Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

   


   


   















      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[filmscanners] Re: Nikon Coolscan 4000 ED



I scanned some tough images with my Minolta Scan Elite and then passed them
to someone who scanned these same images with his LS2000. He was surprised
to find out that my scanner was better than his on some images. Now I did
send mine in for servicing because I couldn't get it to work with ICE off.
Turned it was my (damned) HP5100C which did something to some software
component. My beef was that I and one tech rep agreed it was software but
other tech reps ignored it and told me to send it in. They soldered
something. I saw no difference.

These messages are the first I've seen about Scan Elite II problems.

Don

At 05:13 PM 05/06/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>
>
>al@greenspace.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
>
>> I wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>I'd certainly agree on the depth of field but I didn't find the SS4000
>had very good
>>>>shadow detail (I'm talking slides here).  The shadows were blocked up,
>much worse than
>>>>my old Minolta Elite even though both are 12 bit scanners.
>>>>
>>
>>
>> Art wrote:
>>
>>
>>>That's an interesting observation.  Although I haven't used the SS4000
>>>personally (I have used the SS4000+), yours is the first report I am
>>>aware of with a complaint about the shadow detail on the SS4000, in fact
>>>until the newest generation of scanners (the SS4000+, the Canon FS4000
>>>the Nikon 4000ED) it was considered by most to have the best shadow
>>>response of all the prosumer scanners on the market.
>>>
>>
>> Even in Tony Sleep's original (glowing) review of the SS4000, he did
>comment that the LS-
>> 2000 had better shadow separation than the SS4000.  Admittedly,
>multiscanning was needed
>> with the LS-2000 to reduce the noise to the point where this became
>obvious but the
>> difference was still there.  There is no dispute that the SS4000 noise
>level is
>> exceptionally low and the CCD response is very even but that obviously
>isn't the same as
>> shadow separation.  Maybe Polaroid designed it to get the best out of the
>midtones and
>> highlights rather than the deep shadows.
>>
>>
>>>Perhaps yours was defective.
>>>
>>
>> Could be.  It went back as it was behaving very oddly with frequent errors
>during
>> calibration and scanning.  However, the basic issue is that, when brought
>up using
>> curves, the very deepest shadows had exactly the same values and the
>opaque frame edge.
>> Out of curiousity, I used the SS4000 ICC profile for underexposed slides
>on a raw scan I
>> made when I had the Minolta Elite II: the deep shadows were marred by the
>CCD issues that
>> seem to plague the Elite II but, when compared with a scan of the same
>slide made with
>> the SS4000, it still had much more detail and smoother gradation.
>>
>
>The Minolta Elite II is a 14 bit A/D and I'd expect it to have somewhat
>better response compared to a 12 bit A/D.  Your original comment (quoted
>at the top of this posting) stated the old Elite showed better shadow
>detail, which I suppose could be true if you don't mind that a large
>amount of the info was in error due to noise. I suspect Polaroid choose
>to cut above the noise floor before the error levels got silly, to limit
>noise.
>
>Any scanner can be forced into providing more shadow info, if you are
>willing to put up with more noise and therefore a lot of errors.  I
>believe Vuescan or Silverfast allows for multipass scanning with the
>SS4000, and I know this has definitely been added to the SS4000+ with
>Silverfast.  The question is the benefit versus time loses.
>
>I guess the other question is what is being done with the image file.
>If it is being printed on an inkjet printer, the ability for them to
>reproduce these dark differences is limited.
>
>Art
>
>
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>------------
>Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
>filmscanners'
>or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
>or body

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body



 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.