Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000 Mikael
It would get irritating, Ed. You do good work! Hersch At 03:30 AM 11/24/2001, you wrote: In a message dated 11/24/2001 6:05:20 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think someone just quoted Nikon's own manual in one of the groups (maybe this one) and it stated that the LED brightness was altered
Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000
What Nikon should do , to heat rid of the depth of field problem are: Change to a new LED , better lens f stop , at least 5.6 . They prefer a cool scan, low light, low energy ,no heat. Imacon and other scanner manufactures prefer a more intensive light source and a fan to stable the scanner heat inside. In the new Imacon they have build in a thermostat set at 20 Celsius , despite what conditions it is outside in the room. The Imacon scanner lens works at f stop 8 . Mr Hemmingway at Polaroid maybe can answer what is the lens f stop in a ss4000 scanner. Best regards Mikael Risedal From: Julian Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000 Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 11:43:41 +1100 At 9:44 AM -0500 20-11-01, Bruce Kinch wrote: Perhaps it's worth noting that Kodak now provides curved field projection lenses as standard for normal (cardboard, presumably) mounted slides in their Carousel projectors, but their older flat field design is recommended for glass mounted transparencies. BF: If memory serves correctly this has been the case at least since the 1970's. Curved field lenses were standard, and flat field lenses were special orders. YES! I have wondered why Nikon don't do the same thing within the range of their scanner Depth of Field. It would nearly double warping that could be tolerated before losing focus. The only downside is that you would have to put the film/slide in the right way round regarding film curve, not regarding mirror image sense. This would not be a problem if documented clearly. Julian _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000
I don't believe this is correct. I own quite a few Kodak and Navitar lenses for projectors. Kodak originally produced flat field lenses which were designed for flat slides, but it caused Kodak's own mounted slides, (paper mounts) for Kodachrome and Ektachrome to look bad. So they introduced the curve field lenses to deal with this. As you mention, the curve field have the disadvantage of making a slide placed backwards into the tray twice as blurry on the edges as a flat field lens would. Art Jim Snyder wrote: on 11/20/01 2:26 PM, Bill Fernandez at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 9:44 AM -0500 20-11-01, Bruce Kinch wrote: Perhaps it's worth noting that Kodak now provides curved field projection lenses as standard for normal (cardboard, presumably) mounted slides in their Carousel projectors, but their older flat field design is recommended for glass mounted transparencies. BF: If memory serves correctly this has been the case at least since the 1970's. Curved field lenses were standard, and flat field lenses were special orders. Actually, I think the problem is that Kodak's original lenses curved the opposite way the film did, exaggerating the out of focus edge effects. The flat field lenses corrected this to a much improved image. Accidentally showing a slide reversed often meant sharp corners, but writing that was backwards, etc. Jim (old-timer) Snyder .
Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000
I don't believe this is correct. I own quite a few Kodak and Navitar lenses for projectors, going back many years. Kodak originally produced flat field lenses which were designed for flat slides, but it caused Kodak's own mounted slides, (paper mounts) for Kodachrome and Ektachrome to look bad. So they introduced the curve field lenses to deal with this. As you mention, the curve field have the disadvantage of making a slide placed backwards into the tray twice as blurry on the edges as a flat field lens would. They might be offering flat field lenses again now as standard since the advent of pretty much everyone switching to plastic mounts which float the slides to prevent popping. Art Jim Snyder wrote: on 11/20/01 2:26 PM, Bill Fernandez at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 9:44 AM -0500 20-11-01, Bruce Kinch wrote: Perhaps it's worth noting that Kodak now provides curved field projection lenses as standard for normal (cardboard, presumably) mounted slides in their Carousel projectors, but their older flat field design is recommended for glass mounted transparencies. BF: If memory serves correctly this has been the case at least since the 1970's. Curved field lenses were standard, and flat field lenses were special orders. Actually, I think the problem is that Kodak's original lenses curved the opposite way the film did, exaggerating the out of focus edge effects. The flat field lenses corrected this to a much improved image. Accidentally showing a slide reversed often meant sharp corners, but writing that was backwards, etc. Jim (old-timer) Snyder .
Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000 Mikael
In a message dated 11/21/2001 8:07:15 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Nikon might be approaching the limits of linearity in the LEDs. They also need to be able to have a range of brightness available to them for the analog exposure they offer. No, Nikon scanners don't vary the brightness of the LEDs. The analog gain option in NikonScan only changes the CCD exposure time. I've traced the commands that NikonScan sends to the scanner, and the field it changes is definitely the CCD exposure time field. In addition, the scan speed is proportional to the analog gain setting, which it wouldn't be if NikonScan were only changing the brightness of the LEDs. Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000
At 9:44 AM -0500 20-11-01, Bruce Kinch wrote: Perhaps it's worth noting that Kodak now provides curved field projection lenses as standard for normal (cardboard, presumably) mounted slides in their Carousel projectors, but their older flat field design is recommended for glass mounted transparencies. BF: If memory serves correctly this has been the case at least since the 1970's. Curved field lenses were standard, and flat field lenses were special orders. -- == Bill Fernandez * User Interface Architect * Bill Fernandez Design (505) 346-3080 * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://billfernandez.com ==
Re: Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000
Thanks Bruce - yes, as soon as I started projecting Kchromes, I encountered this problem, so I went back to the shop to ask how I could get them sharp edge-to-edge on screen.. I ended up buying one of those curved field lenses (I think it's a Leitz?) to suit my Rollei projector, and it gives stunning images. If you have only ever viewed your slides on a mediocre projector/lens, you are definitely missing an experience.. But of course you also quickly find out how critical camera steadiness and lens quality are, as per Rob's comments. :-( These problems seem to only apply to quite 'bent' film, eg snip Perhaps it's worth noting that Kodak now provides curved field projection lenses as standard for normal (cardboard, presumably) mounted slides in their Carousel projectors, but their older flat field design is recommended for glass mounted transparencies.
Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000 Mikael
Mikael - thanks for this useful info. It is interesting that the different generations of scanners have the same depth of field although they have totally different optics. Means that Nikon must be holding a firm line against other constraints (such as LED brightness). Cheers Julian At 20:14 19/11/01, you wrote: Its the same problem with my 2 scanners ls2000 and Ls 4000 regarding sharpness/ dept of field problem. If you are pleased with your Ls2000 stay with it and wait and se what's coming. The difference between LS2000 and a extrapol. picture from 2700ppi up to 4000 ppi and real 4000 ppi from Ls 4000 are not huge. In fact I have done some test pictures and asked other photographers which one are a 2700ppi picture from the beginning. No one could se and tell for sure the difference from the 2 scanners, Fuji 100ISO slide film and 30 x 40 cm copies . The noice is lower and colors are better in LS4000 than LS2000. Best regards Mikael Risedal
Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000
At 9:44 AM -0500 20-11-01, Bruce Kinch wrote: Perhaps it's worth noting that Kodak now provides curved field projection lenses as standard for normal (cardboard, presumably) mounted slides in their Carousel projectors, but their older flat field design is recommended for glass mounted transparencies. BF: If memory serves correctly this has been the case at least since the 1970's. Curved field lenses were standard, and flat field lenses were special orders. YES! I have wondered why Nikon don't do the same thing within the range of their scanner Depth of Field. It would nearly double warping that could be tolerated before losing focus. The only downside is that you would have to put the film/slide in the right way round regarding film curve, not regarding mirror image sense. This would not be a problem if documented clearly. Julian
Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000
on 11/20/01 2:26 PM, Bill Fernandez at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 9:44 AM -0500 20-11-01, Bruce Kinch wrote: Perhaps it's worth noting that Kodak now provides curved field projection lenses as standard for normal (cardboard, presumably) mounted slides in their Carousel projectors, but their older flat field design is recommended for glass mounted transparencies. BF: If memory serves correctly this has been the case at least since the 1970's. Curved field lenses were standard, and flat field lenses were special orders. Actually, I think the problem is that Kodak's original lenses curved the opposite way the film did, exaggerating the out of focus edge effects. The flat field lenses corrected this to a much improved image. Accidentally showing a slide reversed often meant sharp corners, but writing that was backwards, etc. Jim (old-timer) Snyder
Re: Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000
If this is the case, it is an about face for KODAK. They use to push their curved field lenses, and then 8 years ago (it might be longer) they changed to flat field lenses, saying that with plastic mounts and improvements in cardboad mounts, flat field lenses were the way to go. My Carousel came with the dreaded 102-152 CF (curve field) lense. It is in a word, terrible. I purchased a 93 MM FF (flat field) lense last year. I might add that there are not very many lense choices for a Carousel in the $100-$400 range. The new lense was $200. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 4:28 PM Subject: Re: Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000 Thanks Bruce - yes, as soon as I started projecting Kchromes, I encountered this problem, so I went back to the shop to ask how I could get them sharp edge-to-edge on screen.. I ended up buying one of those curved field lenses (I think it's a Leitz?) to suit my Rollei projector, and it gives stunning images. If you have only ever viewed your slides on a mediocre projector/lens, you are definitely missing an experience.. But of course you also quickly find out how critical camera steadiness and lens quality are, as per Rob's comments. :-( These problems seem to only apply to quite 'bent' film, eg snip Perhaps it's worth noting that Kodak now provides curved field projection lenses as standard for normal (cardboard, presumably) mounted slides in their Carousel projectors, but their older flat field design is recommended for glass mounted transparencies.
Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000
Good question Brian Im not backing away from what I wrote a number of months ago I get a much more even result regarding sharpness , but when I compare the results whit the Canon scanner I have tested, the results are still inferior compare to the Canon scanner. 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: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 17:11:52 -0500 But a number of months ago you claimed success in focusing by selecting a focus point midway between the center an edge. Are you backing away from this? thanks, Brian -- respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Mikael Risedal [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 2:25 AM Subject: 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
Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000
Hello Brian answer 2 ( read below message from Brian) I forgot to write that Vuescan who have turn out to be a excellent software do not support that Im moving the focus point little bit to the side or corner. Its also depend how much the film curves , and that I know ( or try out) where to set the focus point to get best results with the Nikon scanner. I mean this is to much. Better if Nikon build a scanner with better light source and depth of field. Who wants to sit and put all negative or slides in glassed frames 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: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 17:11:52 -0500 But a number of months ago you claimed success in focusing by selecting a focus point midway between the center an edge. Are you backing away from this? thanks, Brian -- respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Mikael Risedal [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 2:25 AM Subject: 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
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000
Bill Fernandez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: this regard, but the comments were mild. Other than that I don't remember anyone anywhere mentioning FOCUS as a problem with the Polaroid. Strictly speaking, the problem with the Nikon is depth of field, not focus. :) [question to all] Has anyone with a SS4000 found a curved slide that causes a problem? My impression is that the Polaroid's light source is bright enough to avoid DOF problems. Rob
Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000
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. I have to support Mikel. Recently I was able to scan photos with my FS4000 and the same negatives/slides were scanned with Nikon. The scans from Nikon are very smoth (nearly no grain) but also all of them are just blured. If you apply despeckle filter to Canon scan once or even twice you will get the same image as from Nikon (very small noises but blured). Regards Tom __ Do You Yahoo!? Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals http://personals.yahoo.com
RE: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000
I agree with you Bill absolutely. LS IVED behaves in the same way. I agree with units you mentioned - which applied to real word mean to measure via the software uneveness of film position in the holder which must not be more than 12 units and to put focus in the middle. If the number is higher than app. 12 focus units I have to go with glass. Generally better eveness I get with stripes than with single frames but that is logical. My 0,02$ Vlad -- . 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 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. --Bill -- == Bill Fernandez * User Interface Architect * Bill Fernandez Design (505) 346-3080 * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://billfernandez.com == --- Príchozí zpráva neobsahuje viry. Zkontrolováno antivirovým systémem AVG (http://www.grisoft.cz). Verze: 6.0.298 / Virová báze: 161 - datum vydání: 13.11.2001 --- Odchozí zpráva neobsahuje viry. Zkontrolováno antivirovým systémem AVG (http://www.grisoft.cz). Verze: 6.0.298 / Virová báze: 161 - datum vydání: 13.11.2001
Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000
I had the same focus issues with my 8000 although I did not know it at the time. When I replaced it with a drum scanner and compared scans (120 film) from the drum to those from the 8000, I discovered that the nikon scans were not sharp to the edges. When viewed by themselves, the nikon scans looked pretty good but when viewed side by side with howtek scans, the difference was obvious. I imagine that the nikon glass holders would have solved that nicely. For the money, if you get one that works correctly for you, the 8000's are amazing units... I've had this problem with about 30% of the images I scan with the 8000. Most of the problem images are unmounted single-frame 120 transparencies. For these the glass holder does work rather well, with no negative impact on the images that I can see. The glass holder is rather expensive though, and really, it's something that should be shipped in the 8000 box.
Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000
Hello Lawrence Nice to here from you again. What kind of drum scanner and price? Best regards Mikael Risedal -- From: Lawrence Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: filmscanners halftone.co.uk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000 Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 09:45:19 -0500 I had the same focus issues with my 8000 although I did not know it at the time. When I replaced it with a drum scanner and compared scans (120 film) from the drum to those from the 8000, I discovered that the nikon scans were not sharp to the edges. When viewed by themselves, the nikon scans looked pretty good but when viewed side by side with howtek scans, the difference was obvious. I imagine that the nikon glass holders would have solved that nicely. For the money, if you get one that works correctly for you, the 8000's are amazing units... Lawrence -- Lawrence W. Smith Photography http://www.lwsphoto.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000
But a number of months ago you claimed success in focusing by selecting a focus point midway between the center an edge. Are you backing away from this? thanks, Brian -- respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Mikael Risedal [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 2:25 AM Subject: 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
Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000
I also have just done some tests with my LS4000 and can conclude exactly the same. Differences in 10 or or focus units shows a definite blur in those areas. Some people are mentioning that they use glass and I suppose I must also do this if I am to get sharp scans - what a pain! Are there any recommended glass mounts which people are getting good results with? I really want a mount that will not crop any of the edges of the image and where the glass itself does not interfere with the quality of the scan. Tony On Fri, Nov 16, 2001 at 11:19:18AM +0100, Vladislav Jurco wrote: I agree with you Bill absolutely. LS IVED behaves in the same way. I agree with units you mentioned - which applied to real word mean to measure via the software uneveness of film position in the holder which must not be more than 12 units and to put focus in the middle. If the number is higher than app. 12 focus units I have to go with glass. Generally better eveness I get with stripes than with single frames but that is logical. My 0,02$ Vlad -- . 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 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. --Bill --
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 BW) 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 ...). Mrio 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 attachment: sharpness.jpg
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 attachment: sharpness2.jpg
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
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
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
