Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000?
Karl Schulmeisters wrote: and compressed air from a rather healthy air compressor (not damaging neg, however), What PSI are you using as your threshold? Yikes, The control knob for it is near my foot when I work well under a table, and somehow it got cranked up(?) to 60 psi!! I use a sort of trigger gun arrangement which allows some regulation of output though. I'm going to turn it back down to about 15 psi. -- Jim Hayes
Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000?
Jim I have started to be pleased with the Sprintscan, especially considering the $1,200 difference saved. Unlike the Nikon, which has great software, mastering PolaColor, Silverfast, and Vuescan, all having terrible documentation, takes a good bit of time. I am now getting very good scans with better color than I got with the Nikon, albeit spending at least one half an hour per scan to remove the spots. Martin From: jimhayes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 09:16:36 -0600 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000? Of course, waying the other pos and cons, i.e. technical support, reliability issues Polaroid vs Nikon. Barbara Martin Greene wrote: Jim I have not done a count, but I'm sure that I also find from 200- 1000 spots on every scan, no matter how careful I am, and I live in a humid climate, but work under much less clean conditions. I've been preoccupied with the dust problem for some time. Some people don't seem to consider it a big problem, but that must be because they do not spot scans from slides using the Acutal Pixels view while making 13x19 prints. I'd hoped that a new SS4000 purchased at Ecost would do a good enough job and save me lots of bucks. But, the comparison between using ICE on a Nikon LS 4000 and not ICE on the Sprintscan is too dramatic to ignore, especially since I have not been able to see any significant difference in quality. -- Jim Hayes
Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000?
Martin, I never got along with Insight software, and I bought mine way before Silverfast was included ;-( But, after initial confusion, I found Vuescan the best for Tmax 100. I find I like to just pass the high bit image on through to Pshop. In fact, I wouldn't have bought the SS 4000 if Vuescan didn't exist. $$...Not only is the SS 4000 half price now, I had trouble with a previous scanner...way back in 1995 a refurbed Nikon LS-3510AF went for $3800. I could probably sell it for $300 now if I was lucky- but it's image quality is no where near the SS 4000. And Nikon never fixed a serious bug in the (Win) software they kept promising to do. Grumble, grumble... Jim Hayes Barbara Martin Greene wrote: Jim I have started to be pleased with the Sprintscan, especially considering the $1,200 difference saved. Unlike the Nikon, which has great software, mastering PolaColor, Silverfast, and Vuescan, all having terrible documentation, takes a good bit of time. I am now getting very good scans with better color than I got with the Nikon, albeit spending at least one half an hour per scan to remove the spots. Martin From: jimhayes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Of course, waying the other pos and cons, i.e. technical support, reliability issues Polaroid vs Nikon.
Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000?
If, instead, the dirt is really chemical compounds or small partially dissolved pieces of emulsion, then ICE probably wouldn't help as infrared light would pass through it as easy as the film itself. If anyone with ICE notices this type of dirt, you might report to us if ICE is of any use. This is all really quite irrelevant because no lab should embed any kind of dirt in the emulsion. If you see it, tell you lab about it and insist that they do something about it. If the impurity can be seen by infrared light (including embedded dust in the emulsion, and defects in the film) then Digital ICE will identify the defect and attempt removal, usually with success. Jack Phipps Applied Science Fiction I've raised this query before, and perhaps it needs some further exploration. Obviously, a lab which is not caring properly for the film, either creating physical damages via handling, or not filtering their chemistry and air properly, and causing defects in the film, is one issue, and the fixes are well documented in lab manuals. But, is it possible scanner CCDs are responding to some information which is normally outside of the visual spectrum, or are, due to some type of lighting or optics issue in the use of separation filters, emphasizing defects in the emulsion or base layers (perhaps microscopic air bubbles or density changes that show up as defracted light patterns) which end up looking like spots or dots on the scan? For instance, I notice some films, when viewed on certain angles, have an almost crystalline quality to the base surface. This is not, as far as I've been able to determine, a residue on the surface, but something within the structure of the film base itself. Further to this discussion, is it also possible the infra-red scans see things that aren't optically there, again, I'm speaking of elements which show up as opaque in the infrared spectrum, but are not visible with white light? If this were the case, digital cleaning methods using IR might remove defects which were not there, causing another type of artifact. Lastly, how much residual silver ends up within the processed C-41 or E-6 film? Can there be any redepositing of silver during the process which might explain these very tiny spots? Art
Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000?
In a message dated 9/19/2001 11:30:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Even with these precautions I can see significant amounts of dust when the scan is greatly magnified. I've come to the conclusion that almost all of it embedded in the emulsion and results from sloppy processing labs with no filtering of their solutions. Some labs give MUCH better results than others from the cleanliness standpoint as well other areas. I've also noticed that there are two types of dust. The first type is made up of rather large pieces and is easy to brush off a slide or negative. The other type is much much smaller and does indeed seem to be embedded in the emulsion and doesn't brush off. The first type isn't a problem, is easy to remove, and doesn't require ICE if you take care of your slides and negatives. The second type is very rare (for me) and I don't know if ICE would help remove it or not (I don't use ICE). If it is indeed made of dirt particles because of poor filtration by the lab, then ICE might help remove it. If, instead, the "dirt" is really chemical compounds or small partially dissolved pieces of emulsion, then ICE probably wouldn't help as infrared light would pass through it as easy as the film itself. If anyone with ICE notices this type of "dirt," you might report to us if ICE is of any use. This is all really quite irrelevant because no lab should embed any kind of dirt in the emulsion. If you see it, tell you lab about it and insist that they do something about it. If not, find another lab. In the meantime, I've never found a real need for ICE and have only had one "contaminated" slide that required any tedious clone tool use to remove the zillions of invisible (to the naked eye) "dirt" particles.
RE: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000?
