Re: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
On Fri, 08 Jun 2001 16:07:41 -0700 Arthur Entlich ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > I suppose its possible Polaroid owners are unwilling to admit they > spend their nights at home doing dust spotting, since they laid out all > that ca$h on the SS4000, but I'd expect someone would break ranks and > blow the whistle. I can confirm that I do just this. Dust etc are a problem with every filmscanner I have used; I just accept it as a necessary part of dealing with some originals. I agree with Ed that higher res and better optical sharpness increase the problem most of all, but I also think collimated light does emphasise muck. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001 07:39:48 -0700 shAf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Afterall, did we ever blame enhanced Tri-X grain on the point source > enlarger we preferred for sharp detail and increased contrast? The odd thing is that this doesn't happen - at least no more than printing on a harder grade of paper provides. I did this some years ago: match the image contrast and you cannot see any difference even using a magnifier (same lens, same neg, same enlarger, different head). You do get less cack showing up from the diffuse head though. I put the condenser head away in a box as a result of this test, and it has stayed there ever since. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
On Thu, 07 Jun 2001 23:48:17 -0400 Isaac Crawford ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Hmmm... was the scanner *adding* the dust and scratches? I would rather > have a scanner that gets as much info off of the film as possible, and > if there are dust and scratches on the film, they should be resolved... > I'm funny that way...;-) If you compare collimated vs. diffuse heads on an enlarger (ie all else remains the same), the result on my Durst is about +1 grade harder from the condenser head. There is no perceptible difference in image sharpness at all, even using a loupe, but apparent image sharpness is enhanced by greater contrast. You don't get any more information off the film. However you *do* get genuinely sharper, better defined and uglier images of dust and scratches from collimated light. I can only resolve this paradox by thinking that the 3d nature of such cack is the origin of the difference. Relative to film grains, detritus and dust and scratches have significant depth and size. Illuminated from all angles, the diffuser case, tends to mask them (soft light), whereas collimated light shows them up magnificently. Film grains and clumps are relatively minute, so exhibit little real loss of definition, but manifest it as lowered contrast across the image. IME this is also true of the Nikon LED lightsource, but to a lesser degree. All filmscanners I've ever used have an alarming propensity to hallucinate rubbish which vanishes in a diffuser enlarger head, but the Nikons do elevate gunge discovery to an artform. TBH I think this means there's *lots* of scope for scanner lightbox design improvement, to give a proper diffused source. IME they just shine a tube through the film and aren't all that diffuse at all. But such old tech tricks have been outmoded by software ;) Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
RE: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Hemingway, David J wrote: > Ed, > I have been biting my tongue throughout this whole dust conversation but I > guess I am finally baited out. I have done actual scans on the scanner with > a LED light source and the SS4000. It was quite obvious to me that there was > considerably more dust shown on the scanner with the LED light source. I > also noticed the scans were more contrasty. I will leave it to others to > decide whether this is good or bad but in my view it is actual. > David > And when you adjust contrast so they are both the same then how does it appear?
