first impressions
Hiya Mark, well first of all if you want they have a bug fix version of Nikon Scan Version 3.1 on their website.. I think the address is www.nikon-imaging.com I got my Nikon Coolscan LS-IV yesterday but have not installed it yet since I have a small problem with my video card or something... Eric == > Well, I finally got around to picking up my Nikon Coolscan LS40ED this > afternoon, and I'm very pleased with it. > A surprisingly small machine (despite the *huge* cardboard box it came > in!), it's produced some superb results so far. Installation was very > easy - I plugged in the USB cable and XP immediately recognised it > correctly and installed a driver. I installed Nikon Scan 3, and have > already done a few decent scans. I particularly like the batch-scanning > feature - just slipping a film strip in and letting the scanner do the > rest (just what I wanted). > A couple of questions: > 1. For some reason the batch scanning facility defaults to assuming that > each strip has 6 pictures on it. That's fine, except that some of mine > don't - and it generates an error for the 'missing' pics. A minor > annoyance, but not the end of the world. > 2. Is VueScan going to be a better option for scanning than Nikon Scan > 3? What's the batch scanning handling like? Small questions, but all in all I'm very pleased so far. :-)
Re: filmscanners: Nikon LS40ED - first impressions
- Original Message - From: "Eric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 8:07 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon LS40ED - first impressions > Hiya Mark, > > well first of all if you want they have a bug fix version of Nikon Scan > Version 3.1 on their website.. I think the address is www.nikon-imaging.com > > I got my Nikon Coolscan LS-IV yesterday but have not installed it yet since > I have a small problem with my video card or something... > Funny, everybody´s got his LS- 40 yesterday or today: we got ours at work yesterday, I have it at home for the first days to check if everything´s allright. I agree that its a nice machine, a very capable midrange film scanner, and very fast: scanning single slides is a joy, very easy and reliable. Unfortunately film grain seems to show up quite strong, as far as I understand this is due to the LED light source, compared to the ..???... one of Minolta and Polaroid. The LED makes that the Nikons are basically capable, but have very small depth of field sharpness and accentuate grain and dust more that the more diffuse light sources of the other scanners. This makes ICE on Nikon more necessary than on Pola or Minolta.. My first 20 or 30 scans seem to affirm this. Bernhard P.S.: The LS- 40 is a bit noisy while scanning!
Re: filmscanners: Nikon LS40ED - first impressions
>Well, I finally got around to picking up my Nikon Coolscan LS40ED this >afternoon, and I'm very pleased with it. >1. For some reason the batch scanning facility defaults to assuming that >each strip has 6 pictures on it. That's fine, except that some of mine >don't - and it generates an error for the 'missing' pics. A minor >annoyance, but not the end of the world. I don't have that problem with my LS40ED. I upgraded to NS 3.1 (free upgrade) and I use Mac OS. Mike Duncan
Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000
Maybe I'm not looking at the images correctly but the _entire_ Nikon 4000 frame looks out of focus. Is this a fair test - to compare an out-of-focus Nikon scan to an in-focus Canon scan? Brian -- respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "Mikael Risedal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 4:29 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000 > > To illustrate what I mean with poor Nikon Ls 4000 sharpness, I have > put a attachment with a jpg file. Vuescan as a reference sofware and same > settings to the 2 scanners > > > > >Nikon Ls 4000 can not produce equal sharpness over the whole film area if > >the film are mounted glass less or in a filmstrip. Lack of depth of field. > > > >The test shows that a combination of Canons sharpness and Nikons scanning > >speed, colors and Dmax should be a nearly perfect mid end scanner. > > > >Mikael Risedal > > > > > > > > > >_ > >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp > > > > _ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp >
Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000
Hello Brian. The Nikon scanner is not out of focus. Nikon LS 4000 are sharp in the middle of the film area but un sharp out against the sides and corner . The example are from the right side of a slide film. Next small jpg file are from our test motive . The test motive shows in the middle of the jpg file. This is from the left corner. I hope that every one can se the difference in resolution and sharpness. Look below the text. Nikon have a big problem with the depth of field. Best results gets with glass framed film and 100% film flatness. Low light source and to open f-stop lens construction is the main problem. Im a owner of 2 Nikon scanner LS2000 and LS 4000, they have the same problem. Best regards Mikael Risedal >From: "Brian D. Plikaytis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000 >Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 17:32:53 -0500 > >Maybe I'm not looking at the images correctly but the _entire_ Nikon 4000 >frame looks out of focus. Is this a fair test - to compare an out-of-focus >Nikon scan to an in-focus Canon scan? > >Brian >-- >respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >- Original Message - >From: "Mikael Risedal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 4:29 PM >Subject: Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000 > > > > > > To illustrate what I mean with poor Nikon Ls 4000 sharpness, I have > > put a attachment with a jpg file. Vuescan as a reference sofware and >same > > settings to the 2 scanners > > > > > > > > >Nikon Ls 4000 can not produce equal sharpness over the whole film area >if > > >the film are mounted glass less or in a filmstrip. Lack of depth of >field. > > > > > >The test shows that a combination of Canons sharpness and Nikons >scanning > > >speed, colors and Dmax should be a nearly perfect mid end scanner. > > > > > >Mikael Risedal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_ > > >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at >http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp > > > > > > > _ > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at >http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp > > > > > _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp <>
Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000
Brian. New answer same question My Swedish are better than my English. Off course the Nikon scanned film example are out of focus .This is what the whole issue are about. Nikon scanner LS4000 produce sharp scanning in the middle but not out against sides and corners of the film The example are from the right side of the film. Glass less mounted. Please read and se example 2 . Best regards Mikael Risedal >From: "Brian D. Plikaytis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000 >Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 17:32:53 -0500 > >Maybe I'm not looking at the images correctly but the _entire_ Nikon 4000 >frame looks out of focus. Is this a fair test - to compare an out-of-focus >Nikon scan to an in-focus Canon scan? > >Brian >-- >respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >- Original Message - >From: "Mikael Risedal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 4:29 PM >Subject: Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000 > > > > > > To illustrate what I mean with poor Nikon Ls 4000 sharpness, I have > > put a attachment with a jpg file. Vuescan as a reference sofware and >same > > settings to the 2 scanners > > > > > > > > >Nikon Ls 4000 can not produce equal sharpness over the whole film area >if > > >the film are mounted glass less or in a filmstrip. Lack of depth of >field. > > > > > >The test shows that a combination of Canons sharpness and Nikons >scanning > > >speed, colors and Dmax should be a nearly perfect mid end scanner. > > > > > >Mikael Risedal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_ > > >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at >http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp > > > > > > > _ > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at >http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp > > > > > _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000
OK Mikael, let me ask a follow-up question. I am a beginner so your knowledge clearly surpasses mine. I've been reading your comments (as well as others) on this issue for months now. My question is the following: are you able to reclaim proper sharpness through the judicious use of sharpening techniques in Photoshop. I ask because I purchased a Nikon 4000 scanner a number of months ago and I am able to get much better results from the resultant images out of Photoshop than I was ever able to get through the use of professional photofinisher. thanks, Brian -- respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "Mikael Risedal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 12:01 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000 > Hello Brian. The Nikon scanner is not out of focus. > Nikon LS 4000 are sharp in the middle of the film area but un sharp out > against the sides and corner . The example are from the right side of a > slide film. > > Next small jpg file are from our test motive . The test motive shows in the > middle of the jpg file. This is from the left corner. > I hope that every one can se the difference in resolution and sharpness. > Look below the text. > Nikon have a big problem with the depth of field. Best results gets with > glass framed film and 100% film flatness. Low light source and to open > f-stop lens construction is the main problem. Im a owner of 2 Nikon scanner > LS2000 and LS 4000, they have the same problem. > Best regards > Mikael Risedal > > > > > > > >From: "Brian D. Plikaytis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000 > >Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 17:32:53 -0500 > > > >Maybe I'm not looking at the images correctly but the _entire_ Nikon 4000 > >frame looks out of focus. Is this a fair test - to compare an out-of-focus > >Nikon scan to an in-focus Canon scan? > > > >Brian > >-- > >respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > >- Original Message - > >From: "Mikael Risedal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 4:29 PM > >Subject: Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000 > > > > > > > > > > To illustrate what I mean with poor Nikon Ls 4000 sharpness, I have > > > put a attachment with a jpg file. Vuescan as a reference sofware and > >same > > > settings to the 2 scanners > > > > > > > > > > > > >Nikon Ls 4000 can not produce equal sharpness over the whole film area > >if > > > >the film are mounted glass less or in a filmstrip. Lack of depth of > >field. > > > > > > > >The test shows that a combination of Canons sharpness and Nikons > >scanning > > > >speed, colors and Dmax should be a nearly perfect mid end scanner. > > > > > > > >Mikael Risedal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_ > > > >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at > >http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp > > > > > > > > > > _ > > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at > >http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp > > > > > > > > > > > > _ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp >
Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000
It sounds like you have a need for a warranty repair, to adjust/replace the focus module. I have found NikonUSA warranty repair service quite responsive, and friendly. If you call them at 1-800-645-6678 (Customer service) or 6689 (tech support) they will immediately send out a repair authorization form, authorizing you to send it in for the necessary work (include a print of the problem scan) at their expense. If Mikael is not in USA, I can only hope the country where he bought it is as cooperative as I have found NikonUSA. They have somebody in 'quality control' supposedly go over the repairs before they are shipped out. I have found that to be their weak link, as the first time I sent my LS-30 in for an intermittent banding problem, it also had a focus problem. I got approval for a priority return shipping at their expense, and their return invoice stated they had replaced the focus motor... Anyway, it worked fine when I got it back the 2nd time, except the intermittent banding problem later returned. That time, they sent me a 'new' replacement scanner. Hersch At 02:32 PM 11/15/2001, you wrote: Maybe I'm not looking at the images correctly but the _entire_ Nikon 4000 frame looks out of focus. Is this a fair test - to compare an out-of-focus Nikon scan to an in-focus Canon scan? Brian -- respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "Mikael Risedal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 4:29 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000 > > To illustrate what I mean with poor Nikon Ls 4000 sharpness, I have > put a attachment with a jpg file. Vuescan as a reference sofware and same > settings to the 2 scanners > > > > >Nikon Ls 4000 can not produce equal sharpness over the whole film area if > >the film are mounted glass less or in a filmstrip. Lack of depth of field. > > > >The test shows that a combination of Canons sharpness and Nikons scanning > >speed, colors and Dmax should be a nearly perfect mid end scanner. > > > >Mikael Risedal > > > > > > > > > >_ > >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp > > > > _ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp >
Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000
On 16/11/01 12:01 am, "Mikael Risedal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello Brian. The Nikon scanner is not out of focus. > Nikon LS 4000 are sharp in the middle of the film area but un sharp out > against the sides and corner . The example are from the right side of a > slide film. > > Next small jpg file are from our test motive . The test motive shows in the > middle of the jpg file. This is from the left corner. > I hope that every one can se the difference in resolution and sharpness. > Look below the text. > Nikon have a big problem with the depth of field. Best results gets with > glass framed film and 100% film flatness. Low light source and to open > f-stop lens construction is the main problem. Im a owner of 2 Nikon scanner > LS2000 and LS 4000, they have the same problem. > Best regards > Mikael Risedal > > Hi Mikael A definitive test for me would be to scan the same area of a slide from both the middle and the edge on both scanners. If you have time it would be of interest to many here I'm sure. Really appreciate your input. Richard
Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000
The answer is NO to your question below Brian. Do a test by your self. Take a slide or negative film. Select the auto focus in the middle (NikonScan 3.1 or silverfast) and scan. Look at the results. Choose a new auto focus point the the corner or side of the film and scan. You get 2 different results. One are grain sharp in the middle and unsharp in the corner. The other are sharp in the corner and not sharp in the middle. You can never get equal sharpness over the whole film with a Nikon scanner. I have done this test with 4 different Ls 4000 scanner - same results. You get only a overall sharp picture from the LS4000 scanner if you put the film in a glass frame. All film curves a little bit and the lack of depth of field in LS 4000 produce a poor overall resolution . ( Imacon scannner have F-stop 8 ) I belive LS4000 lens are wide open. This is well known problem by Nikon , but Polaroid and now Canon can handle the problem without any glass mounted film frames. In last Photokina Germany sept 2000 i discussed the problem with Nikon. Nothing yet are done to solve the problem Best Regards Mikael Risedal >From: "Brian D. Plikaytis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000 >Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 19:49:22 -0500 > >OK Mikael, let me ask a follow-up question. I am a beginner so your >knowledge clearly surpasses mine. I've been reading your comments (as well >as others) on this issue for months now. My question is the following: are >you able to reclaim proper sharpness through the judicious use of >sharpening >techniques in Photoshop. I ask because I purchased a Nikon 4000 scanner a >number of months ago and I am able to get much better results from the >resultant images out of Photoshop than I was ever able to get through the >use of professional photofinisher. > >thanks, > >Brian >-- >respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >- Original Message - >From: "Mikael