Best negative scanner for 35mm only

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Leica Photography : One Thread

Other threads ask about negative scanners that include sizes beyond the 35mm format. What is the best quality for 35mm only?

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@alaska.net), June 04, 2001

Answers

If you mean a desktop scanner that's limited to 35mm, I'd say the new Nikon LS4000 is probably the current champ. I just upgraded from a Polaroid SS4000 to the Nikon, and the scanner is busily impressing the pants off me. It's fast and sharp, with great colour, good bit depth and excellent shadow detail. As everyone has heard by now, the Nikon software sucks rocks, but Vuescan works wonderfully on it.

The next contender out past the LS4000 would likely be the Imacon, but it's not 35mm only.

-- Paul Chefurka (paul_chefurka@pmc-sierra.com), June 04, 2001.


Tony,

I'd agree with what Paul said. I bought a Kodak RFS 3600 when it came out but had horrible problems with it. Specifically, connecting via SCSI to my Windows 2000 PC always resulted in scans with bands of noise running across the image. USB was fine and USB and SCSI was fine to a Mac but none of those combinations worked for me.

I tried three different RFS scanners and they all had the same problem. After trying the third scanner here at work and seeing the same problem, I walked into my office, went to cnet.com, searched for the LS-4000 and bought it from outpost.com! I was lucky and managed to get one of the first shipment of scanners from Nikon.

I have been delighted with the scanner despite problems with the NikonScan 3.0 software. It seems that the software is pretty much incompatible with Windows 2000, crashing every 5 scans or so. I generally quit and relaunch the app. after every second scan. It's actually not a big deal: I know Nikon has a 3.1 version they are about to release and, while the software is running, it is excellent. The interface is well designed and it is easy to create groups of saved settings. On the Macintosh, the software is bullet- proof; I haven't crashed it once.

Most of my work is either web published (dingoboy) or printed no larger than 8.5 x 11, so I don't think I am a demanding customer. However, in comparison to the Imacon at work (I manage Adobe's compatibility labs), the LS-4000 does well. The Imacon has better shadow detail ability but the difference is not huge. Oddly, given the respective markets, the Imacon's software does a much better job at making choices for the operator (level adjustments, for example). When I use the Imacon, I rarely change any setting. With the Nikon, I tweak the scans more.

The filmstrip feeder on the Nikon is very reliable. It does a superb job of detecting the edges of frames and I have never made a manual adjustment. Lastly, the Ice features on the scanner are very impressive. It doesn't work with B&W but is wonderful with color. I just got a big box of my parent's slide collection and I've been having a ball going through them all. The Ice ROC (restoration of color) feature has been a godsend on some faded slides.

Regards,
Fergus



-- Fergus Hammond (fhammond@adobe.com), June 04, 2001.

I finally saw the Nikon LS 4000 last week at a local dealer's and it's also become my top choice for a 35mm film scanner. I had been thinking about the Kodak RS 3600, but it seems to be a 'generation' away in terms of product development. Kodak started promoting it with a rebate for 100 rolls of film, so they maybe preparing for an updated version later this year. The major complaints I've heard about with the Kodak are the software (they've since upgraded the firmware); it's very noisy; and that it doesn't have ICE. In my opinion, the NIkon also seems to be much better built.

-- KL Prager (www.pragerproperties@worldnet.att.net), June 04, 2001.

Fergus: What's the problem with the Nikon LS-4000 for B&W?

-- KL Prager (www.pragerproperties@att.net), June 04, 2001.

KL-

Actually, the LS4000 is wonderful for B&W. However, the scratch and dust removal feature of ICE doesn't work. It's not been an issue for me at all. I love leaving B&W film in strips & scanning the whole strip.

Fergus

-- Fergus Hammond (fhammond@adobe.com), June 04, 2001.



Fergus:

USB was fine and USB and SCSI was fine to a Mac but none of those combinations worked for me.

I do a lot of this stuff. My guess is that this a decision based on early projected use. Intel based PC's have a real hardware problem in dealing with the repetitive data analysis [at least when this was introduced]. Therefore, it makes sense to pay more attention to software used with Mac or Unix/Linux.

My experience is that USB is Too Damned Slow. It works with snapshots, but for real use you need SCSI or Firewire. Just my experience.

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), June 04, 2001.


Art-

Yes, I agree. I didn't have the noise problem with USB or at all on the Mac but USB is too slow and my Mac is not my primary computer. From my experience with the D1 and some digital video cameras (and, now, the LS-4000), FireWire is just delightful.

I think it is interesting that Microsoft will not be supporting the new, fast USB standard in Windows XP. I think FireWire has a good future (and yes, I know it's really "IEEE-1394" but "FireWire" is such a good name!).

Regards, Fergus

-- Fergus Hammond (fhammond@adobe.com), June 04, 2001.


Have you John or any one had problems about scratches using a Nikon LS4000 scaner?, I need one and also want something can treat my negs fine, also should imagine there is something new on the market already, so what do you recomend, can I live with the LS4000 five years from now?

Thank´s

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), September 10, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