Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] 4000 dpi scanner recommndations?

Subject: Re: [OM] 4000 dpi scanner recommndations?
From: w shumaker <rlist@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 10:11:20 -0400
I can't say I have experience with the LS-4000, but I have used the
LS-2000 for a while. The new nikon scan software is nice in many ways,
with a combined curve and histogram adjustment control that I like
better than photoshop 7. I have a 1.9Ghz P4 with 1g of memory and the
auto slide feeder on the ls2000. When batch scanning, I can't do
anything what so ever on that machine or I risk crashing nikonscan. The
latest version is much better than previous versions. When it works, it
is great, but it is sensitive. For most scanning, I like the nikon
scanner. I find it works best if you turn off nikon color management
and create your own color profile. The nikon color management will clip
out detail in the shadows of slides. Overall it is a great scanner, and
if I upgrade, it will likely be the LS-4000.

My biggest disappointment with Nikon scanners is with B&W film. You
cannot use the infrared channel for dust and scratch removal with
silver based B&W film. And the scanner will emphasis every single defect in
the film base. If non-chromogenic B&W scanning is important, "I have
heard" that the Polaroid Sprintscan is a better option. Also, Polaroid
offers, for free, a photoshop plugin that "I have heard" can do a fair
job of dust and scratch removal, without an infrared channel. "I have
also heard" many people with mechanical problems with the Minolta
scanners that they have had to return. And "I have heard" those with
the cannon scanner not getting nearly as good a result. If I get the
chance, I will post a B&W scan from my LS-2000 showing what it does.
I have also heard, but not seen for myself, that the infrared channel for
the dust and scratch removal feature can cause problems when scanning
kodachrome slides. I have scanned a number of old (1950's) kodachrome
slides with mold and the digital ICE worked great. It could also be that
the quality of the slide was to the point I would not have seen any subtle
problems caused by dICE. It all has to do with what the infrared channel
will pick up. The advantage and disadvantage of the Nikon is the LED light
source, very accurate color, but emphasizes every defect making dICE
necessary.

My choices would be the LS-4000 or the Sprintscann 4000+. For me,
I already have the slide feeder for the LS4000, which is a great time
saver. However, for critical scans, you pretty much need to hand hold
each scan. The slide feeder works pretty well with plastic mount slides,
but some paper mount slides can catch on one another and jam. One
modification is to use an old credit card to stop down the large opening
of the slide feeder. I like to batch scan a new set of slides, then go back
and re-scan the few I really want, controlling the analog gain to center
the histogram, and curve adjust in the scanner software (which will happen
at full resolution even if you are converting to 8-bit jpegs for the final 
output).
Of course, this all requires good monitor calibration, etc, etc...

Too bad there is not one good solution to scanning. 

Wayne


< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz