RE: filmscanners: LS-4000ED Dmax 4,2 or rather 2,3?
The pop photo article is on line at: http://popphoto.com/Camera/ArticleDisplay.asp?ArticleID=33
Re: filmscanners: LS-4000ED Dmax 4,2 or rather 2,3?
'Popular Photography' is to Photography as 'The Sound of Music' is to Music. ted orland Robert Wright Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 13:53:25 +0200 From: Oostrom, Jerry [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: LS-4000ED Dmax 4,2 or rather 2,3? I just read in Popular Photography about a test on 7 filmscanners. The Nikon LS-4000ED I believe was also mentioned there as having few shadow detail. The SS120 had great shadow detail in that test. Since nobody else on this list mentioned this test (an american magazine, sent to Holland-- plenty of time for americans to read it) I assume its not such a popular magazine among filmscanner people?
RE: filmscanners: LS-4000ED Dmax 4,2 or rather 2,3?
Sorry Nikon, it was the the LS with the IV that had normal contrast and the one with the 4000 that had high contrast. It was my memory that had no contrast. -Original Message- From: Oostrom, Jerry [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 1:53 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: filmscanners: LS-4000ED Dmax 4,2 or rather 2,3? I just read in Popular Photography about a test on 7 filmscanners. The Nikon LS-4000ED I believe was also mentioned there as having few shadow detail. The SS120 had great shadow detail in that test.
Re: filmscanners: LS-4000ED Dmax 4,2 or rather 2,3?
On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 12:37:33 +0200 Tomasz Zakrzewski ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: But I've just read a review od the 4000ED in German magazine digit ftp://ftp.lasersoft.com.pl/SFPrasa2001/Digit_3-2001.pdf which says, that the true Dmax of this scanner is 2,3! It was even worse than with Coolscan LS-2000 which had 2,6. What't this??? It means no details in shadows. The reviewers say that this low Dmax is the consequence of the increase in resolution at the cost of the light-sensitive area of the sensor (whatever it means) which causes too low light-sensitivity. I guess they must mean that the smaller pixel area restricts the light-gathering ability of each pixel, hence sensitivity. FWIW the LS2000 wasn't too clever in the shadows, which tended to be submerged in noise, though multiscanning addressed that very successfully. I think there's a fair amount of circumstantial evidence that Nikon's LED lightsource is not all that bright, which will mean the CCD is forced to operate nearer the noise floor - and integrating exposure over time to compensate will also accumulate noise. Test scans at www.imaging-resource.com also show that only after some tweaking in the sanning program scans with good tonal separation in shadows can be obtained. Not unusual - CCD's generally compress the shadows a little. Up to a point you can regain separation by editing the curve. I'm puzzled. Can you comment on this Dmax matter? Not without getting my hands on one. But the usual caveats about mfrs OD range specifications apply - there's no standard way of measuring them, and the marketing dept is likely to be in control. I thought that the 4000ED might be such a machine, but now... Apart from this Dmax thing, this scanner's real resolution is 3240 ppi effective. The 4000ED doesn't differentiates reds good enough, too. Yet a lot of people seem to be happy with it. Why is it so that I can't buy a flatbed scanner in $ 1000 price range that would show no noise in shadows of scans of reflective media (prints) and it's impossible to find a well designed film scanner in the $ 2000 price range? Scanning reflective artwork is a doddle compared to film, which exhibits much more severe OD range, and also your demands for colour accuracy and optical excellence are likely to be higher. Right now my conclusion is that the home filmscannig technology is still immature. Up to a point, although hardware is now vastly better than it was 4-5 years ago. Software, useability and colour management are now to the fore. There's still a steep learning curve. But it's perfectly possible to get very good results indeed, with occasional limitations and problems, most of which can be worked around. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: LS-4000ED Dmax 4,2 or rather 2,3?
--- Hersch Nitikman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just went back to the Popular Photography issue that reviewed the new scanners, and what I saw was very different from what was said here earlier today. They rated the LS-4000 Very highly. In fact, maybe too highly... Well, PP seems to write a lot of things to please its advertisers. There are a lot of articles that are flawed and don't really tell you the whole truth. It's not that everything they write is wrong but you have to take it with a grain of salt. I have to admit that I also did subscribe for PP but at $3/year there is enough information that is worth the $3. Rob __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
RE: filmscanners: LS-4000ED Dmax 4,2 or rather 2,3?