"If, instead, the "dirt" is really chemical compounds or small partially dissolved pieces of emulsion, then ICE probably wouldn't help as infrared light would pass through it as easy as the film itself. If anyone with ICE notices this type of "dirt," you might report to us if ICE is of any use. This is all really quite irrelevant because no lab should embed any kind of dirt in the emulsion. If you see it, tell you lab about it and insist that they do something about it." If the impurity can be "seen" by infrared light (including embedded dust in the emulsion, and defects in the film) then Digital ICE will identify the defect and attempt removal, usually with success. Jack Phipps Applied Science Fiction -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 12:48 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000?In a message dated 9/19/2001 11:30:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Even with these precautions I can see significant amounts of dust when the scan is greatly magnified. I've come to the conclusion that almost all of it embedded in the emulsion and results from sloppy processing labs with no filtering of their solutions. Some labs give MUCH better results than others from the cleanliness standpoint as well other areas. I've also noticed that there are two types of dust. The first type is made up of rather large pieces and is easy to brush off a slide or negative. The other type is much much smaller and does indeed seem to be embedded in the emulsion and doesn't brush off. The first type isn't a problem, is easy to remove, and doesn't require ICE if you take care of your slides and negatives. The second type is very rare (for me) and I don't know if ICE would help remove it or not (I don't use ICE). If it is indeed made of dirt particles because of poor filtration by the lab, then ICE might help remove it. If, instead, the "dirt" is really chemical compounds or small partially dissolved pieces of emulsion, then ICE probably wouldn't help as infrared light would pass through it as easy as the film itself. If anyone with ICE notices this type of "dirt," you might report to us if ICE is of any use. This is all really quite irrelevant because no lab should embed any kind of dirt in the emulsion. If you see it, tell you lab about it and insist that they do something about it. If not, find another lab. In the meantime, I've never found a real need for ICE and have only had one "contaminated" slide that required any tedious clone tool use to remove the zillions of invisible (to the naked eye) "dirt" particles.
Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000?
Title: Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000? Roger There is no doubt that the spots are either in the emulsion or caused by poor processing. But, I've looked at slides processed by three different top labs, and they all have about the same amount of junk. Therefore, I've come to the tentative conclusion that it is intrinsic to the emulsion. Having used ICE, it does remove just about every spot, including minute specks. Having now tried a SS4000 and seen the results, I'm more impressed than ever with ICE. Martin From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 01:47:43 EDT To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000? In a message dated 9/19/2001 11:30:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Even with these precautions I can see significant amounts of dust when the scan is greatly magnified. I've come to the conclusion that almost all of it embedded in the emulsion and results from sloppy processing labs with no filtering of their solutions. Some labs give MUCH better results than others from the cleanliness standpoint as well other areas. I've also noticed that there are two types of dust. The first type is made up of rather large pieces and is easy to brush off a slide or negative. The other type is much much smaller and does indeed seem to be embedded in the emulsion and doesn't brush off. The first type isn't a problem, is easy to remove, and doesn't require ICE if you take care of your slides and negatives. The second type is very rare (for me) and I don't know if ICE would help remove it or not (I don't use ICE). If it is indeed made of dirt particles because of poor filtration by the lab, then ICE might help remove it. If, instead, the dirt is really chemical compounds or small partially dissolved pieces of emulsion, then ICE probably wouldn't help as infrared light would pass through it as easy as the film itself. If anyone with ICE notices this type of dirt, you might report to us if ICE is of any use. This is all really quite irrelevant because no lab should embed any kind of dirt in the emulsion. If you see it, tell you lab about it and insist that they do something about it. If not, find another lab. In the meantime, I've never found a real need for ICE and have only had one contaminated slide that required any tedious clone tool use to remove the zillions of invisible (to the naked eye) dirt particles.
Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000?
Jim I have not done a count, but I'm sure that I also find from 200- 1000 spots on every scan, no matter how careful I am, and I live in a humid climate, but work under much less clean conditions. I've been preoccupied with the dust problem for some time. Some people don't seem to consider it a big problem, but that must be because they do not spot scans from slides using the Acutal Pixels view while making 13x19 prints. I'd hoped that a new SS4000 purchased at Ecost would do a good enough job and save me lots of bucks. But, the comparison between using ICE on a Nikon LS 4000 and not ICE on the Sprintscan is too dramatic to ignore, especially since I have not been able to see any significant difference in quality. From: jimhayes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 08:48:04 -0600 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000? On Sat, 15 Sep 2001 08:41:04 -0400 Barbara Martin Greene ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I'd appreciate if users of the Sprintscan would tell me just how much stuff shows up in their slide scans. In my SS 4000 35 mm frames, which are mainly Tmax 100, I did a rough count once. I chose moderately (one stop) underexposed negs or night shots, so white dust specks/hairs would show up. I scanned with Vuescan at 16 bit straight through to photoshop and enlarged to 100% and went around the frame and counted dust specks. I live in a semi-arid area and humidity ranges from 20-50%RH. I store the negs in mylar sleeves, thumb cut from the side from Light Impressions (and stored in their folder/ box system) to avoid insertion scratches. I shoot each neg with an anti-static gun, and compressed air from a rather healthy air compressor (not damaging neg, however), and I wear high quality cotton gloves. Then I examine negative at an angle under good lighting- and I almost never see any dust remaining on neg (keep reading tho). I keep an air cleaner (HEPA) in the room 24/7, overated for the size of room, and I keep the door closed with a seal on the bottom, and all windows closed, except a permanently window mounted air conditioner. Yada, yada... The count varies from 200-1000 spots per frame. I think a lot is due to dry climate and the increased resolution of scanner, or maybe I should circulate the air more than I do. The highest numbers come from a processing lab in Utah (dip and dunk). The lowest numbers come from rolls I have processed myself (I used a 2 micron water filter at one point) or even better, a little outfit in New Mexico which actually still does roll tank processing, with fresh solutions, etc, specializing in BW only. Since I am VERY low volume, I don't mind spotting away for two hours or more, as long as I can get up every half hour to take a quick screaming break. Hopes that helps. -- Jim Hayes Digital Surrealism Images at http://www.jymis.com/~jimhayes
RE: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000?
I rarely get dust spots in my SS4000. I probably do something Polaroid would recommend against. Occasionally, I use my air-gun nailer compressor to blow air through the unit. I set the air at 30lbs pressure and blow carefully. I cover the unit with plastic and avoid having slides or film out of their slide pages or negative sleeves unless I am scanning them. I also use a small blower brush to remove anything that I can see before scanning. I probably only remove spots on 1 out of 5 scans. If there are many spots (or fibers) I remove the film, clean it, and scan it again. During the winter months when the air is dryer, there are unquestionably more bits of debris to worry about. I live in a very humid part of North Carolina and so maybe that is part of the reason why I do not have dust problems. Moisture in the air helps keep down dust levels. --- Gregory Georges Really Useful Content, Inc. Chapel Hill, North Carolina www.reallyusefulpage.com Author of Digital Camera Solutions 50 Digital Photo Techniques I have not done a count, but I'm sure that I also find from 200- 1000 spots on every scan, no matter how careful I am, and I live in a humid climate, but work under much less clean conditions. I've been preoccupied with the dust problem for some time. Some people don't seem to consider it a big problem, but that must be because they do not spot scans from slides using the Acutal Pixels view while making 13x19 prints. I'd hoped that a new SS4000 purchased at Ecost would do a good enough job and save me lots of bucks. But, the comparison between using ICE on a Nikon LS 4000 and not ICE on the Sprintscan is too dramatic to ignore, especially since I have not been able to see any significant difference in quality.
RE: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000?