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
Art: I have a LS-30 and mostly use Vuescan. There are times when I have failed to use its version of ICE and wish I had done so. I would rather not see the dust, specks, scratches, etc. on the neg. or slide at all. Any softening can be corrected by using the USM. It sure beats the process of black and white printing and then spotting the print. I have been in some pretty clean darkrooms and no matter how we tried we were alsays doing some spotting to get rid of the artifacts. The digital system, even if you do not have ICE, is is a lot easier and faster. Gordon Arthur Entlich wrote: > I find it very interesting just how defensive most of the Nikon scanner > owners are on this list. > > The question below was a reasonable one. Do the new Nikon scanners tend > to amplify the dust and dirt when dICE is off, as they do on the older > scanners? > > All the sudden all these Nikon scanner owners are in love with dust, > dirt, fingerprints and scratches, and want to see them as clearly as > possible. ;-) > > When the LS 2000 and LS 30 came out MANY of the owners mentioned that it > was a good thing the Nikon's has dICE because the scans without them so > amplified the dust, etc, that the scanner would be very difficult to use > without the dICE feature, compared to other scanners they had used. > > Somehow, dust and dirt and scratches have become some sort of virtue, or > badge of courage that Nikon scanner owners proudly wear. > > When lighting sources for photographic enlargers were introduced that > reduced these bugaboos with minimal loss of resolution, everyone was > happy to have them (well, except a few that preferred to spend half > their lives doing retouching in color, and were using condenser lighting > for color) but somehow its not the same with scanners. > > The Nikons do slightly improve resolution (at least in the middle of the > image) by using LED light sources and a unfiltered CCD, but, in so doing > they make dust, et al, more obvious, unless you turn on the dICE, at > which point you have a result that is likely softer than the equivalent > scanner with a non-LED light source. > > So, it appears there's no free lunch, but that doesn't mean my menu is > better or worse than yours. I do know that yours is more expensive. > > Art > > Isaac Crawford wrote: > > > Rob Geraghty wrote: > > > >> Dave wrote: > >> > >>> Nikon scanners. Specifically, I'd like to find out whether scans > >>> performed *without* ICE on the new scanners have the same problems > >>> with excessive dust and scratches as on the old scanners, or if this > >>> has been improved, and if so, by how much. > >> > > > > > > Hmmm... was the scanner *adding* the dust and scratches? I would rather > > have a scanner that gets as much info off of the film as possible, and > > if there are dust and scratches on the film, they should be resolved... > > I'm funny that way...;-) > > > > > > Isaac
Re: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
Rob wrote: >I wonder >if the Nikon focusses more accurately on the *surface* of the film hence >it tends to show surface defects more? Has anyone tried manually >adjusting the focus a little to see if it's possible to defocus the dust >and scratches without losing too much sharpness in the image? Accurate focus should be on the *emulsion,* not on the "surface" (of which there are two--front and back). Rob knows this, of course, but it might be confusing to new list members. Scratches and dust can show up from either surface of the film, but the *worst* ones will be on the dull elulsion side. Scratches there actually destroy or alter the image, and dust has a nasty tendency to fuse to old film, as has been discussed here before. "Softer" focus will also soften dust, scratches (particularly those on the film base) and grain-aliasing, but won't actually eliminate them. Film grain is *smaller* than most dust and scratches (but not particulates), so it is more readily reduced by defocusing. This is essentially what you do when you use a dust or despeckle filter in your favorite imaging program. A very good filter algorithm will isolate what is obviously dust or scratch (i.e. a marked contrast with surrounding pixels), and leave fine details alone, whereas defocussing or blurring is global. It bears noting that not all filter algorithms are that good, and none of them are perfect, in my experience. If in doubt, Save first. Best regards--LRA Get 250 color business cards for FREE! http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (shAf) wrote: > Derek writes ... > > > In a sense you could say that the Nikon scanners > > do add dust and scratches! To be exact any dust > > and scratches that are there are emphasised > > because of the LED light source that they use. > > To say the Nikons add dust and scratches simply because the light > source emphasizes them is misleading. If you have a problem with dust > and scratches, then you may indeed be unsatisfied with your scans ... > but it isn't the scanner's fault, and in fact, the Nikons provide the > best solution ... IR dust recognition. > > Afterall, did we ever blame enhanced Tri-X grain on the point source > enlarger we preferred for sharp detail and increased contrast? Absolutely!
