There does seem to be a problem with the original page I posted (it used to
have some buttons at the top I think). Anyway look at this direct reference
(it's several MB).
You can also see the more distinct dust on the Nikon.
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barbara & Martin Greene" <martbarb@earthlink.net>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 11:18 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000?
> Rick
>
>
> > From: "Steve Greenbank" <steve@gccl.fsbusiness.co.uk>
> > Reply-To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> > Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 16:40:03 +0100
> > To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
> > Subject: Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000?
> >
> > Rick Samco compared these two scanners here:
> >
> >
> > Up until I saw this I was quite keen to trade my Artixscan 4000T (SS4000
> > clone) for a Nikon largely for ICE. After all de-spotting is a nightmare
> > except on very clean images.
> >
> > I have yet to find any thing other than a clone tool that removes the
dust
> > spots from my A4000T scans. I have discovered however that by not
looking at
> > your images at all before scanning (I use slides) you can minimise the
> > de-spotting to about 5 minutes max. Obviously this isn't much good for
old
> > slides. I have some family slides ([not] cared for by my Dad) which it
would
> > take many hours to clean up. I only have a 17" monitor and have to look
at
> > about 40 screen fulls to check one image for dust spots, but if you have
a
> > huge monitor this is probably much easier.
>
> I use a nineteen inch monitor and in Photoshop I use the 'Print' and
'Actual
> Pixels' views which lead to every spot showing up looking like a pebble.
> While it makes it easier to find the junk, it leads to my seeing lots more
> of it.
> >
> > On examining Rick's samples I decided that the Nikon seemed to have very
> > slightly better sharpness and detail but turning on the ICE made it very
> > slightly worse. This was reasonably acceptable, but the Nikon seems to
also
> > produce very grainy scans and the only cure is GEM which softens images
> > quite badly. I have quite enough trouble with grain so I decided to
stick
> > with the A4000T.
>
> I think it is possible to compensate for the softening by through careful
> adjustment of Unsharp Mask Filter. I'd really appreciate information on
how
> you arrived at the conclusion that the, "The Nikon seems to also produce
> very grainy scans." Grainy in comparison to what?
>
> Thanks, Martin
> >
> > Steve
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Barbara & Martin Greene" <martbarb@earthlink.net>
> > To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
> > Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 1:41 PM
> > Subject: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000?
> >
> >
> >> I've been told that the Polaroid Sprintscan 4000 does not exaggerate
dust
> >> and crud to the same extent that the Nikon LS 4000 does. I've examined
> >> Photo CD scans and found that, while there is much less, nevertheless a
> > good
> >> deal of spots show up. Perhaps, dust is a problem in every scanner.
I'd
> >> appreciate if users of the Sprintscan would tell me just how much stuff
> >> shows up in their slide scans. With a reasonably clean slide, just how
> > much
> >> work has to be done using the rubber stamp in Photoshop to get a really
> >> clean 13 x 19 print? Also, if you use a dust removal software program,
> > such
> >> as Polacolor, Silverfast, or vuescan, how helpful is that? If such a
> >> program is used, to what extent does it soften the image and can that
be
> >> restored using unsharp mask.
> >>
> >> Martin
> >>
> >
>
>