Risedal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 12:01 AM >Subject: Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000 > > > > Hello Brian. The Nikon scanner is not out of focus. > > Nikon LS 4000 are sharp in the middle of the film area but un sharp out > > against the sides and corner . The example are from the right side of a > > slide film. > > > > Next small jpg file are from our test motive . The test motive shows in >the > > middle of the jpg file. This is from the left corner. > > I hope that every one can se the difference in resolution and sharpness. > > Look below the text. > > Nikon have a big problem with the depth of field. Best results gets with > > glass framed film and 100% film flatness. Low light source and to open > > f-stop lens construction is the main problem. Im a owner of 2 Nikon >scanner > > LS2000 and LS 4000, they have the same problem. > > Best regards > > Mikael Risedal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: "Brian D. Plikaytis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Subject: Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000 > > >Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 17:32:53 -0500 > > > > > >Maybe I'm not looking at the images correctly but the _entire_ Nikon >4000 > > >frame looks out of focus. Is this a fair test - to compare an >out-of-focus > > >Nikon scan to an in-focus Canon scan? > > > > > >Brian > > >-- > > >respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > >- Original Message - > > >From: "Mikael Risedal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 4:29 PM > > >Subject: Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To illustrate what I mean with poor Nikon Ls 4000 sharpness, I have > > > > put a attachment with a jpg file. Vuescan as a reference sofware and > > >same > > > > settings to the 2 scanners > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Nikon Ls 4000 can not produce equal sharpness over the whole film >area > > >if > > > > >the film are mounted glass less or in a filmstrip. Lack of depth of > > >field. > > > > > > > > > >The test shows that a combination of Canons sharpness and Nikons > > >scanning > > > > >speed, colors and Dmax should be a nearly perfect mid end scanner. > > > > > > > > > >Mikael Risedal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_ > > > > >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at > > >http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp > > > > > > > > > > > > > _ > > > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at > > >http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _ > > Get your FREE download of MSN
Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000
Greetings all-- I'm a bit surprised to see the nature of the comments about Mikael Risedal's report of focus problems; as if this is a new and unheard of issue. Surely anyone who's been on this list awhile is aware that this is a perennial issue with the Nikon filmscanners! Web reviews that mention focus problems with the Nikon filmscanners that I've learned about through this list include: http://www.pytlowany.com/nikontest.html http://members.austarmetro.com.au/~julian/ls2000-focus.htm I also reported here my own experiences with my two-month old Nikon LS4000ED only a few weeks ago, complaining about focus problems. Let me reiterate: o I have thousands of Kodachrome slides dating back twenty years in both plastic and cardboard mounts with what I consider "normal" degrees of curvature for slides. o I have a number of these slides where the Nikon cannot produce sharp scans across the entire image. o The NikonScan software lets me place the focus point anywhere on the image I like, and will give me razor sharp scans at that point. However other regions of the image will consequently become blurry. o When you manually set the focus point (by clicking the preview image where you want the scanner to focus), the scanner will focus at that point and report a number. By clicking around you can compare the various focus numbers. o Regions that are within 6 focus units of the focus point (the scanner just gives a number, doesn't say whether this represents microns, angstroms, or what) will be substantially as sharp as at the focus point. o Regions that are 12 units different from the focus point will be noticeably blurry. o I have some slides where I have measured a range of at least 20 focus units. On these slides I can click various areas to find the range of focus units, set the scanner manually at a number halfway in-between, and get the best AVERAGE sharpness across the image. HOWEVER, the blurriest parts are blurrier than when I scan the same slide with my 4-year-old 2300 dpi filmscanner. o Therefore on these slides I'm getting 4000 dpi sharpness in certain parts of the scan (say the center) and less than 2300 dpi sharpness in other parts (say the edges). o I have not done as much work with negative strips as I have with slides. I do see some focus variation across negative images but so far it doesn't seem as bad as for my most-curved slides. OK, now you have four independent reports on focus issues with the Nikon scanners: Mikael's, mine, and the two websites quoted above. The phenomenon is real, and it's not simply that people making silly mistakes and misinterpreting the results. Whether it's a problem for you depends on the state of your film, how much work you're willing to go to (glass mounting all your slides?) and how demanding you are. --Bill -- == Bill Fernandez * User Interface Architect * Bill Fernandez Design (505) 346-3080 * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://billfernandez.com ==
filmscanners: ADMIN: Play nice, or else.
