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: Canoscan FS4000US



Is anyone out there familiar with the new CanoScan FS4000US scanner?  It
is the only under $1000 scanner ($829.99 was the lowest price I found on
www.pricewatch.com), so far as I am aware, that scans at 4000 dpi.
However, I'm having trouble figuring out the information about color depth
given on Canon's website
(http://www.powershot.com/powershot2/fs4000/main_f.html)
for this scanner.  There is no dynamic range value given.  The specs say
"14 bit scanning for each color (RGB)/16 bit (16 bit output will be
available in case of connecting with its supported software, such as Adobe
Photoshop LE to be bundled), 8 bit output".  I've also been looking at the
specs for the Nikon Coolscan IV and Minolta Dimage Scan Elite II.  For
both these scanners, the dynamic range is calculated based on the A/D
conversion, which is 12 bits for the Nikon and 16 bits for the Minolta.
log10(2^12)=3.6, which is the stated dynamic range for the Nikon, and
log10(2^16)=4.8, which is the stated dynamic range for the Minolta.
Unfortunately, the A/D conversion value isn't given for the Canon scanner.
If the 14 bit value is the actual output then the dynamic range would be
log10(2^14)=4.2, which is better than the Nikon.  On the other hand if the
"8 bit output" is actually the A/D conversion value, then the scanner's
dynamic range would only be log10(2^8)=2.4, which would explain why they
didn't list it with the specs.  Does anybody know which is the right
value?
The Canon FS4000US and the Minolta machine both have a cold cathode
flourescent lamp as their light source whereas the Nikon Coolscan IV uses
an LED light source, which the Nikon literature claims yeilds accurate
color consistency without having to recalibrate/replace the light source.
Could anyone please comment on the relative merits of these two kinds of
light sources?  Canon has its own dust and scrach removing infrared
scanning system called FARE, which is similar to ICE, which is used by
both the Nikon and Minolta machines.  Can anyone comment on the relative
merits of these two systems?  Thanks
__________________________________________________________________
Dr. Paul Patton
Post-Doctoral Research Associate
Beckman Institute  Rm 3027  405 N. Mathews St.
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign  Urbana, Illinois 61801
work phone: (217)-265-0795   fax: (217)-244-5180
home phone: (217)-328-4064
homepage: http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~ppatton/index.html

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious.  It is the
source of all true art and science."
-Albert Einstein
__________________________________________________________________





 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.