C.H.Ling wrote:
>It is 4000ED not FS-4000
>
Oops! Late night, too many similar numbers.
>but I believe the flare problem exist on many scanner but just not many people
>notice about that.
>
Could be. You are more observant than most. I haven't noticed any
problem on either of the Canons, and I look pretty closely at some images.
>>The FARE hardware dust/scratch removal on the FS4000 seems fully
>>comparable to ICE, but operates much faster.
>>
>All I heard is FS4000 is extremely slow even without FARE. The ICE in Nikon
>is very fast actually.
>
I read a lot of similar info. Clearly, it is very slow using USB 1.1 on
some systems. Some posts say changing to SCSI made a huge difference,
others said it didn't change much. I've never even tried it with USB.
With Vuescan, a lot of time can be taken up after the actual scan
writing TIFF and/or JPEG files, especially with compression. RAW files
are written as the physical scan proceeds, to there is no delay from
frame to frame. That's why I scan to RAW first and get the physical part
out of the way quickly. I then later 'scan' from RAW to TIFF and/or
JPEG, which runs happliy in background while I do other things. In batch
mode, set up so no preview scans are done, it doesn't seem all that
slow, but I will time it next time I scan a roll.
FARE noise processing literally takes a second or two for a full
resolution image, essentially adding no time to image processing.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|