I rarely get dust spots in my SS4000. I probably do something Polaroid would recommend against. Occasionally, I use my air-gun nailer compressor to blow air through the unit. I set the air at 30lbs pressure and blow carefully. Do you have a very good water trap on the output of your compressor? If not, you could be blowing moisture inside the unit, which may have long term effects.
Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000?
Not to mention the potential for generating static electricity which may be detrimental on any CMOS electronics inside the unit. Wire on 9/20/01 2:50 PM, Austin Franklin at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I rarely get dust spots in my SS4000. I probably do something Polaroid would recommend against. Occasionally, I use my air-gun nailer compressor to blow air through the unit. I set the air at 30lbs pressure and blow carefully. Do you have a very good water trap on the output of your compressor? If not, you could be blowing moisture inside the unit, which may have long term effects.
Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000?
On Sat, 15 Sep 2001 08:41:04 -0400 Barbara Martin Greene ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I'd appreciate if users of the Sprintscan would tell me just how much stuff shows up in their slide scans. In my SS 4000 35 mm frames, which are mainly Tmax 100, I did a rough count once. I chose moderately (one stop) underexposed negs or night shots, so white dust specks/hairs would show up. I scanned with Vuescan at 16 bit straight through to photoshop and enlarged to 100% and went around the frame and counted dust specks. I live in a semi-arid area and humidity ranges from 20-50%RH. I store the negs in mylar sleeves, thumb cut from the side from Light Impressions (and stored in their folder/ box system) to avoid insertion scratches. I shoot each neg with an anti-static gun, and compressed air from a rather healthy air compressor (not damaging neg, however), and I wear high quality cotton gloves. Then I examine negative at an angle under good lighting- and I almost never see any dust remaining on neg (keep reading tho). I keep an air cleaner (HEPA) in the room 24/7, overated for the size of room, and I keep the door closed with a seal on the bottom, and all windows closed, except a permanently window mounted air conditioner. Yada, yada... The count varies from 200-1000 spots per frame. I think a lot is due to dry climate and the increased resolution of scanner, or maybe I should circulate the air more than I do. The highest numbers come from a processing lab in Utah (dip and dunk). The lowest numbers come from rolls I have processed myself (I used a 2 micron water filter at one point) or even better, a little outfit in New Mexico which actually still does roll tank processing, with fresh solutions, etc, specializing in BW only. Since I am VERY low volume, I don't mind spotting away for two hours or more, as long as I can get up every half hour to take a quick screaming break. Hopes that helps. -- Jim Hayes Digital Surrealism Images at http://www.jymis.com/~jimhayes
Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000?
and compressed air from a rather healthy air compressor (not damaging neg, however), What PSI are you using as your threshold? - Original Message - From: jimhayes [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 7:48 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000? On Sat, 15 Sep 2001 08:41:04 -0400 Barbara Martin Greene ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I'd appreciate if users of the Sprintscan would tell me just how much stuff shows up in their slide scans. In my SS 4000 35 mm frames, which are mainly Tmax 100, I did a rough count once. I chose moderately (one stop) underexposed negs or night shots, so white dust specks/hairs would show up. I scanned with Vuescan at 16 bit straight through to photoshop and enlarged to 100% and went around the frame and counted dust specks. I live in a semi-arid area and humidity ranges from 20-50%RH. I store the negs in mylar sleeves, thumb cut from the side from Light Impressions (and stored in their folder/ box system) to avoid insertion scratches. I shoot each neg with an anti-static gun, and compressed air from a rather healthy air compressor (not damaging neg, however), and I wear high quality cotton gloves. Then I examine negative at an angle under good lighting- and I almost never see any dust remaining on neg (keep reading tho). I keep an air cleaner (HEPA) in the room 24/7, overated for the size of room, and I keep the door closed with a seal on the bottom, and all windows closed, except a permanently window mounted air conditioner. Yada, yada... The count varies from 200-1000 spots per frame. I think a lot is due to dry climate and the increased resolution of scanner, or maybe I should circulate the air more than I do. The highest numbers come from a processing lab in Utah (dip and dunk). The lowest numbers come from rolls I have processed myself (I used a 2 micron water filter at one point) or even better, a little outfit in New Mexico which actually still does roll tank processing, with fresh solutions, etc, specializing in BW only. Since I am VERY low volume, I don't mind spotting away for two hours or more, as long as I can get up every half hour to take a quick screaming break. Hopes that helps. -- Jim Hayes Digital Surrealism Images at http://www.jymis.com/~jimhayes
RE: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000?
I load the SS4k slide/film holders up and then look at them under a large Luxor lamp/magnifier as I blow off any visible dust. The lamp really makes any dust stand out. When the film is clean, I keep the film holder held on edge until it gets to the scanner and is inserted. Even with these precautions I can see significant amounts of dust when the scan is greatly magnified. I've come to the conclusion that almost all of it embedded in the emulsion and results from sloppy processing labs with no filtering of their solutions. Some labs give MUCH better results than others from the cleanliness standpoint as well other areas. Cliff Ober -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of jimhayes Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 9:48 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000? In my SS 4000 35 mm frames, which are mainly Tmax 100, I did a rough count once. I chose moderately (one stop) underexposed negs or night shots, so white dust specks/hairs would show up. I scanned with Vuescan at 16 bit straight through to photoshop and enlarged to 100% and went around the frame and counted dust specks. I live in a semi-arid area and humidity ranges from 20-50%RH. I store the negs in mylar sleeves, thumb cut from the side from Light Impressions (and stored in their folder/ box system) to avoid insertion scratches. I shoot each neg with an anti-static gun, and compressed air from a rather healthy air compressor (not damaging neg, however), and I wear high quality cotton gloves. Then I examine negative at an angle under good lighting- and I almost never see any dust remaining on neg (keep reading tho). I keep an air cleaner (HEPA) in the room 24/7, overated for the size of room, and I keep the door closed with a seal on the bottom, and all windows closed, except a permanently window mounted air conditioner. Yada, yada... The count varies from 200-1000 spots per frame. I think a lot is due to dry climate and the increased resolution of scanner, or maybe I should circulate the air more than I do. The highest numbers come from a processing lab in Utah (dip and dunk). The lowest numbers come from rolls I have processed myself (I used a 2 micron water filter at one point) or even better, a little outfit in New Mexico which actually still does roll tank processing, with fresh solutions, etc, specializing in BW only. Since I am VERY low volume, I don't mind spotting away for two hours or more, as long as I can get up every half hour to take a quick screaming break. Hopes that helps. -- Jim Hayes Digital Surrealism Images at http://www.jymis.com/~jimhayes
Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000?
