The Mac World review on the web:
gives a rather confusing answer in that at first it says the Nikon lives up
to it's claimed higher dMax only when 16x multiscan is enabled. This
certainly gives the impression that at 16x multiscan it performs to higher
specification and hence pulls more detail from the shadow. It then goes onto
say the Polaroid does better which is either a contradiction of the first
statement or refers to when all the scanners are used in single pass mode.
I do admit that I don't really know the answer and should have used "maybe"
instead of "probably". I do know that unless the SS4000 is totally noise
free (it's good but not that good) that multiscanning (with accurate
alignment) will definitely produce less noise.
I fail to see why accurate alignment should be a problem if the
multiscanning is done during a single pass. I am also surprised that the
SS4000 firmware (or more importantly from my point of view Artixscan 4000)
cannot be updated to allow it. Surely it is not too difficult to issue
multiple CCD reads before advancing the film and hence avoid any possibility
of misalignment?
On the software front it would be possible to post scan align the images -
panorama stitching programs manage this most of the time. Some even when the
images being stitched have been taken without a tripod never mind an
accurately set-up panoramic head.
A further point on the software is that fewer multiscans could be used if
the processing was a bit smarter. Rather than using a simple averaging
algorithm the use of a median algorithm would produce better results with
fewer scans. Whilst medians are slow and memory hogs it may be quicker than
extra scans.
One particularly interesting thing about the MacWorld review was that the
Artixscan had most detail but lots of noise and the Polaroid was relatively
noise free with less detail. As these two machines are effectively the same
it is the scanning software (and possibly the firmware) that produces
difference between them.
I am not surprised that Artixscan produced great detail but lots of noise
with Scan Wizard Pro. See:
These are samples of a Velvia slide. It projects great but is a complete pig
to scan due to the density in some areas of the image. In the samples on the
web a small section from the bottom right of the slide are shown. The scans
were all done with the software's default automatic settings.
Scan Wizard Pro produces great detail but the scan is useless due to noise.
Silverfast produces slightly less detail but significantly less noise.
Unfortunately still too much noise for anything but a very small print.
Vuescan sacrifices some detail but produces a much more usable image due to
the lack of noise - print size not limited by noise.
In later tests I found that I could get more detail from Vuescan without too
much difficulty and without too much noise. I never managed to eliminate
sufficient noise from either Silverfast or Scan Wizard Pro to make a usable
scan. Possibly operator error, but if it is then the software is too
difficult to use!
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hemingway, David J" <HEMINGD@POLAROID.COM>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2001 8:31 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000?
> Steve,
> I need to strongly disagree with the below statement. I would refer you to
> the review by Bruce Fraser in MacWorld of about a year and half ago as
well
> as the recent review. Both reviews say the maximum OD from the SS4000
> available with a single pass are at least as good as the other scanners
with
> 16X multiscan.
> Additionally as Ed Hamrick developed the SS4000 driver, he has said that
> there is very little if any improvement with multiscanning on the SS4000.
> This is because of superior components and design. If there is little or
no
> noise you don't have to multi-scan to get rid of it.
> One of my personal disappointments has been the increased perception that
> multi-scanning is good. Multiscannng is used to remove noise. If the
design
> does not produce noise you don't need to multiscan. You will eventually
see
> multiscanning in Polaroid scanners, not necessarily to produce better
scans
> but to satisfy this misconceived impression. Many people purchase
equipment
> of all types by comparing published specifications. Particularly when
> dealing with scanners you can be very mis-informed.
> Regards
> David
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Greenbank [mailto:steve@gccl.fsbusiness.co.uk]
> Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 11:05 PM
> To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000?
>
>
> 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
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
>