On Thu, 15 Nov 2001 08:43:37 +1100 Kevin Power ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > I'm with you as it sure does get bitchy at times! If it happened on a > list > that I run, the offending member/s would get zapped along with their > messages. > > Kevin. Unortunately the remote admin of this list does not permit such easy interdiction. All I can do is remove people and keep them removed. It is quite clear from the list charter that this list exists for the purpose of discussing filmscanners. I understand that sometimes conversations veer off topic, but I expect contributors to exercise restraint and take OT threads off list if they cannot be kept brief. Good manners are mandatory. Argument about ideas is fine, personal attacks are not. If anyone feels they cannot stick to the rules, they have two choices : leave, or be removed. Frankly I have had such a lot of trouble with this list lately, with admin taking up so much time I seldom have time to read up to date, let alone participate. 250 bounce mails today, and that after I spent >1hr weeding dead addresses; complaints from list members about conduct of some participants; inquiries about getting on or off the list, and so on. Furthermore the hosting renewal is so expensive that I am beginning to wonder why I don't just close it. I would rather not, because it is genuinely useful to a lot of people, but I would ask everyone to think carefully about whether what they are about to post is (a)a genuine question or (b)helpful, polite, relevant and of interest to a filmscanner community of ~1,500 people. IF NOT, DON'T. Here is the introductory text everyone gets when they subscribe. Please read it :- === Welcome to the filmscanners mailing list. Please read the following. If you have subscribed to this list previously, please note that some commands and addresses have changed since October 2000. By participating in the filmscanners list you agree to these terms, and you should save a copy of this message for future reference. This document is also available at www.halftone.co.uk and you may also subscribe or unsubscribe from there. You can instead subscribe to a Digest sent each day, or, during busy periods, more often. The Digest contains all messages posted to the list on that day, as a single email. Many people prefer this to 'real time' receipt of many separate emails. HOWEVER PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS DIGEST IS READ ONLY : YOU CANNOT POST TO THE LIST IF YOU ARE A DIGEST SUBSCRIBER. If you wish to post you will need to subscribe to the list proper. Please do not mail me and complain about this, this aspect of configuration is outside my control. ADDRESS FOR POSTING CONTRIBUTIONS [EMAIL PROTECTED] ADDRESS FOR COMMANDS eg 'help', 'subscribe' etc [EMAIL PROTECTED] HUMAN ASSISTANCE (last resort please!) [EMAIL PROTECTED] HOST WEBSITE http://www.halftone.co.uk Tony Sleep Photography UNSUBSCRIBING Please see the COMMANDS section below LIST CHARTER This list exists for the purpose of: - discussing purchasing decisions - discussing issues arising from the use of filmscanners - discussing reviews and other material available on WWW - disseminating news of new film scanners, drivers and software - notifying you of updates of http://www.halftone.co.uk, the host of this list RULES 1. Posting in plain text is required; HTML or MicroSoft formatted email is not welcome as it adds to bandwidth and many mail clients cannot understand it and present an illegible mess. MS Outlook users should take special care to turn off the default HTML by selecting 'Send as plain text'. 2. Posting encoded image binaries is permitted if they are relevant, but please keep file sizes below 80k. Use JPEG image encoding, and MIME attachment. Larger files will be bounced by Majordomo. However a better mechanism is to display the image on a web page and post the URL in an email. You may only post images which fulfil legal requirements regarding copyright. 3. Off topic messages. Whilst it is the nature of list discussions that ongoing conversations will sometimes veer Off Topic, I ask that members use restraint and good judgement. OT discussion quickly annoys list members; if you want to embark on a lengthy OT discussion which falls outside the List Charter (above), you must take it off list to private email. 4. Anyone who abuses this list or list members, or posts irrelevant material, advertising, or 'spam' will be removed and barred without warning. Signatures advertising websites or contact details are permitted, but please keep them to a tolerable length. Debate, even heated debate, is encouraged, but keep it polite please. Gender, race, sexual orientation, religious or political evangelism are of no relevance to this list, and are a fast track to permanent exclusion without warning. 5. Defamatory or otherwise actionable or illegal m
filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000
Bill wrote: >o I have thousands of Kodachrome slides dating back twenty years in >both plastic and cardboard mounts with what I consider "normal" >degrees of curvature for slides. Hi Bill, I was wondering whether you've tried scanning any of these slides on a Polaroid SS4000 and compared the results? Has anyone done any testing on the depth of field on the SS4000? I've heard a lot about the Nikons, but not much about the Polaroid. I'm not disputing there's a problem - I'm just wondering whether the problem persists with other 4000dpi scanners and the same slides? Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
