Canon Canoscan 4000 vs. Nikon Coolscan 4000 ED
Maggie
ask again.
I am not sure which scanner to get. I am torn apart between these
two, Canon Canoscan 4000US and Nikon Coolscan 4000 ED. I know there
is a quite significant price difference but putting this aside, which
scanner yields better results? I know Nikon is a Firewire scanner
which aslo makes a little better. But is there anything else very
significant about those two scanner that I may not be aware of?
Thanks
Maggie
Bill Hilton
>I am not sure which scanner to get. I am torn apart between these
>two, Canon Canoscan 4000US and Nikon Coolscan 4000 ED. I know there
>is a quite significant price difference but putting this aside, which
>scanner yields better results?
What I'd try to do is see if you can find two people who own these scanners and
see if you can send each of them the same slide and a blank CD-R and get them
to scan it for you, then compare the scans. That's the best way to tell if the
Nikon is worth the extra bucks to you.
>I know Nikon is a Firewire scanner
>which aslo makes a little better.
Firewire makes the data transfers go faster, but it doesn't really make the
scans any better. It's just a way to move data quickly.
>But is there anything else very
>significant about those two scanner that I may not be aware of?
I'm not familiar with the Canon scanner but have a similar Nikon scanner (8000,
same basic design but also does medium format). The digital ICE feature is a
must-have, I'd say. Also, GEM is nice on some images. If the Canon offers
similar software then you're back to the issue of image quality.
Bill
Jim Waggener
"Bill Hilton" <bhilt...@aol.comedy> wrote in message
news:20030504224308...@mb-m13.aol.com...
I'll volunteer to scan a slide on my Nikon 4000ED. I use this scanner
almost daily. Send me a slide and I will scan it onto a cd. The Nikon is a
real work-horse.
Jim
Ed Hamrick
> I am torn apart between these
> two, Canon Canoscan 4000US and Nikon Coolscan 4000 ED. I know there
> is a quite significant price difference but putting this aside, which
> scanner yields better results?
You might also consider the Nikon CoolScan IV (LS-40). It's 2900 dpi,
which is enough for most people's film scanning and quite a bit
less costly than the CoolScan 4000 (LS-4000).
The main difference in technology between the Canon and Nikon
scanners is that the Nikon is able to scan RGB and Infrared in
a single scan pass, while the Canon needs to make two passes.
This makes the Nikon scanners quite a bit faster overall.
The single pass scanning also makes the RGB and Infrared
better aligned, which makes infrared dust removal work better
on the Nikon scanners.
Regards,
Ed Hamrick
Frank E
"Maggie" <mag...@etal.uri.edu> wrote in message
news:189b4410.0305...@posting.google.com...
Nikon... without a doubt!
--
Frank (Nikon LS-40ED)
Rick
overall was clearly the LS4000; but, the LS40 was plenty good enough. If I
were going to spend more, and the difference between the LS4000 and the Canon
4000 were about $200, I would definitely go for the Nikon.
Rick
In article <189b4410.0305...@posting.google.com>,
mag...@etal.uri.edu says...
Greg Campbell
> I'll volunteer to scan a slide on my Nikon 4000ED. I use this scanner
> almost daily. Send me a slide and I will scan it onto a cd. The Nikon is a
> real work-horse.
>
> Jim
I'll volunteer the Canon FS4000. Maggie, if Jim's idea sounds good,
send several slides, each with different exposure, contrast, film speed,
etc.
-Greg (remove duplicate letters in address to reply.)
Chris Torek
Maggie <mag...@etal.uri.edu> writes:
>I am not sure which scanner to get. I am torn apart between these
>two, Canon Canoscan 4000US and Nikon Coolscan 4000 ED. I know there
>is a quite significant price difference but putting this aside, which
>scanner yields better results? I know Nikon is a Firewire scanner
>significant about those two scanner that I may not be aware of?
I finally bought the computer-on-which-to-run-Photoshop, and am
facing the same question, except that I have the Coolscan IV ED
(LS-40) on my list too.
Here are the factors I am considering:
- Price. This is easy to quantify; in round numbers the three
scanners are 630, 800, and 1150 US $ (for LS-40, FS4000US,
and LS-4000 in that order). (Prices may change without notice
and you might be able to find deals; these are from B&H;
Adorama was the same when I checked.)
- Resolution. Also easy to quantify: 2900, 4000, and 4000,
in dots (or pixels) per inch. There are stories of "in-scanner
sharpening" in the Canon unit, though (this is a bad thing; you
want "sharpening", if any, to happen later in the process).
- "Quality of scan". This one is tough.