Re: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
I have also used LS2000 with many Kodachromes and have had GREAT success with them. My problem was mould and some quite awful slides have been rescued with minimal work. I tried one of them before getting the Nikon and spent 3 hours (it was a very bad attack of mould) fixing it in PS. The Nikon scan, with a couple of minutes of work, was far superior. But I realise that maybe it depends on which version of Kodachrome you have. Maybe I won't be so successful when I get to the '80's. Julian At 04:12 09/06/01, Dave wrote: >But I have a >lot of Kodachromes I'm waiting to scan and I'd like to get an idea if >the new Nikons are going to sneak in some problems here or not. Dane >reports no problems at all with thousands of Kodachromes scanned on an >LS-2000, and I wonder what I'm doing wrong. Julian Robinson in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
Art wrote: >To bring this into a slightly different realm... > >Let's say you had a choice between a car which has a bit of vibration in >the steering column, and tends to require just a bit of steering >adjustment to keep it going perfectly straight, but handles over steering >and other human aspects of imprecise driving without creating any real danger. > >Then, on the other hand you had a choice of a car that had hardly any >vibration in the steering and tended to handle somewhat better on the road >as long as you used perfect driving habits, but if you over steered, for >instance -(hey, your fault, right?) it skidded right off the road. > >Which would you prefer to drive? > >Being human, I'll take car number 1, thanks. > >Art Boy if ever there was a poor analogy, this is it! The difference between cars and scans is that with one you risk you life, so safety kind of outweighs other concerns. With the other, the beauty of the result is what counts, so analogous "wheel vibration" would be a nasty problem. I can say that I have owned a Nikon scanner with ICE and LEDs, and another scanner with similar resolution but no ICE and no LEDs and an obvious difference in sharpness. I have absolutely no difficulty in deciding which I prefer, and it is original sharpness, slightly degraded by ICE. 1000x I would prefer that combination, simply because it results in fine usable scans with virtually no retouching at all. Saves countless hours, and the result is at least as sharp as my film/skill can support. Maybe there are people with less dust problems than me in which case - go for it! As an aside I wonder how the non-LED scanners with ICE perform? It would seem to be softness upon softness? Art, you accuse Nikon owners of being defensive - it is the persistence of your opposite stance that surprises me! And I wonder how many people there are who have tried ICE who elect to go to a non-ICE scanner? This would be a very interesting statistic. Julian Julian Robinson in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
Re: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
> > I suppose its possible Polaroid owners are unwilling to admit they spend > their nights at home doing dust spotting, since they laid out all that > ca$h on the SS4000, but I'd expect someone would break ranks and blow > the whistle. > I just have the Artixscan 4000T. Unless you keep your scanner and images in a slicon chip factory or some other unusually clean environment. It's a bloody nightmare. > I'd love to hear from others who have experience with either or (even > better) both scanners and who doesn't have an ongoing professional > relationship with either or both manufacturers. I'd love to give a Nikon a go - if ICE is 95% effective I would probably buy one. I'm not willing to drop another grand on something that isn't a lot better. Steve
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
Dave King wrote: > > > Yes, I agree in principle, but sharpness gains have to be weighed > against other performance factors. How much sharper in real terms is > the Nikon 8000 vs the Polaroid 120, if at all? And how much > difference is there in the ability to scan Kodachrome and B&W without > artifacting and time spent retouching? > > This is the issue I'm trying to get a handle on. And while it > certainly isn't the scanner's "fault" if there is dust on film, there > is an entire range of performance differences in how film is rendered > depending on the quality of the light source. Point source light can > give a "crunchy" quality to the tonal structure some would not want. > Some prefer the extra "punch" of this light. But all of these tonal > and sharpness issues are ultimately splitting hairs with these new > scanners as far as I'm concerned. I'm quite sure they are all capable > of incredible results when used with skill. What I really want to > know is how the new Nikons perform with Kodachrome and B&W! > > There, I've said it! (For the last time, I promise:) > > Dave To bring this into a slightly different realm... Let's say you had a choice between a car which has a bit of vibration in the steering column, and tends to require just a bit of steering adjustment to keep it going perfectly straight, but handles over steering and other human aspects of imprecise driving without creating any real danger. Then, on the other hand you had a choice of a car that had hardly any vibration in the steering and tended to handle somewhat better on the road as long as you used perfect driving habits, but if you over steered, for instance -(hey, your fault, right?) it skidded right off the road. Which would you prefer to drive? Being human, I'll take car number 1, thanks. Art
