[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Scanning

Subject: Re: [OM] Scanning
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2022 14:09:19 -0800
On 11/12/2022 6:52 AM, Wayne Shumaker wrote:
I came across a used LS-5000 scanner and was comparing it with my LS-4000 
Taken in 2004, I suspect with the 90mm macro on OM4-Ti, Provis 100F using 


Here are two scans straight from the scanners. The LS-4000 scan looks better. 
Of course I have always kept my scanner covered or in plastic for its life.

Looking just at resolution of the bee and stamen, put on layers, so I can flip between them without moving my eyes, I think the 5000 has a tiny edge. Playing with Topaz AI Denoise and Sharpen confirms that there is more to be recovered from the 5000 scan. OTOH, the difference is tiny.

I don't know directly about the Nikons, although old posts from AG, it seems to be true of them that multipass scanning can reduce noise/grain and increase detail.

Overall, they are subtly different colors, and the 5000 is slightly brighter. At this remove in time, through the medium of film, who's to say which is more accurate. The 4000 has red channel clipping, the 5000 has that, plus some blue clipping. That could account for some of the color differences.

I don't know, of course, whether and how much putting them in 8 bit JPEG may have caused that. If it's there in the scans, adjustment of scanning set-up may help.

I'm wondering if the difference in the scans is possibly due to dust on the 
LS-5000 mirror?

I recall that CH sent his scanner in to Nikon for service, and nothing changed.

Moose mentioned in 1/3/2014 that these scanner were prone to flare

This was based on posts by CH, AG and unnamed others, including CH's effort to correct it with a Nikon service. I've never used one. Someone here disassembled their Nikon, cleaned mirror, etc., to no avail.

as well as fiddly focus.

When I did an exhaustive search of reviews and results from scanners, way back when, I concluded that Nikon's semi-coherent light source tended to accentuate scratches and dust, and that their shallow DoF made good focus across the whole frame difficult, esp for mounted slides. (Similar for Minolta.) Canon's diffuse light source and deeper DoF looked superior to me. I went Canon, and have been pleased. Why Nikon went on to win the sales contest, I don't know.

Later, comments here and elsewhere raised the internal flare problem in Nikons. Canon's completely different internal design didn't have that problem.

I know the LS-5000 is 16 bit vs LS-4000 14 bit, but otherwise I don't think the 
5000 is any better, certainly not comparing these two images.

Not enough difference to matter, in practical use. I would try adjusting 
VueScan to eliminate clipping for both.

Hardly Scanning Moose

What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

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