Winsor Crosby wrote:
>My Polaroid is still chugging along with a cold cathode fluorescent. It
>is seldom that it has an image that needs the special tools regularly
>required on LED scanners. Not only does the dimness of an LED require a
>fast lens with small depth of field
>
Well, I didn't know about that as the reason, but certainly it is clear
that Nikons especially and Minoltas as well, have focus problems for
many users and the Canons do not. There is also the flare problem with
the FS-4000 that C.H. has written about.
>it is also a harsh point light
>source that accentuates every flaw on the film as well as the grain.
>Not having to use those correction tools makes for faster scans.
>
That is certainly what I saw and heard in my research.
>Why not a Canon film scanner? The 4000F still uses a cold cathode fluorescent
>lamp.
>
Your link is correct, but the model is the FS4000; 4000F would be a
flatbed with film light in the lid in the Canon naming scheme.
>I would not worry about the lower resolution. I have seen convincing arguments
>backed by images that 4000 dpi extracts just about all the information from a
>piece of film.
>
>http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelTechSpecsAct&fcategoryid=121&modelid=7460
>
><http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelTechSpecsAct&fcategoryid=121&modelid=7460>
>
I thought they had discontinued the FS4000, claiming the 9950F flatbed
was the replacement. In any case, they are still fairly easy to find.
My take after pretty extensive trolling for reviews, samples, etc. on
the web, was that 4000 dpi was all that was needed, that either the 5400
of the Minolta was not all there or it seemsd to exceed what was there
to be scanned. Based on everything I could find, including posts to the
list, the FS4000 was a no-brainer for me. So far, I have had no
surprises, it has done what I expected and I am pleased with it. I have
yet to see anytihng unsharp that I would attribute to the scanner.
Some random comments:
The FARE hardware dust/scratch removal on the FS4000 seems fully
comparable to ICE, but operates much faster.
The FS4000 review/reports about scanning speed vary all over the place.
A good part of this seems to depend on whether USB, which is only 1.1,
or SCSI is used. Unlike it's predecessor, the FS2710, the S4000 does not
ship with a SCSI card. My impression, although I've not tried it, is
that few will be pleased with scanning using USB. The card Canon
recommends costs about US$90 new, but is pretty readily available used.
I got mine together with my used scanner on the 'Bay for an effective
price of maybe $30-40.
Vincent Oliver of Photo-i, who has a LOT of practical and testing
experience with film scanners, thinks 3200 dpi is the best resolution
for at least most film.
Just the change to LED light source in the 5400 II, doesn't necessarily
mean it would get worse! Maybe they actually improved focus in the new
model, since it was one of the regular complaints about the old one.
Photo-i reveiwed the 5400, so Vincent may review the new one as soon as
it is available. He's been having server problems and moved, so the
forums have been unavailable, along with the usual info on his plans.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|