At 03:50 AM 9/16/2001 +0100, you wrote: I find that if I resist looking at my slides until I have found time to scan them then there is very little dust on them. Obviously doesn't help with your current slide collection. Also keep the scanner covered when not in use and as Roger Miller suggested if you only use one slide in the holder at a time there are non waiting outside the scanner collecting dust. It's a bit of a pain to work like this - but is better than lengthy de-spotting. Steve I'm assuming that it is not the act of looking at your slides that causes dust, but the act of taking them out of their original containers. If you keep them in the containers from your lab until you are ready to scan them, then there is less opportunity for dust to accumulate. Many people review them on light tables, etc., and edit prior to scanning. A possible dust-minimization workflow would be to leave slides in original containers until ready to scan, then perform bulk raw scans of all slides, putting them back into the original containers as soon as possible. Then perform editing and image selection on the computer. The images to be kept can be pulled out of the slide containers and stored in archival plastic sheets or whatever you use now. Then, of course, you can delete the computer images of the slides not kept or you can archive them or whatever. Stan === Photography by Stan McQueen: http://www.smcqueen.com
RE: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000?
On Sun, 16 Sep 2001 15:31:54 -0400 Hemingway, David J ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I would refer you to the review by Bruce Fraser in MacWorld of about a year and half ago as well as the recent review. Both reviews say the maximum OD from the SS4000 available with a single pass are at least as good as the other scanners with 16X multiscan. This was certainly true with the LS2000, and I said it before they did :-) But it can have nothing to say about the newer Nikon models introduced since. Certainly I don't experience the shadow noise in the SS4000 as any sort of problem though. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
RE: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000?
Steve, I need to strongly disagree with the below statement. I would refer you to the review by Bruce Fraser in MacWorld of about a year and half ago as well as the recent review. Both reviews say the maximum OD from the SS4000 available with a single pass are at least as good as the other scanners with 16X multiscan. Additionally as Ed Hamrick developed the SS4000 driver, he has said that there is very little if any improvement with multiscanning on the SS4000. This is because of superior components and design. If there is little or no noise you don't have to multi-scan to get rid of it. One of my personal disappointments has been the increased perception that multi-scanning is good. Multiscannng is used to remove noise. If the design does not produce noise you don't need to multiscan. You will eventually see multiscanning in Polaroid scanners, not necessarily to produce better scans but to satisfy this misconceived impression. Many people purchase equipment of all types by comparing published specifications. Particularly when dealing with scanners you can be very mis-informed. Regards David -Original Message- From: Steve Greenbank [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 11:05 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000? It is possible to multi-scan with the Polaroid if you use Vuescan. But the scans invariably mis-align so the feature isn't much use. This will probably give the Nikon a slight edge for shadow noise. Steve - Original Message - From: Barbara Martin Greene [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2001 3:22 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000? Steve There is one factor that I hadn't considered. The Nikon scanner gives the best shadow detail when 16x Multi-sampling. While this greatly lengthens scanning time, there is no question that it gives better results than 1x, which is what was used in the comparison test. Also, it is mentioned that, ED4000 4X multi-sampled images have much less shadow noise than images from the SS400. That makes me wonder what the comparison results would have been had 16X multi-sampling been used? I'm not sure, but it's my impression that the Polaroid does not do mullti-sampling. Is that so? Thus on the basis of this comparison, one can't say that the Polaroid has better shadow detail than the Nikon. Martin From: Steve Greenbank [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 02:23:40 +0100 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000? There does seem to be a problem with the original page I posted (it used to have some buttons at the top I think). Anyway look at this direct reference (it's several MB). http://www.samcos.com/rick/equip/scannertest/sky_shadow_grain.htm You can also see the more distinct dust on the Nikon. Steve - Original Message - From: Barbara Martin Greene [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 11:18 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000? Rick From: Steve Greenbank [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 16:40:03 +0100 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000? Rick Samco compared these two scanners here: http://www.samcos.com/rick/equip/scannertest/ssvsed.htm Up until I saw this I was quite keen to trade my Artixscan 4000T (SS4000 clone) for a Nikon largely for ICE. After all de-spotting is a nightmare except on very clean images. I have yet to find any thing other than a clone tool that removes the dust spots from my A4000T scans. I have discovered however that by not looking at your images at all before scanning (I use slides) you can minimise the de-spotting to about 5 minutes max. Obviously this isn't much good for old slides. I have some family slides ([not] cared for by my Dad) which it would take many hours to clean up. I only have a 17 monitor and have to look at about 40 screen fulls to check one image for dust spots, but if you have a huge monitor this is probably much easier. I use a nineteen inch monitor and in Photoshop I use the 'Print' and 'Actual Pixels' views which lead to every spot showing up looking like a pebble. While it makes it easier to find the junk, it leads to my seeing lots more of it. On examining Rick's samples I decided that the Nikon seemed to have very slightly better sharpness and detail but turning on the ICE made it very slightly worse. This was reasonably acceptable, but the Nikon seems to also produce very grainy scans and the only cure is GEM which softens images quite badly. I have quite enough trouble with grain so I decided to stick with the A4000T. I think it is possible to compensate for the softening by through careful adjustment of Unsharp Mask Filter
Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000?
David, While I clearly agree with your point that multiscanning is not a panacea, that review is against older scanners. I have no idea if multipass improves a scan on a Nikon LS-4000, for example, but I don't think there is a way to extrapolate that review to say that single pass on the SS4000 is better than multipass on the LS-4000. I own them both, and honestly, the results are, at least for this amateur, about dead even. The Nikon is just easier to use because of the roll film adapter and has the convenience of ICE. Is it worth the difference in price? Nope, but I'm happy with them both. Tom From: Hemingway, David J Steve, I need to strongly disagree with the below statement. I would refer you to the review by Bruce Fraser in MacWorld of about a year and half ago as well as the recent review. Both reviews say the maximum OD from the SS4000 available with a single pass are at least as good as the other scanners with 16X multiscan. Additionally as Ed Hamrick developed the SS4000 driver, he has said that there is very little if any improvement with multiscanning on the SS4000. This is because of superior components and design. If there is little or no noise you don't have to multi-scan to get rid of it. One of my personal disappointments has been the increased perception that multi-scanning is good. Multiscannng is used to remove noise. If the design does not produce noise you don't need to multiscan. You will eventually see multiscanning in Polaroid scanners, not necessarily to produce better scans but to satisfy this misconceived impression. Many people purchase equipment of all types by comparing published specifications. Particularly when dealing with scanners you can be very mis-informed. Regards David
RE: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000?
