| Author |
Message |
Greg Campbell
Guest
|
 Posted:
Wed Oct 19, 2005 3:52 am Post subject:
Re: WHICH FILM/SLIDE SCANNER TO BUY???? |
|
|
Roger S. wrote:
| Quote: | The scanner bakeoff tests show the FS4000US doing reasonably well
against all of the competition. The original test did measure MTF as
well. I have found the scanner has a lot of trouble with dark or
contrasty slides.
|
Yes, limiting noise is fairly high, although I haven't tried a direct
shootout with any other scanners. I've got a few night time lightning
shots with lots of very low level detail. I might have them scanned by
the local shop's Minolta 5400.
| Quote: | Greg, I thought you were sticking to your DRebel? I haven't noticed
more noise in the summer and it gets up to 80F in my room, but it might
be a subtle increase.
|
Wrong Greg! ;)
FWLIW, I'm still shooting film with FD Canon, waiting for SOMEONE to
make a digital back for my T-90! (I know, "good luck, sucker!")
-GRC |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bruce Graham
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:26 am Post subject:
Re: WHICH FILM/SLIDE SCANNER TO BUY???? |
|
|
In article <1129698435.830397.97010@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
rsmith02@gmail.com says...
| Quote: | "I really regret contributing. I had no idea the products in question
were so favored despite their technical deficiencies."
What are you talking about? Contributing to the bakeoff or to this
thread? The spreadsheet in the 2004 bakeoff doesn't have any polaroids
at the top of the pack and there is an Imacon in the middle below all
the Canon FS4000US scanners when sorted by MTF. All of photography
involves some compromises, from the lens design to film choice,
scanning, and then printing. Technically inferior products can be good
enough for the job at hand, just look at HCB's antiquated film and
outdated equipment and the wonderful photos he produced.
I would guess Canon obsoleted this scanner because it is a smallish |
market and they needed to re-engineer the interface. It has a slow USB
1.1 interface and a SCSI interface, which while fast enough is not what
people want today. Also the noise performance on dense slides is not as
good as others available. They were losing to Nikon and Minolta, so
I guess they chose to focus their efforts on the main DSLR game.
While I'm sure the FS4000 would be better without a mirror, especially a
dirty mirror as inevitably eventually happens, mine is still OK after 4
years of light use carefully covered between each session. I also think
the rest of the optics are very good. Apart from Imacons and the like,
don't all the consumer scanners have mirrors in the optical path? We know
we don't get an 8000dpi drum scan from our little scanners, but they get
pretty much all of the info off the average neg.
To the OP, don't regret posting - you made me think about mirrors and
their problems, even if I do think your own argument is clipping a bit
too.
Bruce Graham |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Roger S.
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:26 am Post subject:
Re: WHICH FILM/SLIDE SCANNER TO BUY???? |
|
|
"I really regret contributing. I had no idea the products in question
were so favored despite their technical deficiencies."
What are you talking about? Contributing to the bakeoff or to this
thread? The spreadsheet in the 2004 bakeoff doesn't have any polaroids
at the top of the pack and there is an Imacon in the middle below all
the Canon FS4000US scanners when sorted by MTF. All of photography
involves some compromises, from the lens design to film choice,
scanning, and then printing. Technically inferior products can be good
enough for the job at hand, just look at HCB's antiquated film and
outdated equipment and the wonderful photos he produced. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Roger S.
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:26 am Post subject:
Re: WHICH FILM/SLIDE SCANNER TO BUY???? |
|
|
Oops, that was Greg Chappell- it looks similar and you both used the
FS4000US, how was I to know? ; )
I'm waiting for a Minolta manual lens compatible camera (or for DSLRs
to come down in price even more). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steven
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:26 am Post subject:
Re: WHICH FILM/SLIDE SCANNER TO BUY???? |
|
|
On 18 Oct 2005 14:39:26 -0700, "mp" <mpapet@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | I really regret contributing. I had no idea the products in question
were so favored despite their technical deficiencies.
|
I'm not sure why you regret posting. I was interested that you
mentioned the mirror as I had thought about it and figured it was less
than ideal. At one stage I was considering hardware mods but then I
found some software by Dave Burns and decided to build on that instead.
-- Steven |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HvdV
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 26, 2005 12:10 am Post subject:
Re: WHICH FILM/SLIDE SCANNER TO BUY???? |
|
|
mp wrote:
| Quote: | Such a scanner would be an ugly monstrosity and a nightmare for the
marketing department.
Ask Imacon about that. The big pre-press flatbed scanner manufacturers
too. Their customers feel differently about it.
Do you think the mirror is a significant problem ?
Yup. They lose 30%+/- of their light. Better mirrors are way too
expensive to use at $1000 price point.
That's a low estimate; an ordinary bathroom-type mirror is rated at ~80% |
reflectivity; a good $50 mirror at 95%. The $50 is indeed probably too much,
but at high volumes it should be doable to beat that bathroom mirror.
BTW, though better avoided, even a 30% light loss doesn't mean too much in
terms of signal/noise ratio.
-- Hans |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter D
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 26, 2005 8:12 pm Post subject:
Re: WHICH FILM/SLIDE SCANNER TO BUY???? |
|
|
"mp" <mpapet@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129671566.484786.273930@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | Do you think the mirror is a significant problem ?
Yup. They lose 30%+/- of their light.
|
How do you know this? What actual evidence do you have that this is a fact
and that it is a significant fact? And what exactly is "30% +/-"? "+/-"
what? Sorry if that comes across as hard on you, but those of us who are
trying to learn have a hard time with figures tossed out here and there to
support specious arguments, and this sure sounds like one. All it does is
distract from the potentially valid point you are trying to make. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Roger
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 27, 2005 1:51 am Post subject:
Re: WHICH FILM/SLIDE SCANNER TO BUY???? |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 15:12:15 GMT, "Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote:
| Quote: | "mp" <mpapet@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129671566.484786.273930@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Do you think the mirror is a significant problem ?
Yup. They lose 30%+/- of their light.
How do you know this? What actual evidence do you have that this is a fact
and that it is a significant fact? And what exactly is "30% +/-"? "+/-"
|
http://www.celestron.com/starbrightxlt/coatings_overview.htm
OK... Going to the telescope industry which has more critical light
absorption/loss requirements than the scanners: I say that as in
astronomy they need every photon that can be captured. In scanning
you only need enough light to keep the signal to noise in a state
where it's not a problem.
We use "front coated" mirrors and I'd assume the photography industry
does so as well. Front coated mirrors using an Aluminum coating have
*about* 86 to 88% reflectivity. So on the low end (worst case) they
aren't quite as bad as 30% loss, but close. Silver coatings will
reduce that loss to around 10% for 90% reflectance. Coatings as
mentioned in the above article can reduce the loss to the point of
95% reflectance per surface.
I would assume (which is never safe) that the photographic industry
uses good quality front coated mirrors with good protective coatings.
It's also easier to make small mirrors optically flat compared to
large ones.
"I doubt", but don't know that the photo industry is probably running
around 90% reflectivity and not using the really expensive coatings,
but using some sort of coating for protection.
With mirrors there are two problems as far as the light loss.
The first is reflectance which *should* be of a relatively low
importance as long as enough gets through to give a satisfactory
signal to noise ration. The other problem is light scattering. This
is the important one as it can cause softening of the image (loss of
contrast) and distortion of the image, or parts of the image.
| Quote: | what? Sorry if that comes across as hard on you, but those of us who are
trying to learn have a hard time with figures tossed out here and there to
support specious arguments, and this sure sounds like one. All it does is
distract from the potentially valid point you are trying to make.
|
"In my opinion" it makes little difference as to what they do with the
light _as_long_as_the_image_ is clear and sharp, or does not suffer
from the circuitous light path. I believe the light loss would have
to be very high to become a problem depending on the source and
sensors. OTOH if you have to fix one the alignment of the optics
could be a major problem. If they are reliable, I wouldn't worry
about it.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DenverDad
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 02, 2005 1:46 am Post subject:
Re: WHICH FILM/SLIDE SCANNER TO BUY???? |
|
|
Don R., So did you ever get the information you were looking for, or
finally select a scanner for your slides? I only recently noticed this
thread and was all ready to join in the banter regarding the alleged
deficits of certain scanners. But I figure it would be kind of rude
for me to further this topic since you really haven't gotten much
feedback yet regarding your original question (exceptions noted).
Jeff |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don R.
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:26 am Post subject:
Re: WHICH FILM/SLIDE SCANNER TO BUY???? |
|
|
On 1 Nov 2005 11:46:12 -0800, "DenverDad" <the_applegates@comcast.net>
wrote:
| Quote: | Don R., So did you ever get the information you were looking for, or
finally select a scanner for your slides?
|
Not really. My impression is there aren't many scanners which will do
a decent job on 35 mm color slides.
| Quote: | I only recently noticed this thread and was all ready to join in the banter regarding the alleged
deficits of certain scanners. But I figure it would be kind of rude
for me to further this topic since you really haven't gotten much
feedback yet regarding your original question (exceptions noted).
|
Feel free to join in, Jeff.
Thanks.
Don R.
<odatdon@REMOVETHIStelus.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Roger
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:51 pm Post subject:
Re: WHICH FILM/SLIDE SCANNER TO BUY???? |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 06:01:17 GMT, Don R. <odatdon@REMOVETHIStelus.net>
wrote:
| Quote: | On 1 Nov 2005 11:46:12 -0800, "DenverDad" <the_applegates@comcast.net
wrote:
Don R., So did you ever get the information you were looking for, or
finally select a scanner for your slides?
Not really. My impression is there aren't many scanners which will do
a decent job on 35 mm color slides.
|
Nikon and Canon both do a pretty good job.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
| Quote: |
I only recently noticed this thread and was all ready to join in the banter regarding the alleged
deficits of certain scanners. But I figure it would be kind of rude
for me to further this topic since you really haven't gotten much
feedback yet regarding your original question (exceptions noted).
Feel free to join in, Jeff.
Thanks.
Don R.
odatdon@REMOVETHIStelus.net |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neil Gould
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 04, 2005 6:08 pm Post subject:
Re: WHICH FILM/SLIDE SCANNER TO BUY???? |
|
|
Recently, Don R. <odatdon@REMOVETHIStelus.net> posted:
| Quote: | On 1 Nov 2005 11:46:12 -0800, "DenverDad" <the_applegates@comcast.net
wrote:
Don R., So did you ever get the information you were looking for, or
finally select a scanner for your slides?
Not really. My impression is there aren't many scanners which will do
a decent job on 35 mm color slides.
How many do you need? ;-) |
At least Nikon, Minolta, Canon, and Microtek have models that will do
decently with color slides.
Regards,
Neil |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pavel Dvorak
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 05, 2005 2:56 am Post subject:
Re: WHICH FILM/SLIDE SCANNER TO BUY???? |
|
|
Don R. (odatdon@REMOVETHIStelus.net) writes:
| Quote: | On 1 Nov 2005 11:46:12 -0800, "DenverDad" <the_applegates@comcast.net
wrote:
Don R., So did you ever get the information you were looking for, or
finally select a scanner for your slides?
Not really. My impression is there aren't many scanners which will do
a decent job on 35 mm color slides.
|
I'd say that my CanoScan FS2720 does better job on slides than on
negatives. Of course, this is just my subjective opinion.
Pavel
| Quote: |
I only recently noticed this thread and was all ready to join in the banter regarding the alleged
deficits of certain scanners. But I figure it would be kind of rude
for me to further this topic since you really haven't gotten much
feedback yet regarding your original question (exceptions noted).
Feel free to join in, Jeff.
Thanks.
Don R.
odatdon@REMOVETHIStelus.net |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DenverDad
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 05, 2005 8:26 am Post subject:
Re: WHICH FILM/SLIDE SCANNER TO BUY???? |
|
|
Don R. wrote:
| Quote: | Not really. My impression is there aren't many scanners which will do
a decent job on 35 mm color slides.
|
Don,
Some of the preceding replies have unfortunately given you a very
negative and quite wrong impression about the relative quality of
scanners available today. The fact of the matter is that the common
Nikon, Canon, and Konica-Minolta models out there - the ones people are
always talking about and comparing - are capable of yielding quite nice
results! And frankly, the implication that they're somehow "all crap"
is unfair and misleading. All the unsubstantiated pejorative
descriptions like "quality suffers GREATLY", "VERY poor quality CCD",
"SERIOUSLY COMPROMISE capture quality", "TERRIBLE MTF", and so forth is
just the height of hyperbole! Sure, when you compare these scanners to
drum scanners costing 10's of thousands of dollars, they're not
quite state of the art. But there's a serious matter of diminishing
returns which needs to be considered here!
Now to be fair, I think most in this group will agree that scanning
film will require a bit of effort on your part - maybe even more than
you would like - as you try to develop a consistent workflow, get
consistent results, and as you try to eek out the last bit of quality
you can possibly get from them. It can take up a lot of your time and
there are a number of pitfalls. But basically what I would like to say
is that with some effort, you CAN get good results scanning film with
the scanners which are out there today. I hope you will continue to
pursue this path.
If it hasn't been mentioned before, you will probably want to stick
to dedicated film scanners (as opposed to flatbeds) if you want to get
results as good or better than what a lab will do for you. For
reference, some of the more popular models which photo hobbyists talk
about these days include:
Nikon Coolscan V $550
Konica Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 II $570
Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 ED $959
(B&HPhoto prices)
And there are more too, which I'm sure others will comment on. Of
course, it all depends on how good is "good enough", and without
knowing your needs, there may be lower cost alternatives out there
which would work well for you.
My scanner happens to be a Canon Canoscan FS4000 which I use for both
negatives and slides, and find does a great job overall. This scanner
is no longer being made, but when I bought it new (maybe a year ago?)
it was about $400. You can probably pick one up used for even less
than this. I couldn't disagree more with the one previous poster
and all his criticisms about this scanner! It was (and is) a scanner
roughly comparable to those from Nikon and Konica-Minolta, at a very
good price. Maybe a little better in some aspects, and a little worse
in others (much of which is a topic for another thread!), but overall
one of the contenders, I would say.
Another suggestion which comes to mind is to see if you can get someone
to scan one of your slides for you so you can see how well a particular
scanner performs. If you're lucky, you might be able to find someone
near you willing to do this. If not, you might be able to get someone
from this listing to scan it for you. I'm sure there are many - myself
included - who would be more than happy to show you what their favorite
scanner is capable of!
Jeff |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 05, 2005 4:23 pm Post subject:
Re: WHICH FILM/SLIDE SCANNER TO BUY???? |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 06:01:17 GMT, Don R. <odatdon@REMOVETHIStelus.net>
wrote:
| Quote: | Don R., So did you ever get the information you were looking for, or
finally select a scanner for your slides?
Not really. My impression is there aren't many scanners which will do
a decent job on 35 mm color slides.
|
There are basically 1.5 ;o) issues when scanning slides.
The first is dynamic range. Nominally, a scanner needs to have about
12.5 bits to cover the dynamic range of slides. Unfortunately, that's
the theory and in practice things are somewhat different. Depending on
the slides themselves (e.g. underexposed slides or Kodachromes)
considerably more dynamic range may be needed. My personal empirical
tests suggest about 18-bits to cover the full range, but take that
with a grain of salt. Your mileage may vary, as they say.
One other thing. Even though single-pass multi-scanning may suggest it
puts a few bits on top of the scanner rating this doesn't really work
as well as expected. For example, a 16-bit scanner used with 4x
multi-scanning should, in theory, be equivalent to an 18-bit scanner.
In reality, it's not and similar results can be achieved by simply
applying a small amount of Gaussian Blur to the shadow areas. This is
most evident when comparing such multi-scanned image to a high dynamic
range image.
Finally the 0.5 issues. :o) This is somewhat specific and may not
apply but - as fantastic as they are for everything else - Nikons
generally don't get along with Kodachromes. This depends on the
Kodachromes too. Can't speak for other vintages but my LS-50 intensely
dislikes 1982 & early 1983 Kodachromes (heavy blue cast). End of 1983
and beginning of 1984 was a weird period (transition?) but by late
1984 things improve considerably. I'm now into 1989 and so far so
good. There's still a faint blue cast but it's certainly acceptable.
But, as I say, that Nikon-Kodachrome combo is very specific and may
not be relevant, hence "0.5 issues".
Don. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in