[filmscanners] Re: new Nikon scanners

["Arthur Entlich" <artistic-1@shaw.ca>]

The main difference between the SS4000 and the NIkon scanners has to do
with the light source.  The Polaroids use cold cathode fluorescent,
while the Nikons use LEDs. With the Nikons that are currently on the
market (not speaking of the new ones) the LEDs they used were unable to
supply bright enough lighting to allow for the lens to be stopped down
as much as the Polaroid's.  This led to shallower DOF and you probably
have read of people complaining of not being able to get sharp edges
when scanning slides if they have any bow in them, without using glass
mounts or some method to make them quite flat. With brighter LEDs coming
to market, it is possible Nikon has improved the light source used on
the newer ones.

The other noted problem also relates to the light source.  Again, LED
lighting is very collimated, the path is extremely straight and
undiffused from the light source, unlike fluorescent, which is usually
fairly diffused (the Minoltas are an exception to this).  As a result,
this causes film base defects, dirt and dust to be very obvious on the
scan.  Nikon provides dICE for this, which is effective, but requires an
extra scan and channel, which does slow the scan process somewhat, but
it may still be faster than your SS4000 with the newer scanners.  Also,
Nikon may have learned from the 8000 medium format scanner that they can
reduce this situation with use of a diffuser (although again that will
lower light volume).

dICE cannot be used with true silver based black and white films (its
fine with c-41 developed chromogenic films) and some Kodachrome versions
have problems with it.

One other issue that has come up with Nikon scanners, although the
samples I've seen don't look bad to me, is that due to the fact that
LEDs have very narrow spectral response, it may be that certain colors
are not being accurately captured during the color separation process.
The cold cathode tubes used by others do have special peaks in R G and B
areas, but they are by nature wider color spectrums, while Nikon's LEDs
have very narrow bands of R G and B, and this may cause some colors
(notably in Kodachrome films) seems to be difficult to reproduce
accurately.  Then again, all film stocks tend to alter color rendition,
for accuracy digital seems to be the way to go.

As for mechanical reliability, it seems Nikon has worked out most of the
bugs that existed on earlier models, which suffered from stepper motor
failures.

Just out of interest, what is (or isn't) your SS4000 doing?  If it is
completely dead, it may be as simple as a fuse has blown.

Art


Jim Levitt wrote:
> My Polaroid Sprintscan 4000 has just died on me. The repair charges are not
> cost effective. I will need a replacement.
>
> Does anyone have hands-on experience with the new Nikon 5000 scanner? Does
> it output clearly superior scans to those produced by the Polaroid (or
> equivalent Microtek?). I realize the Nikon has infrared cleaning
> capabilities that are lacking in the Polaroid.
>
> Have the Nikon scanners been mechanically reliable, in general? My Polaroid
> always sounded like a coffee grinder, and died despite rather light use.
>
> Thanks for any advice.
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body