Re: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In a message dated 6/8/2001 12:32:29 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > >> I have been biting my tongue throughout this whole dust conversation but I >> guess I am finally baited out. I have done actual scans on the scanner with >> a LED light source and the SS4000. It was quite obvious to me that there > > was > >> considerably more dust shown on the scanner with the LED light source. I >> also noticed the scans were more contrasty. I will leave it to others to >> decide whether this is good or bad but in my view it is actual. > > > I did a scan of the same slide on my LS-30 and the SS4000 that you > loaned me (thanks again by the way), and didn't see any difference. > The same dust spots looked the same to me on both. I'll be the first > to admit that I didn't look at this too closely though, and this was quite > a while ago. > > Regards, > Ed Hamrick I am beginning to think that variability within the hardware (and maybe even firmware) on these products mean any two products might be different enough to barely be able to make any broad statements. Can anyone in the industry comment on how rigorous the QC is on these units prior to leaving the factory? Art
Re: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > My experience is that scanners with better focus show more dust > than scanners without good focus. For instance, take a SprintScan 4000 > and a Nikon LS-4000 and compare the raw scans. They show exactly > the same dust spots if you use the same slide on both, and both have > excellent focus. If you take the same slide and scan it on almost > any flatbed, it won't show as much dust, since the dust spots get > blurred. > > The whole "Nikon scanners accentuate dust" thing is just FUD > (fear, uncertainty and doubt) from vendors competing with Nikon. > > Regards, > Ed Hamrick I find this an interesting statement. Maybe Nikon owners are more particulatetophobic? I hardly ever hear from SS4000 owners complaining bitterly about spotting or wishing they had purchased a Nikon for dICE. In fact, several have mused publicly about Nikon's owners comments about the absolute need for dICE on the Nikons. To the point that resolution comparisons are made between the SS4000 scan (without dICE, since it isn't an option) and the Nikon scan WITH dICE as a fair base point. I have no idea how much an IR channel and light source plus the ASF license add to the cost, but I would think Polaroid would have been browbeaten into providing dICE had it been such a problem without it. I suppose its possible Polaroid owners are unwilling to admit they spend their nights at home doing dust spotting, since they laid out all that ca$h on the SS4000, but I'd expect someone would break ranks and blow the whistle. Everything part of my intuition say the Nikon must have more surface defect emphasis without dICE than the others. I don't have either scanner to work from, but I have read thousands of postings and this is certainly the impression I am left with even discounting company reps professional bias. I'd love to hear from others who have experience with either or (even better) both scanners and who doesn't have an ongoing professional relationship with either or both manufacturers. Art
Re: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My experience is that scanners with better focus show more dust > than scanners without good focus. For instance, take a SprintScan 4000 > and a Nikon LS-4000 and compare the raw scans. They show exactly > the same dust spots if you use the same slide on both, and both have > excellent focus. If you take the same slide and scan it on almost > any flatbed, it won't show as much dust, since the dust spots get > blurred. The improvement in sharpness going from the Epson Filmscan 2400dpi scanner to the Nikon LS30 2700dpi scanner was astonishing. I wonder if the Nikon focusses more accurately on the *surface* of the film hence it tends to show surface defects more? Has anyone tried manually adjusting the focus a little to see if it's possible to defocus the dust and scratches without losing too much sharpness in the image? Rob
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
I find it very interesting just how defensive most of the Nikon scanner owners are on this list. The question below was a reasonable one. Do the new Nikon scanners tend to amplify the dust and dirt when dICE is off, as they do on the older scanners? All the sudden all these Nikon scanner owners are in love with dust, dirt, fingerprints and scratches, and want to see them as clearly as possible. ;-) When the LS 2000 and LS 30 came out MANY of the owners mentioned that it was a good thing the Nikon's has dICE because the scans without them so amplified the dust, etc, that the scanner would be very difficult to use without the dICE feature, compared to other scanners they had used. Somehow, dust and dirt and scratches have become some sort of virtue, or badge of courage that Nikon scanner owners proudly wear. When lighting sources for photographic enlargers were introduced that reduced these bugaboos with minimal loss of resolution, everyone was happy to have them (well, except a few that preferred to spend half their lives doing