Re: filmscanners: Multiple Pass Scanning on the SS4000

[Ian Lyons <ilyons@mac.com>]

Al,

Registration of the SS4000 isn't consistent between scans therefore multi
scanning produces less than ideal results for real world images. The SS120
is slightly better in terms of registration but still not good enough. That
said I tend to agree with Ed and David there really are not the big
advantages that some would have you believe. There MUST be ACTUAL detail in
the shadows to make it worth the effort. I have a few test images that I
used to compare the shadow noise of the SS120 against the Imacon and more
recently the Nikon 8000. The Imacon beat both and the Nikon only just beat
the SS120 when multisample scan was used. However, even though it reduced
the noise below that of the SS120 it did NOT extract any more actual
information. The Nikon seemed to loose the detail as part of the process. I
don't know why that should be but it was what I got with all 3 test images.




Ian Lyons

http://www.computer-darkroom.com


> From: "Al Bond" <al@greenspace.freeserve.co.uk>
> Reply-To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 22:40:01 -0000
> To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: Multiple Pass Scanning on the SS4000
> 
> Ed wrote:
> 
>> I've been thinking about working on this, but it never bubbles up
>> to the top of my list.  The SprintScan 4000 has so little noise in
>> the dark parts of scans that there's no real need for multi-pass
>> scanning.  This keeps this feature from bubbling up to the top
>> of my list.
> 
> Would this be a SS4000 specific feature?  The other scanners which can only do
> multi-
> pass multi-scanning (and suffer more from noise) would surely benefit from
> this as well.
> 
> 
> Al Bond