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


  • To: lexa@lexa.ru
  • Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Nikon Coolscan 4000 ED
  • From: "" <al@greenspace.freeserve.co.uk>
  • Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 22:42:27 +0100
  • Content-description: Mail message body
  • In-reply-to: <3CFC0D2D.70900@shaw.ca>
  • Organization: greenspace.freeserve.co.uk
  • Priority: normal
  • Unsubscribe: mailto:listserver@halftone.co.uk

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.



Al Bond



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.