[filmscanners] RE: Nikon Coolscan 4000 ED

["Mark Otway" <list@otway.com>]

>> Don't do it.

I'd say quite the opposite. :-D

>> I had an SS4000 and it with an LS-400 (4000ED).  The 
>> Polaroid is a better scanner.  Better shadow detail.  
>> Crisper -- no depth of field problem.

This all depends on the negative flatness - if they're flat the DoF
simply isn't an issue. Because of the speed of my PC (see the 'Memory
requirements' thread!) I usually have a backlog of negatives to scan,
and I store the 'pending' strips on a flat surface under a heavy book.
By the time I get to scan them, they're perfectly flat and so DoF is
perfect.
 
>> The advantage of the Nikon is DIce, which I rarely use, and 
>> the bulk film loader (optional and expensive) which I just 
>> flat love.  Being able to scan 36 negs at a time is wonderful.

Unfortunately, most of the negatives I have are 'legacy' ones, from days
before I even considered a filmscanner. Had I known then what I know
now, I would have requested that the negative strips were not cut - the
full rolls loader would have been a useful accessory. 

Having said that, having got my VS settings tweaked to perfection I
literally just put each strip in, hit scan, and then come back and
repeat the process after 20 minutes. So it's fairly labour unintensive -
and VueScan gets enough detail out of the scan for me to archive - I can
then post-process if I want (but my reasons for scanning mean that it's
not essential to process each image immediately).

Mark

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