Tomasz, I have commented on the OD issues several times in the past and I will state my view again. Although OD/Dynamic range specification could be a useful in determining a scanners performance, the numbers published by various scanner manufactures are essentially useless. Every manufacturer uses their own method for determining these specifications which translates they have no relation to each other and are of no value. You may also have noticed the latest 4.2 values being published. This describes the ability of the internal components to discriminate that Dmax value IF the scanner/film system could see a density that time. Imacon has used the as part of their specification for a while and Nikon and Polaroid has recently started using that number as well. Nothing wrong with it if you understand what it means. One mans view. David -Original Message- From: Tomasz Zakrzewski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 6:38 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: LS-4000ED Dmax 4,2 or rather 2,3? Hello, Over the last several months I've been reading this list through the digest. Now, when majordomo let me in again :-) I want to ask you about one thing: Having read several hundreds of posts from this lists and optimistic reviews on the net, I came to the conclusion that the best scanner I could buy at the moment is either the Coolscan LS-4000ED or Coolscan LS-800ED with its breakthrough technical data. But I've just read a review od the 4000ED in German magazine "digit" ftp://ftp.lasersoft.com.pl/SFPrasa2001/Digit_3-2001.pdf which says, that the true Dmax of this scanner is 2,3! It was even worse than with Coolscan LS-2000 which had 2,6. What't this??? It means no details in shadows. The reviewers say that this low Dmax is the consequence of the increase in resolution at the cost of the light-sensitive area of the sensor (whatever it means) which causes too low light-sensitivity. Test scans at www.imaging-resource.com also show that only after some tweaking in the sanning program scans with good tonal separation in shadows can be obtained. I'm puzzled. Can you comment on this Dmax matter? In fact I don't care about any Dmax or stuff. I just want to make perfect scan of my precious negatives and slides and do it only ONCE because "time is money". That means on a good enough machine so that my scan don't look made on a too cheap machine in several years time. I thought that the 4000ED might be such a machine, but now... Apart from this Dmax thing, this scanner's real resolution is 3240 ppi effective. The 4000ED doesn't differentiates reds good enough, too. Why is it so that I can't buy a flatbed scanner in $ 1000 price range that would show no noise in shadows of scans of reflective media (prints) and it's impossible to find a well designed film scanner in the $ 2000 price range? Right now my conclusion is that the home filmscannig technology is still immature. And the flatbed technology? A huge gap between what's promised and what's in real life. Tomasz Zakrzewski
RE: filmscanners: LS-4000ED Dmax 4,2 or rather 2,3?
Title: RE: filmscanners: LS-4000ED Dmax 4,2 or rather 2,3? Paul, I would suggest you ignore ALL the manufacturers specifications and base you decision on looking at actual scans done by yourself or a reputable independent source. I probably could not be termed independent but I hopefully reputable. The only scanner I have seen that may have marginally better shadow detail than the SS120 is the Imacon but only marginally. Several others have said the same. In the 4000 DPI category I have not seen anything better than the SS4000 particularly when you consider it achieves its density in a single pass which I also think preserves sharpness. David Hemingway Polaroid Corporation. -Original Message- From: Wilson, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 10:23 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: filmscanners: LS-4000ED Dmax 4,2 or rather 2,3? So, has anyone done any comparisons between the Polaroid SS120 and the Nikon LS8000 as far as shadow detail goes? What about an LS4000 vs. a SS4000? TIA Paul Wilson
RE: filmscanners: LS-4000ED Dmax 4,2 or rather 2,3?
I just read in Popular Photography about a test on 7 filmscanners. The Nikon LS-4000ED I believe was also mentioned there as having few shadow detail. The SS120 had great shadow detail in that test. Since nobody else on this list mentioned this test (an american magazine, sent to Holland-- plenty of time for americans to read it) I assume its not such a popular magazine among filmscanner people? -Original Message- From: Tomasz Zakrzewski [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 12:38 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: LS-4000ED Dmax 4,2 or rather 2,3? [Oostrom, Jerry] [] But I've just read a review od the 4000ED in German magazine digit ftp://ftp.lasersoft.com.pl/SFPrasa2001/Digit_3-2001.pdf which says, that the true Dmax of this scanner is 2,3! It was even worse than with Coolscan LS-2000 which had 2,6. What't this??? It means no details in shadows. The reviewers say that this low Dmax is the consequence of the increase in resolution at the cost of the light-sensitive area of the sensor (whatever it means) which causes too low light-sensitivity. [Oostrom, Jerry] []
Re: filmscanners: LS-4000ED Dmax 4,2 or rather 2,3?