retouching in color, and were using condenser lighting for color) but somehow its not the same with scanners. The Nikons do slightly improve resolution (at least in the middle of the image) by using LED light sources and a unfiltered CCD, but, in so doing they make dust, et al, more obvious, unless you turn on the dICE, at which point you have a result that is likely softer than the equivalent scanner with a non-LED light source. So, it appears there's no free lunch, but that doesn't mean my menu is better or worse than yours. I do know that yours is more expensive. Art Isaac Crawford wrote: > Rob Geraghty wrote: > >> Dave wrote: >> >>> Nikon scanners. Specifically, I'd like to find out whether scans >>> performed *without* ICE on the new scanners have the same problems >>> with excessive dust and scratches as on the old scanners, or if this >>> has been improved, and if so, by how much. >> > > > Hmmm... was the scanner *adding* the dust and scratches? I would rather > have a scanner that gets as much info off of the film as possible, and > if there are dust and scratches on the film, they should be resolved... > I'm funny that way...;-) > > > Isaac
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
> > I guess my take is that the "adding" of dust is just a corollary to > > having a really sharp scan... It's hardly the scanner's fault that > there > > is dust or damage to the film... > > > > Isaac > > Yes, I agree in principle, but sharpness gains have to be weighed > against other performance factors. How much sharper in real terms is > the Nikon 8000 vs the Polaroid 120, if at all? And how much > difference is there in the ability to scan Kodachrome and B&W without > artifacting and time spent retouching? > > This is the issue I'm trying to get a handle on. And while it > certainly isn't the scanner's "fault" if there is dust on film, there > is an entire range of performance differences in how film is rendered > depending on the quality of the light source. Point source light can > give a "crunchy" quality to the tonal structure some would not want. > Some prefer the extra "punch" of this light. I have always preferred the Omega D5-XL's diffused source... oh wait a minute, what were we talking about?:-) But all of these tonal > and sharpness issues are ultimately splitting hairs with these new > scanners as far as I'm concerned. I'm quite sure they are all capable > of incredible results when used with skill. What I really want to > know is how the new Nikons perform with Kodachrome and B&W! > > There, I've said it! (For the last time, I promise:) Aha! A question that I can't make a smart alec response to... er, um... sorry...:-) Isaac > > Dave
Re: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
In a message dated 6/8/2001 12:32:29 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I have been biting my tongue throughout this whole dust conversation but I > guess I am finally baited out. I have done actual scans on the scanner with > a LED light source and the SS4000. It was quite obvious to me that there was > considerably more dust shown on the scanner with the LED light source. I > also noticed the scans were more contrasty. I will leave it to others to > decide whether this is good or bad but in my view it is actual. I did a scan of the same slide on my LS-30 and the SS4000 that you loaned me (thanks again by the way), and didn't see any difference. The same dust spots looked the same to me on both. I'll be the first to admit that I didn't look at this too closely though, and this was quite a while ago. Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
> In a message dated 6/8/2001 6:14:53 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > Not quite sure how to answer this assertion since it goes against > > everything I've read and my own personal experience. > > Don't believe everything you read (including what I write ). > > > I guess all I > > can say is scans on my LS-30 without ICE compared to scans on my Agfa > > T-2500 are quite different in terms of dust and scratches. > > My experience is that scanners with better focus show more dust > than scanners without good focus. For instance, take a SprintScan 4000 > and a Nikon LS-4000 and compare the raw scans. They show exactly > the same dust spots if you use the same slide on both, and both have > excellent focus. If you take the same slide and scan it on almost > any flatbed, it won't show as much dust, since the dust spots get > blurred. > > The whole "Nikon scanners accentuate dust" thing is just FUD > (fear, uncertainty and doubt) from vendors competing with Nikon. > > Regards, > Ed Hamrick I would certainly like to believe what you write in this instance Ed. :) Of course it follows that dust will be less sharp at lower resolution and/or focus, but the T-2500 I use for comparison is on par with the LS-30 in both regards. The speced res at 2500 is lower, but in actual scans it appears to render image detail and grain about as well as the Nikon LS-30. In fact I have the feeling (untested) it may be slightly higher res in real scans. I've seen the so-called "collimated light effect" with my own LS-30, but of course it's possible I'm misinterpreting what I see. I'm not out to bash Nikon, I think their scanners are brilliant. But I have a lot of Kodachromes I'm waiting to scan and I'd like to get an idea if the new Nikons are going to sneak in some problems here or not. Dane reports no problems at all with thousands of Kodachromes scanned on an LS-2000, and I wonder what I'm doing wrong.Some, not all, of my KC's get a case of the "measles" with ICE used in the LS-30, and more pronounced dust and scratches with ICE off than with the T-2500. It would be interesting to see the comparison you mention. Any chance of posting it? Dave