Tom, The review in this Octobers MacWorld showed the same result as the review a year and a half ago. The Polaroid scanner gets at least as good shadow detail in a single pass as the competitors model with a 16X multiscan. Using multiscanning to get increased shadow detail can also cause other negative effects to the image, primarily softness. We have seen this in our work to implement multi-scanning for Polaroid scanners and it is not easy to overcome. From October MacWorld review. We found that the Super Coolscan, for which Nikon claims a dMax of 4.2, did a somewhat poorer job of pulling detail out of shadow areas than the more conservatively rated scanners when used in single-pass mode. The only way we could get the Super Coolscan to live up to its dMax claim was to enable the 16* multiscanning option (which averages 16 separate scans and hence takes 16 times longer than a single pass) and to turn off both auto exposure and color management. I really wish we had the roll film adapter for you!! I have enjoyed your comments as user of both scanners. David -Original Message- From: Tom Scales [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2001 4:25 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000? David, While I clearly agree with your point that multiscanning is not a panacea, that review is against older scanners. I have no idea if multipass improves a scan on a Nikon LS-4000, for example, but I don't think there is a way to extrapolate that review to say that single pass on the SS4000 is better than multipass on the LS-4000. I own them both, and honestly, the results are, at least for this amateur, about dead even. The Nikon is just easier to use because of the roll film adapter and has the convenience of ICE. Is it worth the difference in price? Nope, but I'm happy with them both. Tom From: Hemingway, David J Steve, I need to strongly disagree with the below statement. I would refer you to the review by Bruce Fraser in MacWorld of about a year and half ago as well as the recent review. Both reviews say the maximum OD from the SS4000 available with a single pass are at least as good as the other scanners with 16X multiscan. Additionally as Ed Hamrick developed the SS4000 driver, he has said that there is very little if any improvement with multiscanning on the SS4000. This is because of superior components and design. If there is little or no noise you don't have to multi-scan to get rid of it. One of my personal disappointments has been the increased perception that multi-scanning is good. Multiscannng is used to remove noise. If the design does not produce noise you don't need to multiscan. You will eventually see multiscanning in Polaroid scanners, not necessarily to produce better scans but to satisfy this misconceived impression. Many people purchase equipment of all types by comparing published specifications. Particularly when dealing with scanners you can be very mis-informed. Regards David
RE: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000?
From October MacWorld review. We found that the Super Coolscan, for which Nikon claims a dMax of 4.2, did a somewhat poorer job of pulling detail out of shadow areas than the more conservatively rated scanners when used in single-pass mode. The only way we could get the Super Coolscan to live up to its dMax claim was to enable the 16* multiscanning option (which averages 16 separate scans and hence takes 16 times longer than a single pass) and to turn off both auto exposure and color management. I don't know that I really believe this. What did they use for a source that had a dMax of 4.2?
Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000?
Well, I do agree multipass scanning has many problems and using it to overcome the limitations of a scanner is clearly a bad idea. Get a better scanner g. Tom From: Hemingway, David J Tom, The review in this Octobers MacWorld showed the same result as the review a year and a half ago. The Polaroid scanner gets at least as good shadow detail in a single pass as the competitors model with a 16X multiscan. Using multiscanning to get increased shadow detail can also cause other negative effects to the image, primarily softness. We have seen this in our work to implement multi-scanning for Polaroid scanners and it is not easy to overcome.
Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000?
Martin, I own both scanners and, honestly, have not found the Polaroid to be better than the Nikon. I have never scanned slides, but with negatives, I have to spend a few minutes cleaning up each image. On the Nikon, I can use Clean and don't have to do it. That said, I love the Polaroid. The amount of work isn't that big a deal. The KEY is to keep the scanner covered when you don't use it. Tom - Original Message - From: Barbara Martin Greene [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 7:41 AM Subject: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000? I've been told that the Polaroid Sprintscan 4000 does not exaggerate dust and crud to the same extent that the Nikon LS 4000 does. I've examined Photo CD scans and found that, while there is much less, nevertheless a good deal of spots show up. Perhaps, dust is a problem in every scanner. I'd appreciate if users of the Sprintscan would tell me just how much stuff shows up in their slide scans. With a reasonably clean slide, just how much work has to be done using the rubber stamp in Photoshop to get a really clean 13 x 19 print? Also, if you use a dust removal software program, such as Polacolor, Silverfast, or vuescan, how helpful is that? If such a program is used, to what extent does it soften the image and can that be restored using unsharp mask. Martin
Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000?
Rick Samco compared these two scanners here: http://www.samcos.com/rick/equip/scannertest/ssvsed.htm Up until I saw this I was quite keen to trade my Artixscan 4000T (SS4000 clone) for a Nikon largely for ICE. After all de-spotting is a nightmare except on very clean images. I have yet to find any thing other than a clone tool that removes the dust spots from my A4000T scans. I have discovered however that by not looking at your images at all before scanning (I use slides) you can minimise the de-spotting to about 5 minutes max. Obviously this isn't much good for old slides. I have some family slides ([not] cared for by my Dad) which it would take many hours to clean up. I only have a 17 monitor and have to look at about 40 screen fulls to check one image for dust spots, but if you have a huge monitor this is probably much easier. On examining Rick's samples I decided that the Nikon seemed to have very slightly better sharpness and detail but turning on the ICE made it very slightly worse. This was reasonably acceptable, but the Nikon seems to also produce very grainy scans and the only cure is GEM which softens images quite badly. I have quite enough trouble with grain so I decided to stick with the A4000T. Steve - Original Message - From: Barbara Martin Greene [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 1:41 PM Subject: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000? I've been told that the Polaroid Sprintscan 4000 does not exaggerate dust and crud to the same extent that the Nikon LS 4000 does. I've examined Photo CD scans and found that, while there is much less, nevertheless a good deal of spots show up. Perhaps, dust is a problem in every scanner. I'd appreciate if users of the Sprintscan would tell me just how much stuff shows up in their slide scans. With a reasonably clean slide, just how much work has to be done using the rubber stamp in Photoshop to get a really clean 13 x 19 print? Also, if you use a dust removal software program, such as Polacolor, Silverfast, or vuescan, how helpful is that? If such a program is used, to what extent does it soften the image and can that be restored using unsharp mask. Martin
Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000?
Doesn't anyone use Photoshop's Dust and Scratch filter? I find it useful in cleaning up dirty scans, and automated selections using the magic wand and color range tools. There's a preview window and the concept of choosing pixel tolerance relating to defect size is straight forward. I usually restrict clean up to areas which particularly need it. I've never had a Nikon scanner so don't know how ICE compares to this but I would rather have the option of seeing how bad the mess is before applying any rememdy. DaleH
Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000?