On Thu, 28 Jun 2001, Tomasz Zakrzewski wrote: snip Test scans at www.imaging-resource.com also show that only after some tweaking in the sanning program scans with good tonal separation in shadows can be obtained. I'm puzzled. Can you comment on this Dmax matter? In fact I don't care about any Dmax or stuff. I just want to make perfect scan of my precious negatives and slides and do it only ONCE because time is money. That means on a good enough machine so that my scan don't look made on a too cheap machine in several years time. I thought that the 4000ED might be such a machine, but now... Apart from this Dmax thing, this scanner's real resolution is 3240 ppi effective. The 4000ED doesn't differentiates reds good enough, too. Why is it so that I can't buy a flatbed scanner in $ 1000 price range that would show no noise in shadows of scans of reflective media (prints) and it's impossible to find a well designed film scanner in the $ 2000 price range? Right now my conclusion is that the home filmscannig technology is still immature. And the flatbed technology? A huge gap between what's promised and what's in real life. Tomasz, you're right. At least in some regards. CCD-based scanners are far from perfect, and even the newest generation shows some (if not all) of the inherent problems with the technology. As with microprocessors, progress has been evolutionary, not revolutionary. We have more pixels now, and we can finally scan 120 film at the same resolutions that we'd been using for 35 mm. Aside from that, the changes are mostly cosmetic, IMHO. If you want perfect scans you may have to go with a drum scanner. The Imacon line of scanners are also pretty nice (and mucho $$$). I think they're still CCD-based, but they do something clever that the Nikons, Polaroids and Minoltas don't. It's no accident or surprise that the reference scan on Tony's filmscanner-reviews site is done with a Howtek scanner and fancy 3rd-party driver software. From personal experience, the dynamic range of my 8000 ED seems on par with my existing film scanners. But hey - maybe that banding I've been seeing on dense negatives is a symptom of poor Dmax? I dunno. At one point a couple of weeks back, I'd convinced myself that the dynamic range of the LS-8000 was markedly better than that of my Epson 1640SU, which I'd been using to scan 645 negatives before acquiring the LS-8000. In the last week or so I've been scanning 35 mm stuff on the LS-8000, and results are mixed. Some scans are perfect, some show banding. Fixes suggested by Nikon Tech Support help sometimes, but not always. I'm wondering if the the high temperatures here are a problem, also. Fancy lenses and auto-focus (as in the Nikon 4000 and 8000) may also be a mixed blessing. In some regards, I miss the simplicity of my existing and much simpler 35 mm scanner. I worry about that 14- element zoom lens in the LS-8000, and I have seen mis-focusing on some slides. rafe b.
Re: filmscanners: LS-4000ED Dmax 4,2 or rather 2,3?
There is no question about it, home filmscanning technology is constantly, I will say developing but not immature. Too many bad connotations to use a word like that. As far as the comparison with a flatbed scanner, film has much more dynamic range than does a print - it does not surprise me at all that the flatbed you mention will pick up everything in the print - there is less to pick up. Maris - Original Message - From: "Tomasz Zakrzewski" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 5:37 AM Subject: filmscanners: LS-4000ED Dmax 4,2 or rather 2,3? [snipped] | Why is it so that I can't buy a flatbed scanner in $ 1000 price range that | would show no noise in shadows of scans of reflective media (prints) and | it's impossible to find a well designed film scanner in the $ 2000 price | range? | Right now my conclusion is that the home filmscannig technology is still | immature. | And the flatbed technology? A huge gap between what's promised and what's in | real life.
RE: filmscanners: LS-4000ED Dmax 4,2 or rather 2,3?
Title: RE: filmscanners: LS-4000ED Dmax 4,2 or rather 2,3? So, has anyone done any comparisons between the Polaroid SS120 and the Nikon LS8000 as far as shadow detail goes? What about an LS4000 vs. a SS4000? TIA Paul Wilson
Re: filmscanners: LS-4000ED Dmax 4,2 or rather 2,3?
Oostrom, Jerry wrote: I just read in Popular Photography about a test on 7 filmscanners. The Nikon LS-4000ED I believe was also mentioned there as having few shadow detail. The SS120 had great shadow detail in that test. Since nobody else on this list mentioned this test (an american magazine, sent to Holland-- plenty of time for americans to read it) I assume its not such a popular magazine among filmscanner people? I skimmed the article at the news stand, so didn't get the details. I usually don't pay for magazines which have more advertising than editorial content, since I can get trade journals for free ;-) Also, any magazine which does reviews and accepts advertising is suspect in my book. How many ads were there for Nikon scanners in that issue? Maybe the scanner is even worse than they claim, but with an average of, what, 3-8? full page color Nikon ads each month (and one often on the back cover), I'd suspect Pop Photo is a little shy when it comes to criticism overall. Art
Re: filmscanners: LS-4000ED Dmax 4,2 or rather 2,3?
I just went back to the Popular Photography issue that reviewed the new scanners, and what I saw was very different from what was said here earlier today. They rated the LS-4000 Very highly. In fact, maybe too highly... Test Results: Resolution: extremely high (60 lp/mm); Color Accuracy: Excellent; Shadow Detail: high, ... Image Quality Rating: Extremely high, etc. It delivered the highest test results in this roundup along with the Polaroid SprintScan 120. The true 42-bit color sounds like they bought some puffery, but overall, these are their conclusions based on their in-house tests. Hersch At 05:44 AM 06/28/2001, you wrote: On Thu, 28 Jun 2001, Tomasz Zakrzewski wrote: snip Test scans at www.imaging-resource.com also show that only after some tweaking in the scanning program scans with good tonal separation in shadows can be obtained. I'm puzzled. Can you comment on this Dmax matter? In fact I don't care about any Dmax or stuff. I just want to make perfect scan of my precious negatives and slides and do it only ONCE because time is money. That means on a good enough machine so that my scan don't look made on a too cheap machine in several years time. I thought that the 4000ED might be such a machine, but now... Apart from this Dmax thing, this scanner's real resolution is 3240 ppi effective. The 4000ED doesn't differentiates reds good enough, too. Why is it so that I can't buy a flatbed scanner in $ 1000 price range that would show no noise in shadows of scans of reflective media (prints) and it's impossible to find a well designed film scanner in the $ 2000 price range? Right now my conclusion is that the home filmscannig technology is still immature. And the flatbed technology? A huge gap between what's promised and what's in real life. Tomasz, you're right. At least in some regards. CCD-based scanners are far from perfect, and even the newest generation shows some (if not all) of the inherent problems with the technology. As with microprocessors, progress has been evolutionary, not revolutionary. We have more pixels now, and we can finally scan 120 film at the same resolutions that we'd been using for 35 mm. Aside from that, the changes are mostly cosmetic, IMHO. If you want perfect scans you may have to go with a drum scanner. The Imacon line of scanners are also pretty nice (and mucho $$$). I think they're still CCD-based, but they do something clever that the Nikons, Polaroids and Minoltas don't. It's no accident or surprise that the reference scan on Tony's filmscanner-reviews site is done with a Howtek scanner and fancy 3rd-party driver software. From personal experience, the dynamic range of my 8000 ED seems on par with my existing film scanners. But hey - maybe that banding I've been seeing on dense negatives is a symptom of poor Dmax? I dunno. At one point a couple of weeks back, I'd convinced myself that the dynamic range of the LS-8000 was markedly better than that of my Epson 1640SU, which I'd been using to scan 645 negatives before acquiring the LS-8000. In the last week or so I've been scanning 35 mm stuff on the LS-8000, and results are mixed. Some scans are perfect, some show banding. Fixes suggested by Nikon Tech Support help sometimes, but not always. I'm wondering if the the high temperatures here are a problem, also. Fancy lenses and auto-focus (as in the Nikon 4000 and 8000) may also be a mixed blessing. In some regards, I miss the simplicity of my existing and much simpler 35 mm scanner. I worry about that 14- element zoom lens in the LS-8000, and I have seen mis-focusing on some slides. rafe b.