* "Dmax", or "how dark can the slide get before the scanner
thinks it is just black": the LS-40 is rated "3.6", the FS4000's
number is given as "3.4" (but some say this is only for
8-bit-per-pixel mode, and that the actual Dmax is higher in
14-bpp), and the LS-4000 is "4.2". There is no standard for
measuring these numbers, so it is hard to say whether the
LS-40 really does a better job on dark areas than the FS4000,
for instance.
* "Real" bits per pixel. The LS-40 is 12 bpp; the FS4000 is 14
bpp; and the LS-4000 is also 14 bpp. Rumor has it that the
Canon suffers more noise in the low-order bits (i.e., perhaps
you really get 12 or so bits of "useful data" and 2 or so bits
of "noise").
* Infrared channel for "ICE"/"FARE" dust/scratch removal. All
three have it. Nikon's is a bit nicer (see Ed Hamrick's
remark elsethread).
* Focus across the frame, if the film is not quite flat.
Nikon users have resorted to making/buying a glass holder to
flatten curled negatives. I have not heard of such things
from Canon scanner users (but perhaps they are simply less
picky :-) ).
* Build quality/overall reliability. Again, rumor has it that
Canon's is not nearly as good as Nikons. This matters more
if you will be doing a lot of scanning (e.g., as a business)
but breakdowns (or units that should never have passed QA
before shipment) are certainly annoying.
- Scan speed. LS-40 quoted at 42 seconds @ 2900 dpi and 8 bits
per pixel output; FS4000 quoted at 48 seconds (no additional info);
LS-4000 quoted at 38 seconds @ 4000 dpi, 16 bits.
- Interface. Note that "scan speed" and "interface type"
interact somewhat, in that the interface may limit the rate at
which data can get out of the scanner and into the computer.
Whichever is slower -- scanning or "interfacing" -- will
control the overall speed. LS-40 is USB 1.1 only; FS4000
is USB 1.1 or SCSI-2; LS-4000 uses FireWire.
- Batch scanning of slides: Nikon has a slide feeder adapter
(expensive, and needs tweaking) that you can add on to either
of these, while Canon's scanner is limited to 4 slides at a
time.
- Software. I list this only to say that I am not actually
considering it. I will be buying Vuescan, which by all accounts
is clearly superior to the vendors' software. Seems to me the
vendors should just make a deal with Ed Hamrick and include
Vuescan in the box. :-)
I do wonder when the new 5400 dpi Minolta film scanner is supposed
to come out [news: found a date: June 2003], and whether that might
push some or all of the above prices down a bit more, and/or be
a better scanner than the three currently under consideration.
--
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Wind River Systems (BSD engineering)
Salt Lake City, UT, USA (40°39.22'N, 111°50.29'W)
email: forget about it http://67.40.109.61/torek/ (for the moment)
Reading email is like searching for food in the garbage, thanks to spammers.
Maggie
Thanks a lot.
Problem is I already ordered a scanner on Sunday. I got the Nikon one.
Thank you though
Maggie
Greg Campbell <ggeo...@ssurfari.nnet> wrote in message news:<3eb7455f$0$43850$39ce...@news.twtelecom.net>...
Philip Homburg
Chris Torek <nos...@elf.eng.bsdi.com> wrote:
> - Software. I list this only to say that I am not actually
> considering it. I will be buying Vuescan, which by all accounts
> is clearly superior to the vendors' software. Seems to me the
> vendors should just make a deal with Ed Hamrick and include
> Vuescan in the box. :-)
Getting Vuescan in addition to NikonScan sounds like a good deal. I never
managed to figure out the point of that SilverFast stuff. I like the
user interface of NikonScan more than the one of Vuescan. In my experience,
NikonScan combined with PhotoShop can be an effective combination.
Recently, I found an old Kodak color negative film that confuses NikonScan
(it complains about the inability to perform auto focus, and gets completely
out of sync with the scanner).
Philip Homburg
Bill Tuthill
>
> I do wonder when the new 5400 dpi Minolta film scanner is supposed
> to come out [news: found a date: June 2003], and whether that might
> push some or all of the above prices down a bit more, and/or be
> a better scanner than the three currently under consideration.
For me it is certainly be worth waiting a month to see.
It's likely that the Minolta will be cheaper than the LS-4000
and faster than the FS-4000 (which requires a separate pass for
IR dust/scratch removal).
I'm not sure how useful the 5400's extra resolution will be,
but a price has been announced at 900 Euros.
Ed Hamrick
> It's likely that the Minolta will be cheaper than the LS-4000
> and faster than the FS-4000 (which requires a separate pass for
> IR dust/scratch removal).
