RE: filmscanners: LS-4000ED Dmax 4,2 or rather 2,3?

["Hemingway, David J" <HEMINGD@POLAROID.COM>]

Tomasz,
I have commented on the OD issues several times in the past and I will state
my view again.
Although OD/Dynamic range specification could be a useful in determining a
scanners performance, the numbers published by various scanner manufactures
are essentially useless. Every manufacturer uses their own method for
determining these specifications which translates they have no relation to
each other and are of no value.
You may also have noticed the latest 4.2 values being published. This
describes the ability of the internal components to discriminate that Dmax
value IF the scanner/film system could see a density that time. Imacon has
used the as part of their specification for a while and Nikon and Polaroid
has recently started using that number as well. Nothing wrong with it if you
understand what it means.
One mans view.
David


-----Original Message-----
From: Tomasz Zakrzewski [mailto:tomzakrz@ka.onet.pl]
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 6:38 AM
To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
Subject: filmscanners: LS-4000ED Dmax 4,2 or rather 2,3?

Hello,
Over the last several months I've been reading this list through the digest.
Now, when majordomo let me in again :-) I want to ask you about one thing:
Having read several hundreds of posts from this lists and optimistic reviews
on the net, I came to the conclusion that the best scanner I could buy at
the moment is either the Coolscan LS-4000ED or Coolscan LS-800ED with its
breakthrough technical data.
But I've just read a review od the 4000ED in German magazine "digit"
ftp://ftp.lasersoft.com.pl/SFPrasa2001/Digit_3-2001.pdf which says, that the
true Dmax of this scanner is 2,3! It was even worse than with Coolscan
LS-2000 which had 2,6. What't this???
It means no details in shadows. The reviewers say that this low Dmax is the
consequence of the increase in resolution at the cost of the light-sensitive
area of the sensor (whatever it means) which causes too low
light-sensitivity.
Test scans at www.imaging-resource.com also show that only after some
tweaking in the sanning program scans with good tonal separation in shadows
can be obtained. I'm puzzled. Can you comment on this Dmax matter?
In fact I don't care about any Dmax or stuff. I just want to make perfect
scan of my precious negatives and slides and do it only ONCE because "time
is money". That means on a good enough machine so that my scan don't look
made on a too cheap machine in several years time. I thought that the 4000ED
might be such a machine, but now...
Apart from this Dmax thing, this scanner's real resolution is 3240 ppi
effective.
The 4000ED doesn't differentiates reds good enough, too.

Why is it so that I can't buy a flatbed scanner in $ 1000 price range that
would show no noise in shadows of scans of reflective media (prints) and
it's impossible to find a well designed film scanner in the $ 2000 price
range?
Right now my conclusion is that the home filmscannig technology is still
immature.
And the flatbed technology? A huge gap between what's promised and what's in
real life.

Tomasz Zakrzewski