| Author |
Message |
cubilcle281
Guest
|
 Posted:
Fri Oct 14, 2005 7:25 am Post subject:
How does the LS-2000 stack up today? |
|
|
Hi all,
I have decided I should be looking for a film scanner with an IR
channel. I think that 2700dpi will more than suffice for my
requirements, but most scanners now seem to start at 4000dpi and have a
hefty price tag to match.
Therefore, I have been considering getting a Nikon LS-2000. In terms
of image quality, how does it compare to current crop of scanners?
Would it still be better than, say, a new Primefilm scanner?
Can anyone recommend another option for a scanner with an IR channel
that produces reasonable images and wont break the bank?
Thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Philip Homburg
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Oct 14, 2005 3:33 pm Post subject:
Re: How does the LS-2000 stack up today? |
|
|
In article <1129274427.854884.284880@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
cubilcle281 <cubicle281@mailinator.com> wrote:
| Quote: | I have decided I should be looking for a film scanner with an IR
channel. I think that 2700dpi will more than suffice for my
requirements, but most scanners now seem to start at 4000dpi and have a
hefty price tag to match.
Therefore, I have been considering getting a Nikon LS-2000. In terms
of image quality, how does it compare to current crop of scanners?
Would it still be better than, say, a new Primefilm scanner?
Can anyone recommend another option for a scanner with an IR channel
that produces reasonable images and wont break the bank?
|
When it comes to image quality (there are other issues like speed, etc.)
there are basically three parameters:
- resolution,
- density, and
- color purity.
There are two aspects to resolution. First one is whether the resolution of
the scanner is high enough that is can extract all the details from a frame
that you need in a print. For the LS-2000 that depends on how big you print.
The other aspect is grain aliasing. When the grain size matches the resolution
of the scanner you may get nasty artifacts. Due to their LED light sources,
Nikon scanners are quite susceptible to that. It depends on the film whether
this shows up or not.
If you have lots of very dense slides, you may want a better scanner. In most
cases, the LS-2000 will be good enough.
The use LEDs results both in very good color purity and provides a light
source that requires no maintenance. Only Kodachrome tends to be a problem.
I don't know what is causing those problems.
I don't know anything about Primefilm scanners. I have a LS-2000 and a LS-4000
myself.
--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David Blanchard
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Oct 14, 2005 8:27 pm Post subject:
Re: How does the LS-2000 stack up today? |
|
|
In article <1129274427.854884.284880@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
cubilcle281 <cubicle281@mailinator.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Hi all,
I have decided I should be looking for a film scanner with an IR
channel. I think that 2700dpi will more than suffice for my
requirements, but most scanners now seem to start at 4000dpi and have a
hefty price tag to match.
Therefore, I have been considering getting a Nikon LS-2000. In terms
of image quality, how does it compare to current crop of scanners?
Would it still be better than, say, a new Primefilm scanner?
Can anyone recommend another option for a scanner with an IR channel
that produces reasonable images and wont break the bank?
Thanks
|
I am still using my Nikon LS2000 and am quite happy with it. If I had the
money I would consider upgrading...
Keep in mind that the LS2000 is a SCSI-based scanner. Most modern computers
support USB and/or Firewire but not SCSI...unless you add a card.
-db- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lorenzo J. Lucchini
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 15, 2005 5:12 am Post subject:
Re: How does the LS-2000 stack up today? |
|
|
David Blanchard wrote:
| Quote: | In article <1129274427.854884.284880@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
cubilcle281 <cubicle281@mailinator.com> wrote:
[snip]
Can anyone recommend another option for a scanner with an IR channel
that produces reasonable images and wont break the bank?
Thanks
I am still using my Nikon LS2000 and am quite happy with it. If I had the
money I would consider upgrading...
Keep in mind that the LS2000 is a SCSI-based scanner. Most modern computers
support USB and/or Firewire but not SCSI...unless you add a card.
|
Remember also that drivers might be a problem on newer operating systems!
I don't really know about SCSI, but it's quite well known that parallel
scanners are generally not supported in Windows 2000 and XP.
I think SANE does support SCSI scanners, though, and I think the
(currently quite limited) version of SANE for Windows supports *only*
SCSI scanners.
by LjL
ljlbox@tiscali.it |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bart van der Wolf
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Oct 16, 2005 7:01 am Post subject:
Re: How does the LS-2000 stack up today? |
|
|
"Lorenzo J. Lucchini" <ljlbox@tiscali.it> wrote in message
news:NPX3f.36989$133.20031@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
| Quote: | David Blanchard wrote:
SNIP
Keep in mind that the LS2000 is a SCSI-based scanner. Most modern
computers support USB and/or Firewire but not SCSI...unless you add
a card.
