Nikon LS-4000: Unacceptable Depth of Focus

Here's another idea: blend scans with different focus points:

http://www.heliconsoft.com/heliconfocus.html

 

So, if you don't think scanning is a PITA, blend exposures to deal with hardware DR issues and now you can blend focus, too. Joy!

Roger -- yeah that was my original idea in the post above, wondering if it could be

implemented into Vuescan.

 

But now you throw this software at me -- thanks! Very interesting! Have you tried it? I'm

curious as to the algorithm used to detect which parts of the image are more in focus in

which images... will give it a whir as soon as I get a chance!

 

Thank you,

Rishi

 

P.S. Do you find the above WessMount.jpg acceptable in terms of across the frame

sharpness? It's hard to see it, but there is a loss of grain structure in the top third of the

image.

I have not tried Heliconfocus but will keep it in mind for any scans where the shot I want is at the edge of a curved strip. My scanner's focus is generally quite good.

 

I think the sharpness is good enough in the wessmount image you posted. I don't care if my sky isn't grain sharp. I'd say maybe only the top 1/8th or so is noticably soft. The rest is good enough. I do think it's odd that the bottom doesn't get nearly as soft as the top.

 

If you're shooting with a zoom I guess give yourself a little room to crop- you'll both get rid of the parts where your lens is the least sharp but also where the scanner is unsharp.

 

Here's a page on Nikon focus why may be helpful:

http://www.users.on.net/~julian.robinson/photography/ls2000-focus.htm

OK, everyone.

 

I am in a lab now scanning some of my slides with a Nikon LS-5000.

 

I'm in utter SHOCK and DISBELIEF at how much incredible detail and film grain I'm seeing,

edge to edge, in my slide scans now.

 

I've seen this kind of focus & detail before with my LS-4000 -- IN PERHAPS 10% OF THE

FRAME.

 

It is utterly RIDICULOUS how much more DOF the LS-5000 has in comparison to the LS-

4000. It amazes me even more that no where on the internet can I even find this one,

definitive statement:

 

"The LS-4000 is unusable in terms of DOF when compared to the LS-5000, which scans

consistently sharp from edge to edge if focused correctly."

 

I'll be back to post more results, but, in the meantime, I'd like to know what people think

about this...

 

I mean, it's ENTIRELY unfair that I spent over $1000 on my LS-4000, albeit years ago, to

now learn of this AFTER trying the LS-5000. IMHO, the LS-4000 DOES NOT DO WHAT IT

WAS ADVERTISED TO DO! It can hardly keep focus on more than 10% of any given image in

comparison now to the LS-5000! Just wait until you see my comparisons! I want my $1000

back, or I want my LS-4000 replaced by a LS-5000! Is anyone else in the same boat?

Anyone else want to launch a class-action lawsuit?

I bet you could still sell the LS-4000 for a reasonable price and put the money towards a new LS-5000. Even if the focus of the 4000 is fairly poor, it's still better than what some others are using.

 

Have you had any better luck with mounted slides vs strips?

I've been a long time photo.net user. More than 10 years now I think. This is my first post in some time. This problem that we are dealing with has been a big issue for me. I've gone down all the paths you guys have. Flattening the film doesnt do it. The curvatures are so small and the depth of field/focus so thin you cannot fix it with hardware. I am convinced the solution is two scans then merged together. There were two software packages that offered this when I asked about it over a year ago. It seems these Helicon guys have updated theirs. When I tried it the first time it didnt work for me since my file sizes were big (Minolta 5400 16 bit files). Perhaps they've improved? What I'd really like to see is a Vue Scan or a SilverFast incorporate this into their scanning software.

I've been holding off scanning until someone has solved this problem for us.

"I don't want ACCEPTABLE when it's possible to get much better. I want *as sharp* as one can get from film, because only then is it on par w/ even a 10 MP digital CMOS sensor. "

 

Right. And to get that you need fluid mounting - end of story. This can be done with the Nikon Coolscan LS9000ED and LS8000ED:

 

http://www.onecachet.com/product_details.php?cat=80&pid=1000000269&pg=

Ellis,

 

True, you make a good point. But I recently compared a Nikon LS-5000 scan with a

Imacon Flextight scan, and the Nikon wasn't too far off from the Imacon in maintaining

sharpness across the frame. Of course, the Imacon did a better job since it has the rolling

drum.

 

Imacon's implementation is much easier then fluid mounting. Yes I really want sharp scans

but no I'm not willing to put in the effort of fluid mounting because I haven't found any

evidence that fluid mounting is better than Imacon's drum-like technique. Please correct

me if I'm wrong.

I tried the demo of Helicon last night. Seems to handle the large files and 16 bit now. But it will take more testing to see if the output of combining two scans(center and edge) is better than an off-center compromise scan.

Nope. Helicon doesnt do the trick at high magnifications. By this I mean a full 72 megabyte

5400 dpi scan of a b&w negative. The image doubles up. I tested it against about 6 negatives

each with two scans(center and edge). It turns out you're better with the one off center

compromise scan than using Helicon.

Russell, could you post 100% crops to illustrate?