I have never use a drum scanner but I have been using LS-4000 since 2001,
with the LS-4000 noise is definately not my concern, in any suspectable
cases (very rare) I just use 8x multi-scan. Here is a test report by
imaging-resource (look for the "Extreme shadow detail" test):
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/LS4K/L40PICS.HTM
May be drum scanner really do better but in all practical cases I worry more
about film grain than noise.
For software interpolation, I found Nikonscan performs very well, can't find
much difference between it and Photoshop, it is good enough for me.
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jan Steinman" <Jan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> From: David Irisarri <zuiko3000@xxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Nikon LS-4000 gives you drum scan quality.
>
> Oh, well THAT explains the 10x factor in cost!
>
> It's pretty easy to come up with some specification that would tend to
> indicate that. Most manufacturers simply use the width of their ADC to
> come up with a theoretical dynamic range.
>
> But having used both, I have to say that the LS-4000 is a long way from a
> ColorGetter Falcon. The biggest difference is dark noise, which is very
> important for slides. (Or highlight noise if you're scanning negative
> film.)
>
> When I scanned an unexposed frame on the LS-4000 and normalized, I got
> confetti. When I did it on the ColorGetter, I got black. But even when I
> look closely at the non-normalized frames, I can easily see the
> difference. The LS-4000 noise tends to be all over the place, with
> quarter-tone (and brighter!) pixels right next to 0,0,0 pixels. On the
> ColorGetter, the noise tends to be within just a few values of black.
>
> Another important quality difference is when you want less-than-ultimate
> resolution. On a drum scanner, you actually physically change the sampling
> aperture; on a CCD scanner, you mathematically re-sample the fixed-sized
> samples pulled from the sensor, with all the hairy anti-aliasing and such
> that implies. Perhaps the software is there, but to me, the under-sampled
> drum scan looks "natural," but the interpolated CCD scan looks "harsh" or
> "edgy."
>
> I'm a bit surprised to see you write that, David, since you were citing
> the influence of noise on dynamic range earlier. C'mon over and we'll play
> with the drum scanner someday!
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|