It is possible to multi-scan with the Polaroid if you use Vuescan. But the
scans invariably mis-align so the feature isn't much use. This will probably
give the Nikon a slight edge for shadow noise.
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barbara & Martin Greene" <martbarb@earthlink.net>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2001 3:22 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000?
> Steve
>
> There is one factor that I hadn't considered. The Nikon scanner gives the
> best shadow detail when 16x Multi-sampling. While this greatly lengthens
> scanning time, there is no question that it gives better results than 1x,
> which is what was used in the comparison test. Also, it is mentioned
that,
> "ED4000 4X multi-sampled images have much less shadow noise than images
from
> the SS400." That makes me wonder what the comparison results would have
> been had 16X multi-sampling been used? I'm not sure, but it's my
impression
> that the Polaroid does not do mullti-sampling. Is that so? Thus on the
> basis of this comparison, one can't say that the Polaroid has better
shadow
> detail than the Nikon.
>
> Martin
>
> > From: "Steve Greenbank" <steve@gccl.fsbusiness.co.uk>
> > Reply-To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> > Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 02:23:40 +0100
> > To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
> > Subject: Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000?
> >
> > 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
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