DaleH wrote: I've never had a Nikon scanner so don't know how ICE compares to this but I would rather have the option of seeing how bad the mess is before applying any rememdy. Hi, Dale, if you want me to, I'll gladly scan a negative with my Nikon LS-30, with and without ICE, and treat the without version with the PS filter. I'll then put the three versions on my web page for you to evaluate. Regards - Ralf God bless America -- My animal photo page on the WWW: http://schmode.net Find my PGP keys (RSA and DSS/DH) on PGP key servers (use TrustCenter certified keys only)
Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000?
Dale I just did a comparison between ICE and Photoshop's Dust Scratch Filter. I was hoping that the Photoshop filter would work, but, the results favored ICE. Viewing an image scanned without ICE, I applied the Photoshop Filter at a variety of settings. It was my impression, based on what I saw using 'Preview' at a variety of settings, that the Photoshop Dust Scratch Filter is practically worthless. Using very sharp images and using the Print Acutal Pixels' Views, it was my impression that any softening of spots and dust resulted in an extreme softening of the image. There is no question but that Digital ICE is much, much more effective at dust and spot removal while at the same time it softens the image much, much less that does the Photoshop Filter. Martin From: DaleH [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 15:19:29 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000? Doesn't anyone use Photoshop's Dust and Scratch filter? I find it useful in cleaning up dirty scans, and automated selections using the magic wand and color range tools. There's a preview window and the concept of choosing pixel tolerance relating to defect size is straight forward. I usually restrict clean up to areas which particularly need it. I've never had a Nikon scanner so don't know how ICE compares to this but I would rather have the option of seeing how bad the mess is before applying any rememdy. DaleH
Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000?
Rick From: Steve Greenbank [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 16:40:03 +0100 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000? Rick Samco compared these two scanners here: http://www.samcos.com/rick/equip/scannertest/ssvsed.htm Up until I saw this I was quite keen to trade my Artixscan 4000T (SS4000 clone) for a Nikon largely for ICE. After all de-spotting is a nightmare except on very clean images. I have yet to find any thing other than a clone tool that removes the dust spots from my A4000T scans. I have discovered however that by not looking at your images at all before scanning (I use slides) you can minimise the de-spotting to about 5 minutes max. Obviously this isn't much good for old slides. I have some family slides ([not] cared for by my Dad) which it would take many hours to clean up. I only have a 17 monitor and have to look at about 40 screen fulls to check one image for dust spots, but if you have a huge monitor this is probably much easier. I use a nineteen inch monitor and in Photoshop I use the 'Print' and 'Actual Pixels' views which lead to every spot showing up looking like a pebble. While it makes it easier to find the junk, it leads to my seeing lots more of it. On examining Rick's samples I decided that the Nikon seemed to have very slightly better sharpness and detail but turning on the ICE made it very slightly worse. This was reasonably acceptable, but the Nikon seems to also produce very grainy scans and the only cure is GEM which softens images quite badly. I have quite enough trouble with grain so I decided to stick with the A4000T. I think it is possible to compensate for the softening by through careful adjustment of Unsharp Mask Filter. I'd really appreciate information on how you arrived at the conclusion that the, The Nikon seems to also produce very grainy scans. Grainy in comparison to what? Thanks, Martin Steve - Original Message - From: Barbara Martin Greene [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 1:41 PM Subject: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000? I've been told that the Polaroid Sprintscan 4000 does not exaggerate dust and crud to the same extent that the Nikon LS 4000 does. I've examined Photo CD scans and found that, while there is much less, nevertheless a good deal of spots show up. Perhaps, dust is a problem in every scanner. I'd appreciate if users of the Sprintscan would tell me just how much stuff shows up in their slide scans. With a reasonably clean slide, just how much work has to be done using the rubber stamp in Photoshop to get a really clean 13 x 19 print? Also, if you use a dust removal software program, such as Polacolor, Silverfast, or vuescan, how helpful is that? If such a program is used, to what extent does it soften the image and can that be restored using unsharp mask. Martin
Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000?
There does seem to be a problem with the original page I posted (it used to have some buttons at the top I think). Anyway look at this direct reference (it's several MB). http://www.samcos.com/rick/equip/scannertest/sky_shadow_grain.htm You can also see the more distinct dust on the Nikon. Steve - Original Message - From: Barbara Martin Greene [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 11:18 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000? Rick From: Steve Greenbank [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 16:40:03 +0100 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000? Rick Samco compared these two scanners here: http://www.samcos.com/rick/equip/scannertest/ssvsed.htm Up until I saw this I was quite keen to trade my Artixscan 4000T (SS4000 clone) for a Nikon largely for ICE. After all de-spotting is a nightmare except on very clean images. I have yet to find any thing other than a clone tool that removes the dust spots from my A4000T scans. I have discovered however that by not looking at your images at all before scanning (I use slides) you can minimise the de-spotting to about 5 minutes max. Obviously this isn't much good for old slides. I have some family slides ([not] cared for by my Dad) which it would take many hours to clean up. I only have a 17 monitor and have to look at about 40 screen fulls to check one image for dust spots, but if you have a huge monitor this is probably much easier. I use a nineteen inch monitor and in Photoshop I use the 'Print' and 'Actual Pixels' views which lead to every spot showing up looking like a pebble. While it makes it easier to find the junk, it leads to my seeing lots more of it. On examining Rick's samples I decided that the Nikon seemed to have very slightly better sharpness and detail but turning on the ICE made it very slightly worse. This was reasonably acceptable, but the Nikon seems to also produce very grainy scans and the only cure is GEM which softens images quite badly. I have quite enough trouble with grain so I decided to stick with the A4000T. I think it is possible to compensate for the softening by through careful adjustment of Unsharp Mask Filter. I'd really appreciate information on how you arrived at the conclusion that the, The Nikon seems to also produce very grainy scans. Grainy in comparison to what? Thanks, Martin Steve - Original Message - From: Barbara Martin Greene [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 1:41 PM Subject: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000? I've been told that the Polaroid Sprintscan 4000 does not exaggerate dust and crud to the same extent that the Nikon LS 4000 does. I've examined Photo CD scans and found that, while there is much less, nevertheless a good deal of spots show up. Perhaps, dust is a problem in every scanner. I'd appreciate if users of the Sprintscan would tell me just how much stuff shows up in their slide scans. With a reasonably clean slide, just how much work has to be done using the rubber stamp in Photoshop to get a really clean 13 x 19 print? Also, if you use a dust removal software program, such as Polacolor, Silverfast, or vuescan, how helpful is that? If such a program is used, to what extent does it soften the image and can that be restored using unsharp mask. Martin
Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000?
