I have the Nikon Super Coolscan 4000 and, although I can't compare with
other scanners, I'm very happy with it and have no problems with dust at
all. Scanning times are quite acceptable although 16x sampling on 14 bit
with all ICE options set can be cup of coffee time.
I did have problems early in the year upgrading from W2K to XP although this
may not have been entirely down to the Nikon and there is now a new version
of NikonScan available. I've stayed at W2K - it 'works'
I've no problem providing test scans for people (within reason) although I'm
UK based and, with 120mb files at 14 bit, it'll have to be by post.
On 14 bit scans I've found that a number of functions within PS7 do not
support this and I'm needing to convert to 8 bit. PaintShop and PhotoImpact
seem to provide a better level of support here although I've done very
little comparative testing - I'm afraid I'm only interested in the results
not the technical why's and wherefore's
Hmmm that all sounds a bit of a downer but, nope, I am very happy with the
Nikon.
Regards
Ian
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Tom@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 13 August 2002 23:55
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [OM] 4000 dpi scanner recommndations?
The Canon FS4000 has gotten good reviews and is much cheaper.
tOM
On Tuesday, August 13, 2002 at 20:09, Richard F. Man
<olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote re "Re: [OM] 4000 dpi scanner recommndations?" saying:
> FWIW, I like the LS-4000. I use NikonScan 3.1.2 and sometimes VS. All my
> online pictures (except the few that are taken with the C-3000) are
scanned
> with it. I don't find dust to be a problem at all.
>
> At 09:56 PM 8/13/2002 -0500, you wrote:
> >I'm slightly considering upgrading from my Nikon LS-30 (2700 dpi) to a
4000
> >dpi machine. The Nikon LS-4000 is expensive (1500 USD) and uses a
> >lighting system that emphasizes dust - and I'm pissed at Nikon for their
> >software support of the LS-30 (and their dedicated software's human
> >interface is DREADFUL - thank heaven for Ed Hammrick and Vuescan).
> >Polaroid/Artix is a lot cheaper. Any other
> >thought/options/recommendations? I prefer those from personal
experience.
> >I scan all three media - color negs, b&w negs, slides (including KR).
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Gary Edwards--
--------- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus-Documentation
--------- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ottawa-photo-clubs
tOM Trottier, ICQ:57647974 http://abacurial.com
758 Albert St, Ottawa ON Canada K1R 7V8
+1 613 860-6633 fax:231-6115 N45.412 W75.714
"The moment one gives close attention to anything,
even a blade of grass, it becomes a mysterious,
awesome, indescribably magnificent world in itself --
Henry Miller, 1891-1980
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|