Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] GH2 specs

Subject: Re: [OM] GH2 specs
From: "C.H.Ling" <ch_photo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 12:44:22 +0800
I have never use a drum scanner but I have been using LS-4000 since 2001, 
with the LS-4000 noise is definately not my concern, in any suspectable 
cases (very rare) I just use 8x multi-scan. Here is a test report by 
imaging-resource (look for the "Extreme shadow detail" test):

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/LS4K/L40PICS.HTM

May be drum scanner really do better but in all practical cases I worry more 
about film grain than noise.

For software interpolation, I found Nikonscan performs very well, can't find 
much difference between it and Photoshop, it is good enough for me.

C.H.Ling

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jan Steinman" <Jan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

>> From: David Irisarri <zuiko3000@xxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Nikon LS-4000 gives you drum scan quality.
>
> Oh, well THAT explains the 10x factor in cost!
>
> It's pretty easy to come up with some specification that would tend to 
> indicate that. Most manufacturers simply use the width of their ADC to 
> come up with a theoretical dynamic range.
>
> But having used both, I have to say that the LS-4000 is a long way from a 
> ColorGetter Falcon. The biggest difference is dark noise, which is very 
> important for slides. (Or highlight noise if you're scanning negative 
> film.)
>
> When I scanned an unexposed frame on the LS-4000 and normalized, I got 
> confetti. When I did it on the ColorGetter, I got black. But even when I 
> look closely at the non-normalized frames, I can easily see the 
> difference. The LS-4000 noise tends to be all over the place, with 
> quarter-tone (and brighter!) pixels right next to 0,0,0 pixels. On the 
> ColorGetter, the noise tends to be within just a few values of black.
>
> Another important quality difference is when you want less-than-ultimate 
> resolution. On a drum scanner, you actually physically change the sampling 
> aperture; on a CCD scanner, you mathematically re-sample the fixed-sized 
> samples pulled from the sensor, with all the hairy anti-aliasing and such 
> that implies. Perhaps the software is there, but to me, the under-sampled 
> drum scan looks "natural," but the interpolated CCD scan looks "harsh" or 
> "edgy."
>
> I'm a bit surprised to see you write that, David, since you were citing 
> the influence of noise on dynamic range earlier. C'mon over and we'll play 
> with the drum scanner someday!
>

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz