Re: filmscanners: CANON FS4000US vs NIKON IV ED

["AR Studio" <info@ar-studio.com>]

yes! yes! we've tried both. after 1.5 days took canon back to the store.
bought nikon IV today and it's absolutely awesome. didnt' have any problems
installing/running it either, like I hear some people do.

now, in short what's wrong with the canon:
narrow dynamic range. you can either get detail in the shadow or the
highlights. we also own the very first version of HP Photosmart, and believe
it or not, results from HP are much better. the FARE technology work okay, I
suppose, and the grain/noise from the scanner was decent, meaning low. The
software has a limited set of tools to correct exposure and things like
that, very basic stuff.

on the other hand nikon software is incredibly advanced. you can adjust
analog gain to the hundredth! and curves and LHC editors
(lightness/hue/chroma) are very sensitive, which was also a problem with
canon: the curve there was jerky.

of course, the resolution difference maybe important. but then, i think, if
you get a decent scan at 2900 and you absolutely need a file for 13x19
you'll be able to interpolate it with better quality if you get a crappy
scan initially at 4000. that's my opinion. so... just disregard that.

to sum it up, in the same price range, nikon IV's quality is better than
Canoscan FS4000. but resolution is lower.

Does that help?

Helen + Andrew

----- Original Message -----
From: jm1209 <jm1209@jbic.com>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 4:03 PM
Subject: filmscanners: CANON FS4000US


> i saw that this scanner is in stock at b&h and was wondering if anyone
> had purchased one and what was the initial response to the quality.
> i am trying to decide between this and the nikon iv ed.
> i have been waiting to  make a purchase for sometime but have been
> holding out for this new generation.
> the prices are close, $895 for the nikon and $999 for the canon.
>  thanks
> jim
>