At 11/12/2022 03:09 PM, Moose wrote:
>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
>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
I did rescan an image and specified 64bit tif files. Before it was set to 48.
That seems to have helped in the clipping. There are other VueScan settings I
am not quite sure about. Namely the Color curve low/high setting. The image
looks flat during the scan but changes when complete as VueScan applies some
settings. I guess I have a lot to learn.
>>I'm wondering if the difference in the scans is possibly due to dust on the
>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.
I took the mirror out and cleaned it. It was rather dirty, but did not seem to
change the scan result as much as I expected.
>>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
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/