|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
Alan Rew schrieb: > Having acquired my new Nikon Coolscan IV ED (i.e. LS40), which I use for > scanning negs, I am now seeing grain aliasing artifacts more clearly > than with my old Canoscan FS 2710. Hi, Alan, this is somewhat natural. The Nikon has sharper optics, plus a collimated LED light source, which both tend to increase grain aliasing (and image sharpness). I had a LS-30 before my LS-40, and even that was quite a jump as to both scan detail *and* grain aliasing. > I've tried using the Nikon Scan GEM software, but to my eyes this > produces either (a) an unnaturally smooth appearance or (b) strange > artifacts that look like small wiggly lines. With GEM set to maximum (4) > the image looks too soft with loss of detail; with Gem set to 1 there > are still visible grain artifacts. Settings in between are no better. Nikon Scan 3.x, in my opinion, has degraded a lot in comparison to 2.5. If you intend to keep on using Nikon's software, try to change the ICE rather than the GEM settings. ICE affects grain as well but does so in a more subtle way than GEM. BTW, carefully check the histogram of your negative scans - Nikon Scan 3.x has a mean tendency of clipping shadows which usually shows itself in a rather abrupt slope at the histogram's left side. Earlier versions (not working with the LS-40) had a "prescan mode" control that would completely avoid the clipped shadows if set to "lo-cont neutral" rather than "auto" - unfortunately, Nikon removed that control in later versions, making Nikon Scan almost useless for my negative scans. > So... I was wondering if switching film brands would make a beneficial > difference. > > Previously I've used Fujicolor Superia, ASA 100 or 200. If you're using these two, I strongly doubt switching to another film would solve your problem. Superia 100 certainly is some of the finest grained stuff around, and the improvement when using Reala will most likely be marginal. > Alternatively, is this purely dependent on the resolution of the > particular film scanner used? My Nikon scans at 2900 dpi, the Canon at > 2720 dpi (I think). It is optics rather than resolution - the Nikon LS-40 is sharper than anything I have used so far, including Minolta Scan Elite II and Nikon LS-30. If the ICE/GEM juggling as mentioned above does not satisfy your needs, there is only one final solution which actually is the one I am using right now: Go to http://www.hamrick.com and get yourself a copy of "Vuescan", Ed Hamrick's well known scanning interface for different types of film scanners (one software fits all scanners :-)). As to your problem, two settings (apart from that negative has to be chosen as film type) are essential: "Infrared clean" -> "medium", "grain reduction" -> "light". Scan one of your negatives and look if the overall appearance of that scan is closer to what you have in mind, at least as to the grain issue. If yes, you'll have to acquaint with the numerous controls of Vuescan to get the colors about right (the main goal of Vuescan is to produce "raw" scans with a maximum of image information in them; those usually need a bit more of post-scan color correction). If you're through this - allow one or two days of scanning frustration and lots of beer and coffee for it - you most likely won't touch Nikon's crappy user interface ever again. BTW, if you're running Windoze (as me), you might be able to use my .ini-files for Vuescan, one for slides and negs each, where all those settings are stored. Tell me and I'll e-mail them to you. The link in my signature shows where my LS-40 scans can be found (only the newer ones are LS-40 stuff; check each individual page for what the photo was scanned with). Hope this helps a bit, Greets - Ralf -- My animal photo page on the WWW: http://schmode.net Find my PGP keys (RSA and DSS/DH) on PGP key servers (use "TrustCenter" certified keys only) - Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.