Re: filmscanners: CANON FS4000US vs NIKON IV ED
One effective solution for thoroughly cleaning slides that I use is to put them in a small sonicator bath filled with degassed water, with a small beaker or glass container filled with isopropanol. Place slide in beaker and sonicate briefly. I do this in a well ventilated area. Keep in mind that isopropanol is flammable. With a pair of fine forceps, remove slide, dip in a second change of ie. isopropanol and remount in slide holder (I use a GEPE glass mount from which I have removed the glass; slides sit acceptably flat). I use a SS4000 scanner and get good results. Steve Greenbank [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2001/06/09 1:37:45 AM I have the Artixscan 4000T (same as SS4000) and dust is a big problem. The best solution is to put the film through the scanner before you do anything else with it. I currently have a box of slides that I have had for over a week and haven't even opened them because I want to take the lid off and scan them before the dust arrives! Older slides are just covered in the stuff - even if you have only taken them out of the box a couple of times. Worst of all seem to be the ones that have been back to several labs for re-printing - these just seem to pick up all sorts of muck. If you look at the archive of this list you'll see all sorts of solutions for dust removal before scanning. Ultimately you can expect to spend 5-10mins cloning out dust on an exceptionally clean slide. 2 hours is not unknown for a bad example. I don't know how well ICE would cope with the good or the bad examples, but I for one have better things to do. Some people round here say it's good for the soul. I say it's a FPITA and it can't be good for your eyes either. Steve - Original Message - From: Chris Hargens [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 2:25 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: CANON FS4000US vs NIKON IV ED I hope some good reviews come out, otherwise I'll probably opt for the SprintScan 4000. It's price has gone down and it's bundled with SilverFast. Also,overall, I've heard good things about Polaroid's customer service. Finally, I'm not sure that NOT having an onboard dust and scratch removal option like FARE or ICE would make a significant difference, since, according to what I've read, the SprintScan scans/read less dust, scratches, etc. than the Nikon systems. Chris - Original Message - From: jm1209 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 12:02 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: CANON FS4000US vs NIKON IV ED i guess the long wait for the improved canon was a waste of time. it seems that i always wait for the next improved version of many computer products and they wind up not being all that much better. the nikon has a better advertised dynamic range but less resolution. possibly this may be a better combination anyway. i am a new to this film scanner business and hope more people respond with their opinions. thanks jim Arthur Entlich wrote: AR Studio wrote: Canoscan FS4000. but resolution is lower. Does that help? Helen + Andrew Well, That's disappointing. I'm hoping you got a defective one ;-) Sounds like it is little to no improvement over the 2700 FS 2710 then. Art
Re: filmscanners: CANON FS4000US vs NIKON IV ED
I have the Artixscan 4000T (same as SS4000) and dust is a big problem. The best solution is to put the film through the scanner before you do anything else with it. I currently have a box of slides that I have had for over a week and haven't even opened them because I want to take the lid off and scan them before the dust arrives! Older slides are just covered in the stuff - even if you have only taken them out of the box a couple of times. Worst of all seem to be the ones that have been back to several labs for re-printing - these just seem to pick up all sorts of muck. If you look at the archive of this list you'll see all sorts of solutions for dust removal before scanning. Ultimately you can expect to spend 5-10mins cloning out dust on an exceptionally clean slide. 2 hours is not unknown for a bad example. I don't know how well ICE would cope with the good or the bad examples, but I for one have better things to do. Some people round here say it's good for the soul. I say it's a FPITA and it can't be good for your eyes either. Steve - Original Message - From: Chris Hargens [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 2:25 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: CANON FS4000US vs NIKON IV ED I hope some good reviews come out, otherwise I'll probably opt for the SprintScan 4000. It's price has gone down and it's bundled with SilverFast. Also,overall, I've heard good things about Polaroid's customer service. Finally, I'm not sure that NOT having an onboard dust and scratch removal option like FARE or ICE would make a significant difference, since, according to what I've read, the SprintScan scans/read less dust, scratches, etc. than the Nikon systems. Chris - Original Message - From: jm1209 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 12:02 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: CANON FS4000US vs NIKON IV ED i guess the long wait for the improved canon was a waste of time. it seems that i always wait for the next improved version of many computer products and they wind up not being all that much better. the nikon has a better advertised dynamic range but less resolution. possibly this may be a better combination anyway. i am a new to this film scanner business and hope more people respond with their opinions. thanks jim Arthur Entlich wrote: AR Studio wrote: Canoscan FS4000. but resolution is lower. Does that help? Helen + Andrew Well, That's disappointing. I'm hoping you got a defective one ;-) Sounds like it is little to no improvement over the 2700 FS 2710 then. Art
Re: filmscanners: CANON FS4000US vs NIKON IV ED
AR Studio wrote: Canoscan FS4000. but resolution is lower. Does that help? Helen + Andrew Well, That's disappointing. I'm hoping you got a defective one ;-) Sounds like it is little to no improvement over the 2700 FS 2710 then. Art
Re: filmscanners: CANON FS4000US vs NIKON IV ED
I hope some good reviews come out, otherwise I'll probably opt for the SprintScan 4000. It's price has gone down and it's bundled with SilverFast. Also,overall, I've heard good things about Polaroid's customer service. Finally, I'm not sure that NOT having an onboard dust and scratch removal option like FARE or ICE would make a significant difference, since, according to what I've read, the SprintScan scans/read less dust, scratches, etc. than the Nikon systems. Chris - Original Message - From: jm1209 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 12:02 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: CANON FS4000US vs NIKON IV ED i guess the long wait for the improved canon was a waste of time. it seems that i always wait for the next improved version of many computer products and they wind up not being all that much better. the nikon has a better advertised dynamic range but less resolution. possibly this may be a better combination anyway. i am a new to this film scanner business and hope more people respond with their opinions. thanks jim Arthur Entlich wrote: AR Studio wrote: Canoscan FS4000. but resolution is lower. Does that help? Helen + Andrew Well, That's disappointing. I'm hoping you got a defective one ;-) Sounds like it is little to no improvement over the 2700 FS 2710 then. Art
Re: filmscanners: CANON FS4000US vs NIKON IV ED
yes! yes! we've tried both. after 1.5 days took canon back to the store. bought nikon IV today and it's absolutely awesome. didnt' have any problems installing/running it either, like I hear some people do. now, in short what's wrong with the canon: narrow dynamic range. you can either get detail in the shadow or the highlights. we also own the very first version of HP Photosmart, and believe it or not, results from HP are much better. the FARE technology work okay, I suppose, and the grain/noise from the scanner was decent, meaning low. The software has a limited set of tools to correct exposure and things like that, very basic stuff. on the other hand nikon software is incredibly advanced. you can adjust analog gain to the hundredth! and curves and LHC editors (lightness/hue/chroma) are very sensitive, which was also a problem with canon: the curve there was jerky. of course, the resolution difference maybe important. but then, i think, if you get a decent scan at 2900 and you absolutely need a file for 13x19 you'll be able to interpolate it with better quality if you get a crappy scan initially at 4000. that's my opinion. so... just disregard that. to sum it up, in the same price range, nikon IV's quality is better than Canoscan FS4000. but resolution is lower. Does that help? Helen + Andrew - Original Message - From: jm1209 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 4:03 PM Subject: filmscanners: CANON FS4000US i saw that this scanner is in stock at bh and was wondering if anyone had purchased one and what was the initial response to the quality. i am trying to decide between this and the nikon iv ed. i have been waiting to make a purchase for sometime but have been holding out for this new generation. the prices are close, $895 for the nikon and $999 for the canon. thanks jim
