RE: [Leica] Film Scanners

[Tom.Henson@bakerbotts.com]

I must thank all of you that have given me valuable insight and comments
about film scanners.

It does sound like many of you are using the Nikon and are quite satisfied
with them, even the older ones.

I have read as many reviews and articles as I have been able to in the last
few days and have come to a couple of conclusions. I hope that I have
properly digested all of this material.

Absolute scan resolution is not everything, although it is an indication of
what the scanner is capable of under ideal circumstances. As a couple of you
pointed out, it is amazing what you have on a negative until you scan it at
4000dpi and see for yourself. This begs another question. Do any of you
clean your negatives or slides before scanning them? What about using PEK
pad on them?

Dmax, or density is also very important in how a scanner is able to bring
out the darker areas of a negative or slide. Again, this is an important
number, but only so long as the manufacturer has not stretched the truth
hear.

DPI is another figure that is quoted a great deal. From what I understand
about the way a scanner works, only the smaller number is of any real
significance. The smaller number is the actual amount of pixels that a CCD
can scan in a single pass without any gimmicks such as interpolation.
Several of the 4000dpi scanner do not actually have the ability to scan 4000
pixels in a single pass, but come very close. This includes the Nikon and
Canon 4000's.

Bit rate is another figure that is quoted by manufacturers and is an
important number also. The higher the bit rate, the more colors variations
can be picked up by the CCD.

Based upon numbers alone, one would look for the highest resolution (DPI),
dMax, and bit rate. This should be an indication of the theoretical ability
of a scanner.

But, software is a very important factor in all of this. Software can
actually be a limiting factor in keeping a scanner from performing at it's
theoretical best. Almost everyone that uses a Nikon said the software that
comes with it is not that good, that you should get Vuescan for better
results.

I also think that having a scanner with ICE or FARE is preferable over
having one without. While you can clean up the dust and flaws in PS, this
can be a time consuming step. I like the option of using it or turning it
off if I don't want to use it. From the reviews that I have read, ICE works
great, but at a cost of slight loss of sharpness. FARE by Canon, on the
other hand, while not quite as good, evidently does not affect the final
image as much and thus give you a sharper image.

This brings me to decide between the Nikon SuperCoolscan 4000ED and the
Canon FS4000US. When I factor how I will be using the scanner and the amount
of work I will doing on it, then cost becomes a factor for me. I'm strictly
amateur.

Based upon all of this, I feel the Canon is the better scanner for my needs,
but only when you factor in the cost as the final deciding factor.

Since I work in the IT field, I know that both of these scanners will be
obsolete in a short amount of time (a year or two at most). Knowing that
someone will come out in the next year or so with a film scanner that will
far surpass both of these, cost becomes another reason why I would buy the
Canon over the Nikon today.

If I was making a living at this, then I would easily buy the Nikon, or an
even higher end scanner like the Imacon's.

Thanks again for all of your help and comments.

Tom Henson
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html