Steve Thanks for sending the link. As the old saying goes, A picture is worth a thousand words. I can see very clearly what you meant. Looking at these images, dust on the Nikon is more extensive and intensive. Also, the grain does seem more exaggerated and there is a lot more 'noise' or some kind of breakdown of the pixels. The shadow detail is much better on the Polaroid. This has been most helpful, and, like you, I'm feeling that the Polaroid does a better job, making it the scanner of choice even without the marvels of ICE. By the way, exactly what do you mean by, I have discovered however that by not looking at your images at all before scanning (I use slides) you can minimise the de-spotting to about 5 minutes max.? Martin From: Steve Greenbank [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 02:23:40 +0100 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000? There does seem to be a problem with the original page I posted (it used to have some buttons at the top I think). Anyway look at this direct reference (it's several MB). http://www.samcos.com/rick/equip/scannertest/sky_shadow_grain.htm You can also see the more distinct dust on the Nikon. Steve - Original Message - From: Barbara Martin Greene [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 11:18 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000? Rick From: Steve Greenbank [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 16:40:03 +0100 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000? Rick Samco compared these two scanners here: http://www.samcos.com/rick/equip/scannertest/ssvsed.htm Up until I saw this I was quite keen to trade my Artixscan 4000T (SS4000 clone) for a Nikon largely for ICE. After all de-spotting is a nightmare except on very clean images. I have yet to find any thing other than a clone tool that removes the dust spots from my A4000T scans. I have discovered however that by not looking at your images at all before scanning (I use slides) you can minimise the de-spotting to about 5 minutes max. Obviously this isn't much good for old slides. I have some family slides ([not] cared for by my Dad) which it would take many hours to clean up. I only have a 17 monitor and have to look at about 40 screen fulls to check one image for dust spots, but if you have a huge monitor this is probably much easier. I use a nineteen inch monitor and in Photoshop I use the 'Print' and 'Actual Pixels' views which lead to every spot showing up looking like a pebble. While it makes it easier to find the junk, it leads to my seeing lots more of it. On examining Rick's samples I decided that the Nikon seemed to have very slightly better sharpness and detail but turning on the ICE made it very slightly worse. This was reasonably acceptable, but the Nikon seems to also produce very grainy scans and the only cure is GEM which softens images quite badly. I have quite enough trouble with grain so I decided to stick with the A4000T. I think it is possible to compensate for the softening by through careful adjustment of Unsharp Mask Filter. I'd really appreciate information on how you arrived at the conclusion that the, The Nikon seems to also produce very grainy scans. Grainy in comparison to what? Thanks, Martin Steve - Original Message - From: Barbara Martin Greene [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 1:41 PM Subject: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000? I've been told that the Polaroid Sprintscan 4000 does not exaggerate dust and crud to the same extent that the Nikon LS 4000 does. I've examined Photo CD scans and found that, while there is much less, nevertheless a good deal of spots show up. Perhaps, dust is a problem in every scanner. I'd appreciate if users of the Sprintscan would tell me just how much stuff shows up in their slide scans. With a reasonably clean slide, just how much work has to be done using the rubber stamp in Photoshop to get a really clean 13 x 19 print? Also, if you use a dust removal software program, such as Polacolor, Silverfast, or vuescan, how helpful is that? If such a program is used, to what extent does it soften the image and can that be restored using unsharp mask. Martin
Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000?
Steve There is one factor that I hadn't considered. The Nikon scanner gives the best shadow detail when 16x Multi-sampling. While this greatly lengthens scanning time, there is no question that it gives better results than 1x, which is what was used in the comparison test. Also, it is mentioned that, ED4000 4X multi-sampled images have much less shadow noise than images from the SS400. That makes me wonder what the comparison results would have been had 16X multi-sampling been used? I'm not sure, but it's my impression that the Polaroid does not do mullti-sampling. Is that so? Thus on the basis of this comparison, one can't say that the Polaroid has better shadow detail than the Nikon. Martin From: Steve Greenbank [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 02:23:40 +0100 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000? There does seem to be a problem with the original page I posted (it used to have some buttons at the top I think). Anyway look at this direct reference (it's several MB). http://www.samcos.com/rick/equip/scannertest/sky_shadow_grain.htm You can also see the more distinct dust on the Nikon. Steve - Original Message - From: Barbara Martin Greene [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 11:18 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000? Rick From: Steve Greenbank [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 16:40:03 +0100 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000? Rick Samco compared these two scanners here: http://www.samcos.com/rick/equip/scannertest/ssvsed.htm Up until I saw this I was quite keen to trade my Artixscan 4000T (SS4000 clone) for a Nikon largely for ICE. After all de-spotting is a nightmare except on very clean images. I have yet to find any thing other than a clone tool that removes the dust spots from my A4000T scans. I have discovered however that by not looking at your images at all before scanning (I use slides) you can minimise the de-spotting to about 5 minutes max. Obviously this isn't much good for old slides. I have some family slides ([not] cared for by my Dad) which it would take many hours to clean up. I only have a 17 monitor and have to look at about 40 screen fulls to check one image for dust spots, but if you have a huge monitor this is probably much easier. I use a nineteen inch monitor and in Photoshop I use the 'Print' and 'Actual Pixels' views which lead to every spot showing up looking like a pebble. While it makes it easier to find the junk, it leads to my seeing lots more of it. On examining Rick's samples I decided that the Nikon seemed to have very slightly better sharpness and detail but turning on the ICE made it very slightly worse. This was reasonably acceptable, but the Nikon seems to also produce very grainy scans and the only cure is GEM which softens images quite badly. I have quite enough trouble with grain so I decided to stick with the A4000T. I think it is possible to compensate for the softening by through careful adjustment of Unsharp Mask Filter. I'd really appreciate information on how you arrived at the conclusion that the, The Nikon seems to also produce very grainy scans. Grainy in comparison to what? Thanks, Martin Steve - Original Message - From: Barbara Martin Greene [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 1:41 PM Subject: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000? I've been told that the Polaroid Sprintscan 4000 does not exaggerate dust and crud to the same extent that the Nikon LS 4000 does. I've examined Photo CD scans and found that, while there is much less, nevertheless a good deal of spots show up. Perhaps, dust is a problem in every scanner. I'd appreciate if users of the Sprintscan would tell me just how much stuff shows up in their slide scans. With a reasonably clean slide, just how much work has to be done using the rubber stamp in Photoshop to get a really clean 13 x 19 print? Also, if you use a dust removal software program, such as Polacolor, Silverfast, or vuescan, how helpful is that? If such a program is used, to what extent does it soften the image and can that be restored using unsharp mask. Martin
Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000?
I find that if I resist looking at my slides until I have found time to scan them then there is very little dust on them. Obviously doesn't help with your current slide collection. Also keep the scanner covered when not in use and as Roger Miller suggested if you only use one slide in the holder at a time there are non waiting outside the scanner collecting dust. It's a bit of a pain to work like this - but is better than lengthy de-spotting. Steve - Original Message - From: Barbara Martin Greene [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2001 3:00 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000? Steve Thanks for sending the link. As the old saying goes, A picture is worth a thousand words. I can see very clearly what you meant. Looking at these images, dust on the Nikon is more extensive and intensive. Also, the grain does seem more exaggerated and there is a lot more 'noise' or some kind of breakdown of the pixels. The shadow detail is much better on the Polaroid. This has been most helpful, and, like you, I'm feeling that the Polaroid does a better job, making it the scanner of choice even without the marvels of ICE. By the way, exactly what do you mean by, I have discovered however that by not looking at your images at all before scanning (I use slides) you can minimise the de-spotting to about 5 minutes max.? Martin From: Steve Greenbank [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 02:23:40 +0100 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000? There does seem to be a problem with the original page I posted (it used to have some buttons at the top I think). Anyway look at this direct reference (it's several MB). http://www.samcos.com/rick/equip/scannertest/sky_shadow_grain.htm You can also see the more distinct dust on the Nikon. Steve - Original Message - From: Barbara Martin Greene [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 11:18 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000? Rick From: Steve Greenbank [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 16:40:03 +0100 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000? Rick Samco compared these two scanners here: http://www.samcos.com/rick/equip/scannertest/ssvsed.htm Up until I saw this I was quite keen to trade my Artixscan 4000T (SS4000 clone) for a Nikon largely for ICE. After all de-spotting is a nightmare except on very clean images. I have yet to find any thing other than a clone tool that removes the dust spots from my A4000T scans. I have discovered however that by not looking at your images at all before scanning (I use slides) you can minimise the de-spotting to about 5 minutes max. Obviously this isn't much good for old slides. I have some family slides ([not] cared for by my Dad) which it would take many hours to clean up. I only have a 17 monitor and have to look at about 40 screen fulls to check one image for dust spots, but if you have a huge monitor this is probably much easier. I use a nineteen inch monitor and in Photoshop I use the 'Print' and 'Actual Pixels' views which lead to every spot showing up looking like a pebble. While it makes it easier to find the junk, it leads to my seeing lots more of it. On examining Rick's samples I decided that the Nikon seemed to have very slightly better sharpness and detail but turning on the ICE made it very slightly worse. This was reasonably acceptable, but the Nikon seems to also produce very grainy scans and the only cure is GEM which softens images quite badly. I have quite enough trouble with grain so I decided to stick with the A4000T. I think it is possible to compensate for the softening by through careful adjustment of Unsharp Mask Filter. I'd really appreciate information on how you arrived at the conclusion that the, The Nikon seems to also produce very grainy scans. Grainy in comparison to what? Thanks, Martin Steve - Original Message - From: Barbara Martin Greene [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 1:41 PM Subject: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000? I've been told that the Polaroid Sprintscan 4000 does not exaggerate dust and crud to the same extent that the Nikon LS 4000 does. I've examined Photo CD scans and found that, while there is much less, nevertheless a good deal of spots show up. Perhaps, dust is a problem in every scanner. I'd appreciate if users of the Sprintscan would tell me just how much stuff shows up in their slide scans. With a reasonably clean slide, just how much work has to be done using the rubber stamp in Photoshop to get a really clean 13 x 19 print? Also, if you use a dust removal software program
Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000?
It is possible to multi-scan with the Polaroid if you use Vuescan. But the scans invariably mis-align so the feature isn't much use. This will probably give the Nikon a slight edge for shadow noise. Steve - Original Message - From: Barbara Martin Greene [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2001 3:22 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000? Steve There is one factor that I hadn't considered. The Nikon scanner gives the best shadow detail when 16x Multi-sampling. While this greatly lengthens scanning time, there is no question that it gives better results than 1x, which is what was used in the comparison test. Also, it is mentioned that, ED4000 4X multi-sampled images have much less shadow noise than images from the SS400. That makes me wonder what the comparison results would have been had 16X multi-sampling been used? I'm not sure, but it's my impression that the Polaroid does not do mullti-sampling. Is that so? Thus on the basis of this comparison, one can't say that the Polaroid has better shadow detail than the Nikon. Martin From: Steve Greenbank [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 02:23:40 +0100 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000? There does seem to be a problem with the original page I posted (it used to have some buttons at the top I think). Anyway look at this direct reference (it's several MB). http://www.samcos.com/rick/equip/scannertest/sky_shadow_grain.htm You can also see the more distinct dust on the Nikon. Steve - Original Message - From: Barbara Martin Greene [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 11:18 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000? Rick From: Steve Greenbank [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 16:40:03 +0100 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000? Rick Samco compared these two scanners here: http://www.samcos.com/rick/equip/scannertest/ssvsed.htm Up until I saw this I was quite keen to trade my Artixscan 4000T (SS4000 clone) for a Nikon largely for ICE. After all de-spotting is a nightmare except on very clean images. I have yet to find any thing other than a clone tool that removes the dust spots from my A4000T scans. I have discovered however that by not looking at your images at all before scanning (I use slides) you can minimise the de-spotting to about 5 minutes max. Obviously this isn't much good for old slides. I have some family slides ([not] cared for by my Dad) which it would take many hours to clean up. I only have a 17 monitor and have to look at about 40 screen fulls to check one image for dust spots, but if you have a huge monitor this is probably much easier. I use a nineteen inch monitor and in Photoshop I use the 'Print' and 'Actual Pixels' views which lead to every spot showing up looking like a pebble. While it makes it easier to find the junk, it leads to my seeing lots more of it. On examining Rick's samples I decided that the Nikon seemed to have very slightly better sharpness and detail but turning on the ICE made it very slightly worse. This was reasonably acceptable, but the Nikon seems to also produce very grainy scans and the only cure is GEM which softens images quite badly. I have quite enough trouble with grain so I decided to stick with the A4000T. I think it is possible to compensate for the softening by through careful adjustment of Unsharp Mask Filter. I'd really appreciate information on how you arrived at the conclusion that the, The Nikon seems to also produce very grainy scans. Grainy in comparison to what? Thanks, Martin Steve - Original Message - From: Barbara Martin Greene [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 1:41 PM Subject: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000? I've been told that the Polaroid Sprintscan 4000 does not exaggerate dust and crud to the same extent that the Nikon LS 4000 does. I've examined Photo CD scans and found that, while there is much less, nevertheless a good deal of spots show up. Perhaps, dust is a problem in every scanner. I'd appreciate if users of the Sprintscan would tell me just how much stuff shows up in their slide scans. With a reasonably clean slide, just how much work has to be done using the rubber stamp in Photoshop to get a really clean 13 x 19 print? Also, if you use a dust removal software program, such as Polacolor, Silverfast, or vuescan, how helpful is that? If such a program is used, to what extent does it soften the image and can that be restored using unsharp mask. Martin
