Filmscanners mailing list archive (email@example.com)
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 ppi film scanner
I'll be posting a more full (if not necessarily more professional!) report
than this as soon as I get a few spare moments..
But in the meantime, my one-hour lunchtime play with the Canon FS4000US
- It's a pretty good scanner with nice optics and good depth of field, and
does *really* nice work on negatives
- FARE is quite effective, and though I have not used ICE/dICE, it appears
to give very acceptable results
- It has what appears to be an impressive dynamic range, but... :-(
- the catch..? - It suffers from noise, or at least this sample did...
In dark areas of slides a lot of that dynamic range is marred by
noise. Admittedly it is 'nice' noise (?), ie it's very fine, very even,
and not streaky, but it means that for a person like me who uses
transparencies mostly, and has a bad habit of underexposing them, this
isn't the 4000 dpi scanner for me. (And no, I don't think this noise is
grain or grain aliasing - I know what that stuff looks like :-), and the
slides were K25's..)
I currently have an Acer 2720 (one from a good batch!), and it is
definitely better in the 'shadowy realms' . Not because it sees more
shadow detail - the Canon beats the Acer by a very small margin here, BUT
if you wind the brightness/gamma up, the Acer's shadows stay smooth well
beyond the point at which the Canon goes *quite* noisy... Note that we
*are* talking fairly deep shadows here, so for well-exposed images I am
sure you would be very happy with the results - but for my style of
photography, I need that dark stuff!
On negatives however, it looked very nice, and produced superb colours, esp
from Reala, without even touching the settings.. I didn't have time to
give it a good workout on overexposed negatives to see if the noise showed
up much there.
I'll post a fuller report soon, and if anyone wants samples I'll stick a
couple of snippets on the web somewhere..
>I think the new Canon arrived on the scene at the wrong time..