The main difference between the Nikon film scanners and the
Minolta film scanner is the way the infrared channel is acquired.
Another difference is that the Nikon film scanners use LED
light sources, while the Minolta scanner uses a Xenon lamp
plus an infrared light source.
The Nikon scanners turn on and off four different LED colors,
red, green, blue and infrared. This results in a very pure
infrared channel being acquired, which results in very good
infrared cleaning.
The Minolta scanners acquire the RGB data all at once,
and then acquire R+infrared, G+infrared and B+infrared
(the infrared light is turned on and the Xenon lamp is
left on - it can't be turned on and off as fast as the
infrared light can). The RGB and RIGIBI data is acquired,
and then the stepper motor moves to the next scan line.
The problem is with the calibration and focus. The infrared
light isn't as uniform as the RGB light, so using the
calibration data to factor out the non-uniform lighting is
much harder on the Minolta scanners than the Nikon scanners.
In addition, the LED light source has a narrower spectrum
than the Xenon lamp and CCD combined, so colors are purer
(i.e. better) with the Nikon scanners.
Regards,
Ed Hamrick
Bart van der Wolf
"Ed Hamrick" <use...@hamrick.com> wrote in message
news:b990pu$6vn$1...@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
SNIP
> In addition, the LED light source has a narrower spectrum
> than the Xenon lamp and CCD combined, so colors are purer
> (i.e. better) with the Nikon scanners.
Purer, yes. However that would also mean more sensitive to emulsion
variations (which makes profiling more necessary).
Do you by any chance have some more info you wish to share about the LEDs? I
am looking for some more details about the peak emissions (or curves), or
types of LED.
Bart
David J. Littleboy
"Ed Hamrick" <use...@hamrick.com> wrote:
>
> The problem is with the calibration and focus. The infrared
> light isn't as uniform as the RGB light, so using the
> calibration data to factor out the non-uniform lighting is
> much harder on the Minolta scanners than the Nikon scanners.
>
> In addition, the LED light source has a narrower spectrum
> than the Xenon lamp and CCD combined, so colors are purer
> (i.e. better) with the Nikon scanners.
Watch it Ed: you're not making the Nikon bashers happy.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Bill Hilton
>In addition, the LED light source has a narrower spectrum
>than the Xenon lamp and CCD combined, so colors are purer
>(i.e. better) with the Nikon scanners (than Minolta).
Uh oh, Bo the Viking, king of the Multi Pro Yahoo User's Group, won't be liking
this!
Bill
Chris Torek
>> I do wonder ... whether [the new Minolta 5400 dpi scanner] might
>> push some or all of the above prices down a bit more, and/or be
>> a better scanner than the three currently under consideration.
In article <vbg0t6s...@corp.supernews.com>
Bill Tuthill <ca_cr...@yahoo.com> writes:
>For me it is certainly be worth waiting a month to see.
Ah, but I will have everything else within the week. :-)
>I'm not sure how useful the 5400's extra resolution will be,
>but a price has been announced at 900 Euros.
Or about US$1000, depending on how bad the conversion rate is
by then.
The weakening dollar (against the yen and euro both) put pressure
on the US prices to go up, too.
wally
Thanks, good info, but doesn't the LED illumination in the Nikon
scanners act like a condensor enlarger highlighting every dust
mote and scratch making IR clean an absolute essential? Whereas
the more diffuse "bulb" sources make the defects much less
visible.
My experience with my old Nikon LS-20 which lacked IR clean but
had LED illumination was that it cleary showed the slightest dust
or scratch. The same slide scanned with my FS4000 with IR clean
turned off required much less cleanup despite the higher
resolution.
Based on test scans I've downloaded and examined carefully,
http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN1.HTM
I'm very happy with my Canon FS4000 compared to the more
expensive Nikon LS4000 and Minolta Scan Multi Pro. But then the
bulk of my slides are clean so the relatively poor IR clean on
the FS4000 isn't that big a deal to me. If your slides are
"dirty" then IR clean can become a deciding factor to justify the
higher cost (as can speed, but by pipelining my work with VueScan
I don't have a speed problem with the FS4000).
I'll have to look at the new Minolta test images when available.
--wally.
wally
If money was no object I'd have the 4000ED. But when I got my
FS4000, 4000ED was almost twice as much before adding the APS
adaptor and slide batch scan attachment (but I'd be able to batch
50 instead of 4 slides).
I looked at test scans from
http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN1.HTM and decided the
"better" quality of the 4000ED wasn't worth the extra price. YMMV
Now that the 4000ED seems to have dropped alot and the FS4000
price has hardly changed, it'd be a much tougher choice if I
were buying now.
--wally.