This is for those interested in B&W: I played a while with the two large
jpgs from the test page below, the raw SS4000 and the ice-cubed ED4000. I
did what I usually do when converting color images to B&W, i.e. I went
through the channel mixer: here I simply selected the green channel with the
monochrome option checked. If you try this and then use curves to darken the
sky a bit (a frequent procedure in B&W) you'll see that the grain in the
SS4000 is much nicer than in the ED4000 (more regular in the former, whereas
there are "blobs" in the latter). This is just to say that in B&W the SS4000
advantage over the ED4000 seems to grow, not only if you scan B&W film
(where you have to forget ICE), but even if you shoot color and then convert
to B&W, as I currently do.
I own a LS-30, and have been salivating for the ED4000 for a while, but this
test made me think again. Of course, the differences we see on screen would
probably be less evident on a print, and of course ICE would save a lot of
swearing, yet...
What I'd really love to see now is a test with negative film (possibly B&W
*and* color), because the scanner behavior may change, and also grain would
probably be different. Anyone could help?
Regards,
Alessandro Pardi
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter" <echo@mpinet.net>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 4:24 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Time to upgrade: Opinions wanted
> Based on ( if
done
> accurately) SS4000 is overall "better" than Nikon 4000. Since Nikon IV is
> not as "good" as his more expensive brother (this is easy to see!) the
> Polaroid is a clear winner.
>