Re: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
> Dave writes ... > > > > The old scanners never did have problems with excessive dust > > > and scratches ... that is, no more than any other scanner. > > > > > > shAf :o) > > > > ... my LS-30 without ICE compared to scans on my Agfa > > T-2500 are quite different in terms of dust and scratches. > > The Nikon "sees" stuff that the Agfa does not, > > quite a bit of "stuff" in fact. > > ... > > Be fair! ... is the "extra stuff" the Nikon sees ONLY dust & > scratches? Derek & I both recognize the problem with Nikons, dust, > scratches and grain being the light source. Its characteristics may > be something to avoid, or may be a preference. As we attributed > "soft" and "hard" images in the past to diffused and point source > enlargers, either was a preference. It is also true, with post-scan > software, it is easier to make a hard image soft, than it is to make a > soft image hard ... but I'll admit removing dust and scratches is a > pain in the _ss! > > shAf :o) I prefer the "sharpness" of the Nikon LED light source, other things being equal. Aye, there's the rub, Kodachrome and B&W (starting to sound like a broke record:). So, I would be very interested in hearing the opinions of anyone who has compared differences of -no- ICE scans on general emulsions, and Kodachrome scanning -with- ICE, between the current and previous generation of Nikons. Dave
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
> Derek Clarke wrote: > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Isaac Crawford) wrote: > > > > > Rob Geraghty wrote: > > > > > > > > Dave wrote: > > > > >Nikon scanners. Specifically, I'd like to find out whether scans > > > > >performed *without* ICE on the new scanners have the same problems > > > > >with excessive dust and scratches as on the old scanners, or if this > > > > >has been improved, and if so, by how much. > > > > > > > > > Hmmm... was the scanner *adding* the dust and scratches? I would > > rather > > > have a scanner that gets as much info off of the film as possible, and > > > if there are dust and scratches on the film, they should be resolved... > > > I'm funny that way...;-) > > > > > > > > > Isaac > > > > In a sense you could say that the Nikon scanners do add dust and > > scratches! To be exact any dust and scratches that are there are > > emphasised because of the LED light source that they use. > > I guess my take is that the "adding" of dust is just a corollary to > having a really sharp scan... It's hardly the scanner's fault that there > is dust or damage to the film... > > Isaac Yes, I agree in principle, but sharpness gains have to be weighed against other performance factors. How much sharper in real terms is the Nikon 8000 vs the Polaroid 120, if at all? And how much difference is there in the ability to scan Kodachrome and B&W without artifacting and time spent retouching? This is the issue I'm trying to get a handle on. And while it certainly isn't the scanner's "fault" if there is dust on film, there is an entire range of performance differences in how film is rendered depending on the quality of the light source. Point source light can give a "crunchy" quality to the tonal structure some would not want. Some prefer the extra "punch" of this light. But all of these tonal and sharpness issues are ultimately splitting hairs with these new scanners as far as I'm concerned. I'm quite sure they are all capable of incredible results when used with skill. What I really want to know is how the new Nikons perform with Kodachrome and B&W! There, I've said it! (For the last time, I promise:) Dave
RE: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
Ed, I have been biting my tongue throughout this whole dust conversation but I guess I am finally baited out. I have done actual scans on the scanner with a LED light source and the SS4000. It was quite obvious to me that there was considerably more dust shown on the scanner with the LED light source. I also noticed the scans were more contrasty. I will leave it to others to decide whether this is good or bad but in my view it is actual. David -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 8:33 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: filmscanners: New Nikon performance In a message dated 6/8/2001 6:14:53 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Not quite sure how to answer this assertion since it goes against > everything I've read and my own personal experience. Don't believe everything you read (including what I write ). > I guess all I > can say is scans on my LS-30 without ICE compared to scans on my Agfa > T-2500 are quite different in terms of dust and scratches. My experience is that scanners with better focus show more dust than scanners without good focus. For instance, take a SprintScan 4000 and a Nikon LS-4000 and compare the raw scans. They show exactly the same dust spots if you use the same slide on both, and both have excellent focus. If you take the same slide and scan it on almost any flatbed, it won't show as much dust, since the dust spots get blurred. The whole "Nikon scanners accentuate dust" thing is just FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) from vendors competing with Nikon. Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
