Dear Jan,
I agree with you that Nikon Scan isn´t really good but I have used my Nikon
LS-4000 with Vuescan Professional in combination with pro ICC profiles,
using multiscanning and multiexposure (this option provides a way to get
additional detail from the darker parts of the scanned image) and no matter
how dark the slide is; results are always awesome. I also used to work with
anti-Newton slide mounts for tack sharp results. Because you are talking
about Nikon Scan, isn´t it?
I also can tell you I worked with drum scanners and I could double check
quality. Nikon LS-4000 is a lovely scanner. Software is very important and
you had all these issues because you probably didn´t use the right software
for getting the best results from the scanner. Noise? I don´t know what you
mean. I think the only main drawback of LS-4000 is that is so sharp that you
can see grain!
Regards,
David
2010/9/19 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!
>
> ----------------
> If you succumb to the temptation of using violence in the struggle, unborn
generations will be the recipients of a long and desolate night of
bitterness, and your chief legacy to the future will be an endless reign of
meaningless chaos. -- Martin Luther King, Jr.
> :::: Jan Steinman, EcoReality Co-op ::::
>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|