Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/06/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]on 06/30/03 9:02 PM, Austin Franklin at darkroom@ix.netcom.com wrote: > >> Depends on what you want from the scanner. For me, a Nikon Super Coolscan >> 4000ED would be a minimum. It has to run Firewire or USB 2.0 - preferably >> the former. And it has to run in OS X. (Which the Nikon does just fine). > > That's an excellent scanner, and a great recommendation...but my only > hesitation on that unit would be if it has the LED light source, which can > create two problems. One is dust and scratches show up far more than with a > non-LED light source...and that's why they include dust and scratch removal > software, the second is it seems to have a very shallow depth of field, and > therefore, unless the film is perfectly flat, you can get fuzzy areas... > > What's your experience been with these two issues, Eric? Well, let's see. I have noticed some of the scratches and dust, but nothing serious. We scan about 18 megs and use those for our pre-press system. I have some Photoshop tricks to very quickly remove a lot of dust and scratches from an image without any degradation. I also find Nikon's software for scratch reduction works pretty good with the films it's suited to. The competition in its price range don't have quite the dynamic range, or the multiple scans of shadow areas. At least last time I looked (when it first came out mostly). Maybe other scanners have added it. But I don't see many of them adopting Firewire (which only adds $20 to any hardware it is installed in). But when I get my new Mac G5 which has USB 2, I'll have more selection to choose from. Guess it's time for some research. I also have found that it's much slower in OS 9 than in OS X. The OS X drivers were significantly faster with the scratch removal software. As for depth of field, I don't have much problem with that. The film holders, though fragile, do a pretty good job of keeping film flat. I don't like using slides in mounts for any scanner. From the LeafSCan 45 I used back in the early 90s to the Kodak scanner (the one that cost $8,000 - don't remember the designation) or some of the older Nikon scanners, this is probably the best scanner for ease of use, and accuracy. But the LeafScan 45 had it beat in terms of quality. Image quality is better than I would expect from a scanner of that price. (Just like the LeafScan 45 was in its day.) My main concern is whether other scanners in this price range (my choice) or a little less has the dynamic range this scanner does. The Dmax used to be significantly better than the competition. And the people who own scanners that I know pretty much agree that the Nikon is likely the best by a long shot. But again, things may have changed since I considered buying a scanner. Having just bought the G5 and a 20" Cinema display, I'm not in the market right now. I'll just scan at work when I need it. Eric Welch Carlsbad, CA http://www.jphotog.com Contrary to many peoples' beliefs, a rangefinder camera (of whatever vintage), is not the invisibility ring from The Hobbit. - Dante Stella - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html