Derek Clarke wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Isaac Crawford) wrote: > > > Rob Geraghty wrote: > > > > > > Dave wrote: > > > >Nikon scanners. Specifically, I'd like to find out whether scans > > > >performed *without* ICE on the new scanners have the same problems > > > >with excessive dust and scratches as on the old scanners, or if this > > > >has been improved, and if so, by how much. > > > > > > Hmmm... was the scanner *adding* the dust and scratches? I would > rather > > have a scanner that gets as much info off of the film as possible, and > > if there are dust and scratches on the film, they should be resolved... > > I'm funny that way...;-) > > > > > > Isaac > > In a sense you could say that the Nikon scanners do add dust and > scratches! To be exact any dust and scratches that are there are > emphasised because of the LED light source that they use. I guess my take is that the "adding" of dust is just a corollary to having a really sharp scan... It's hardly the scanner's fault that there is dust or damage to the film... Isaac
Re: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
Are you implying that the Nikon light source (or optics, or whatever) do(es) not emphasize dirt, scratches and dust more so than other equal resolution scanners using other light sources, or whathaveyou? Art shAf wrote: > Dave writes ... > > >> ... Specifically, I'd like to find out whether scans >> performed *without* ICE on the new scanners have the >> same problems with excessive dust and scratches as >> on the old scanners, ... > > > The old scanners never did have problems with excessive dust and > scratches ... that is, no more than any other scanner. > > shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
In a message dated 6/8/2001 6:14:53 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Not quite sure how to answer this assertion since it goes against > everything I've read and my own personal experience. Don't believe everything you read (including what I write ). > I guess all I > can say is scans on my LS-30 without ICE compared to scans on my Agfa > T-2500 are quite different in terms of dust and scratches. My experience is that scanners with better focus show more dust than scanners without good focus. For instance, take a SprintScan 4000 and a Nikon LS-4000 and compare the raw scans. They show exactly the same dust spots if you use the same slide on both, and both have excellent focus. If you take the same slide and scan it on almost any flatbed, it won't show as much dust, since the dust spots get blurred. The whole "Nikon scanners accentuate dust" thing is just FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) from vendors competing with Nikon. Regards, Ed Hamrick
RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
Derek writes ... > In a sense you could say that the Nikon scanners > do add dust and scratches! To be exact any dust > and scratches that are there are emphasised > because of the LED light source that they use. To say the Nikons add dust and scratches simply because the light source emphasizes them is misleading. If you have a problem with dust and scratches, then you may indeed be unsatisfied with your scans ... but it isn't the scanner's fault, and in fact, the Nikons provide the best solution ... IR dust recognition. Afterall, did we ever blame enhanced Tri-X grain on the point source enlarger we preferred for sharp detail and increased contrast? shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
Dave writes ... > > The old scanners never did have problems with excessive dust > > and scratches ... that is, no more than any other scanner. > > > > shAf :o) > > ... my LS-30 without ICE compared to scans on my Agfa > T-2500 are quite different in terms of dust and scratches. > The Nikon "sees" stuff that the Agfa does not, > quite a bit of "stuff" in fact. > ... Be fair! ... is the "extra stuff" the Nikon sees ONLY dust & scratches? Derek & I both recognize the problem with Nikons, dust, scratches and grain being the light source. Its characteristics may be something to avoid, or may be a preference. As we attributed "soft" and "hard" images in the past to diffused and point source enlargers, either was a preference. It is also true, with post-scan software, it is easier to make a hard image soft, than it is to make a soft image hard ... but I'll admit removing dust and scratches is a pain in the _ss! shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
> Dave wrote: > >Nikon scanners. Specifically, I'd like to find out whether scans > >performed *without* ICE on the new scanners have the same problems > >with excessive dust and scratches as on the old scanners, or if this > >has been improved, and if so, by how much. > > What problems did the old scanners have with excessive dust and scratches? > I haven't seen anything with my LS30 I'd describe as a problem with respect > to dust and scratches on chromogenic film. The only problem I've had with > the the Nikon I'd describe as a fault is the jaggies produced by Nikonscan > (which Vuescan cures). Do you mean the collimated light highlighting dust > and scratches? I wouldn't expect that to change either. > > > In addition, I'd like to know if performance *with* ICE has > > improved when scanning Kodachrome and B&W films. > > Presumably the behaviour would be identical with Kodachrome > and B&W film because the behaviour with IR is the same. > > Rob Nikon appears to claim improved performance in these regards in their literature, and there is now a specific Kodachrome setting, (but not B&W?). The problems are documented in many of the more thorough reviews, so I don't think I'm alone here. I'm wondering if anyone has, or wouldn't mind, testing the difference and reporting the result, as I have many Kodachromes to scan and print, and 'm trying to decide between the 4000 dpi Polaroid and Nikon. Dave