Remember also that drivers might be a problem on newer operating
systems!
|
Which would require one of the relevant ASPI drivers:
<http://www.adaptec.com/worldwide/support/drivers_by_product.jsp?cat=%2fProduct%2fASPI-4.70>
Bart |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cubilcle281
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 17, 2005 5:54 am Post subject:
Re: How does the LS-2000 stack up today? |
|
|
I have a SCSI adaptor & have my Sprintscan 35+ running under XP, so I
think I have already jumped all these hurdles. I have heard that the
LS-2000 software is not XP compatible, but I would downgrade my OS (or
dual boot) if necessary.
I believe that the Sprintscan is not supported under XP as well, but
once I followed the advice found in this group and installed WinASPI,
it all worked fine. Not Supported != Doesn't Work
Besides, there is always Vuescan...
Lorenzo J. Lucchini wrote:
| Quote: | David Blanchard wrote:
In article <1129274427.854884.284880@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
cubilcle281 <cubicle281@mailinator.com> wrote:
[snip]
Can anyone recommend another option for a scanner with an IR channel
that produces reasonable images and wont break the bank?
Thanks
I am still using my Nikon LS2000 and am quite happy with it. If I had the
money I would consider upgrading...
Keep in mind that the LS2000 is a SCSI-based scanner. Most modern computers
support USB and/or Firewire but not SCSI...unless you add a card.
Remember also that drivers might be a problem on newer operating systems!
I don't really know about SCSI, but it's quite well known that parallel
scanners are generally not supported in Windows 2000 and XP.
I think SANE does support SCSI scanners, though, and I think the
(currently quite limited) version of SANE for Windows supports *only*
SCSI scanners.
by LjL
ljlbox@tiscali.it |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
theo
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 17, 2005 6:54 am Post subject:
Re: How does the LS-2000 stack up today? |
|
|
| Quote: | Keep in mind that the LS2000 is a SCSI-based scanner. Most modern
computers support USB and/or Firewire but not SCSI...unless you add a
card.
...supported in Windows 2000 and XP.
The Adaptec AHA2940 PCI card in its myriad variants (U: 16 bit, 20MB/sec, |
AIC7880 controller, c.1999 ) was the consumer-level hardware speed
standard until USB 2.0 became ubiquitous. Due to its legacy popularity
its support is embedded into both W2K and XP. But the depth of SCSI cable
terminals retail offerings at Best Buy or CompUSA, even within their Apple
section, now is sparse. The extant SCSI scanners mostly expect the D-sub25
terminals for SCSI II adequately driven by the AHA290x device/AIC7850
controller, another generation prior to the 2940. I retired ALL my SCSI
by 2001, only to return to the liquidation stations in 2005 for this
family photo archival project.
Much sympathy,
Theo
--
Pessimists remain morose precisely because they are too right too often. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 17, 2005 7:25 am Post subject:
Re: How does the LS-2000 stack up today? |
|
|
I would think a Coolscan IV @ 2900ppi (USB) would be a better choice.
One could be had for $300 or so. That's probably what I'd charge for
mine if I ever decided to sell it on ebay.
Actually, here's one going for CHEAP:
http://tinyurl.com/dyfhg |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cubilcle281
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 17, 2005 7:25 am Post subject:
Re: How does the LS-2000 stack up today? |
|
|
....which was exactly the situation I was in.
I had my Sprintscan on my Win98 machine with a DSub25 SCSI adaptor
(AHA1542?) but because the card was ISA I couldn't take it with me to
my new XP machine.
Just recently picked up what I needed at the local PC markets - Adaptec
2940AU for $15 and a 50pin SCSI to Centronics cable for $8. Far
cheaper than eBay, and that is before postage!
BTW, has anyone ever had a go at hacking together a homebrew
multi-slide (a la SF200) adaptor? Traditional slide viewers have had
this technology for years, and it seems mighty expensive for a piece of
plastic that only seems to work half the time! (from what I have read).
C
theo wrote:
| Quote: | Keep in mind that the LS2000 is a SCSI-based scanner. Most modern
computers support USB and/or Firewire but not SCSI...unless you add a
card.
...supported in Windows 2000 and XP.
The Adaptec AHA2940 PCI card in its myriad variants (U: 16 bit, 20MB/sec,
AIC7880 controller, c.1999 ) was the consumer-level hardware speed
standard until USB 2.0 became ubiquitous. Due to its legacy popularity
its support is embedded into both W2K and XP. But the depth of SCSI cable
terminals retail offerings at Best Buy or CompUSA, even within their Apple
section, now is sparse. The extant SCSI scanners mostly expect the D-sub25
terminals for SCSI II adequately driven by the AHA290x device/AIC7850
controller, another generation prior to the 2940. I retired ALL my SCSI
by 2001, only to return to the liquidation stations in 2005 for this
family photo archival project.
Much sympathy,
Theo
--
Pessimists remain morose precisely because they are too right too often. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bart van der Wolf
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 18, 2005 12:22 am Post subject:
Re: How does the LS-2000 stack up today? |
|
|
"cubilcle281" <cubicle281@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:1129510463.773763.156650@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
SNIP
Yes, that's how I run my LS-2000, although it doesn't get 'uncovered'
much anymore.
Bart |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in