Re: filmscanners: Further report on dust problem in LS4000

["Rob Geraghty" <harper@wordweb.com>]

"Hemingway, David J" <HEMINGD@POLAROID.COM> wrote:
> cathode or fluorescent scanner. Over the last few years discussion on this
> list and my personal testing seems to have said that the "collimated" type
> light source of a LED light source "shows" more dust etc. In my personal
> view I wonder if any scanner with a LED light source could produce
> acceptable scans without ICE.

I agree that the Nikon lightsource shows up dust and scratches more than the
Polaroid one.  I've had recent experience of this.  However, in the same
comparison scan I could remove the dust and scratches with IR cleaning on
the LS30 and would have to use hand spotting on the SS4000 - with less to
spot on the latter.  The LS30 certainly does produce "acceptable" (by what
standard?) scans without IR cleaning, but it saves me a lot of time
spotting, especially if the films are old or damaged.  I take better care of
my films these days than I used to.

So YMMV.  For me, IR cleaning is a convenience thing.  The main advantage a
SS4000 would have for me is that it would be able to get more shadow detail
out of dense slides.  Even if it doesn't sound like it sometimes, I'm very
happy with the LS30 - due to Vuescan.  It's not 4000ppi, but from what I've
seen on recent tests, a 2700ppi scan from the LS30 of a well exposed frame
resampled to 4000dpi would probably be very close to the output from the
SS4000.  It's dense films which would separate the scanners more.

Rob