Re: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
> Dave writes ... > > > ... Specifically, I'd like to find out whether scans > > performed *without* ICE on the new scanners have the > > same problems with excessive dust and scratches as > > on the old scanners, ... > > The old scanners never did have problems with excessive dust and > scratches ... that is, no more than any other scanner. > > shAf :o) Not quite sure how to answer this assertion since it goes against everything I've read and my own personal experience I guess all I can say is scans on my LS-30 without ICE compared to scans on my Agfa T-2500 are quite different in terms of dust and scratches. The Nikon "sees" stuff that the Agfa does not, quite a bit of "stuff" in fact. Scans of glass mounted slides are so "freckled" that retouching would be logistically impractical. So I do consider this a "problem" in the context of Kodachrome and B&W, as it sometimes doesn't work well with ICE. Or do you disagree with this too? Dave
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
> Rob Geraghty wrote: > > > > Dave wrote: > > >Nikon scanners. Specifically, I'd like to find out whether scans > > >performed *without* ICE on the new scanners have the same problems > > >with excessive dust and scratches as on the old scanners, or if this > > >has been improved, and if so, by how much. > > > Hmmm... was the scanner *adding* the dust and scratches? I would rather > have a scanner that gets as much info off of the film as possible, and > if there are dust and scratches on the film, they should be resolved... > I'm funny that way...;-) > > > Isaac Adding isn't the right word exactly, let's say the Nikon without ICE 'exaggerates' dust and scratches. So why not just use ICE then and be done with it? I do, except in the case of certain Kodachromes, which exhibit artifacts with ICE scans that *are* added, and detract significantly from image quality. Dave
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Isaac Crawford) wrote: > Rob Geraghty wrote: > > > > Dave wrote: > > >Nikon scanners. Specifically, I'd like to find out whether scans > > >performed *without* ICE on the new scanners have the same problems > > >with excessive dust and scratches as on the old scanners, or if this > > >has been improved, and if so, by how much. > > > Hmmm... was the scanner *adding* the dust and scratches? I would rather > have a scanner that gets as much info off of the film as possible, and > if there are dust and scratches on the film, they should be resolved... > I'm funny that way...;-) > > > Isaac In a sense you could say that the Nikon scanners do add dust and scratches! To be exact any dust and scratches that are there are emphasised because of the LED light source that they use.
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
Rob Geraghty wrote: > > Dave wrote: > >Nikon scanners. Specifically, I'd like to find out whether scans > >performed *without* ICE on the new scanners have the same problems > >with excessive dust and scratches as on the old scanners, or if this > >has been improved, and if so, by how much. Hmmm... was the scanner *adding* the dust and scratches? I would rather have a scanner that gets as much info off of the film as possible, and if there are dust and scratches on the film, they should be resolved... I'm funny that way...;-) Isaac
filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
Dave wrote: >Nikon scanners. Specifically, I'd like to find out whether scans >performed *without* ICE on the new scanners have the same problems >with excessive dust and scratches as on the old scanners, or if this >has been improved, and if so, by how much. What problems did the old scanners have with excessive dust and scratches? I haven't seen anything with my LS30 I'd describe as a problem with respect to dust and scratches on chromogenic film. The only problem I've had with the the Nikon I'd describe as a fault is the jaggies produced by Nikonscan (which Vuescan cures). Do you mean the collimated light highlighting dust and scratches? I wouldn't expect that to change either. > In addition, I'd like to know if performance *with* ICE has > improved when scanning Kodachrome and B&W films. Presumably the behaviour would be identical with Kodachrome and B&W film because the behaviour with IR is the same. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
RE: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
Dave writes ... > ... Specifically, I'd like to find out whether scans > performed *without* ICE on the new scanners have the > same problems with excessive dust and scratches as > on the old scanners, ... The old scanners never did have problems with excessive dust and scratches ... that is, no more than any other scanner. shAf :o)
