On 9/19/2010 12:38 AM, David Irisarri wrote:
> I have tried almost everything to scan the slides perfectly sharp. :) but the
> best results were dividing the slides in cells and stitching all of them.
I've done some crazy, time eating things with images, but you've got me beat,
hands down.
You are throwing around a lot of claims here. Do you have personal experience
or references?
> Nikon LS-4000 gives you drum scan quality.
Jan has already addressed this with his personal, detailed testing experience
with both. He disagrees.
> DOF is extremelly narrow but is sharper than Canon FS4000.
Here I disagree. I have not personally ever used a Nikon film scanner. I did
spend way too much time trolling the web,
looking at reviews and comparisons, before choosing a film scanner. One need
really go no farther than the reviews at
photo-i (although other comparisons generally agree) to see that this isn't
true. Vincent's reviews include direct
comparisons at the pixel level of scans of the same pieces of film.
Perhaps the most obvious thing his tests show is how subtle and difficult
absolute answers are in this area. Slight
differences in contrast and sharpening can make a big difference in apparent
sharpness. Still, my experience was that
it's possible to convince oneself that either the Canon or the Nikon is just
subtly capable of rendering more detail. I
had myself convinced in favor of Nikon at one point. Then I downloaded the
samples and played a little in PS.
I've also found that multiple passes on the Canon can slightly increase the
resolution. I don't know why. I only
discovered it when comparing single vs. multi. for dynamic range.
I just don't think there is a difference great enough to ever be noticed in any
practical use. With most films, I can
clearly see the grain clumps, so there would simply be no more image detail
from greater scanner resolution.
I do believe that Nikon has just the slightest edge in shadow detail tonal
differentiation. Then again, it also has
flare I didn't know about at the time that the Canon doesn't.
> I would never use negative if I had to come back to analog photography. I got
> the best results with Velvia 50 and Ektachrome T-grain slides.
Interesting. As CH just said, slides have less dynamic range than digital,
while negative film has a slight edge over
digital, so far. I stopped using slide film as soon as I started scanning.
So I must assume "best results with Velvia 50 and Ektachrome T-grain slides."
does not include dynamic range. Reversal
films have a color reference in simply viewing the slide, so if one is happy
with the vision of the world of a
particular film, it's easy to reproduce that in scanning the slide. Neg film
has no such reference, so no given film has
an inherent "look" across all scanners and scanner operators.
On the other hand, for those of us who never liked all the differences in color
rendition between slide films, using ICC
color profiles provides a means of getting highly consistent, technically
accurate color across different films.
Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|