Microtek Artixscan 4000tf vs Nikon LS-4000

Hi All,

 

I am considering purchasing one of the above scanners, and I would

appreciate any comments on their relative merits. I have been using a

Minolta Dual II for a couple of years.

 

I know that the Microtek does not have dICE, but how important is

this? I am not concerned about scratches, but dust can sometimes be a

problem. For top quality scans, doesn't dICE soften the image? Also,

as I understand it, due to the different type of light source, the

effects of dust are more pronounced with the Nikon (w/o DICE).

 

What about other quality issues? I have heard that the Microtek gives

better shadow deatails.

Can't answer your question but am intensely a=interested in it. the Microtex

4000tf does come with the LSsersoft SILVERFAST 6.0 software which has

equivalentS of the AppliedScience Fiction software tools like ICE, GEM, &

ROC.

Ellis,

 

The Nikon has an I/R channel which is used by dICE, which the Microtek does not, so the dust removal is supposedly better with the Nikon.

There is a superb dust removal Photoshop plug-in on the Polaroid site. Free download. I have been using it for a few weeks and it is superb. I am now doing 4000 dpi scans on my Canon with no dust removal useage at the time of scanning, just this afterwards. It's good.

Steven,

From the Silverfast website:<P>

<I>" <B>SilverFast SRD® - Smart Removal of Defects (Dust and Scratch

Removal) </B><P>

 

SilverFast introduces software-based dust and scratch removal. SilverFast

SRD is using unique normal and expert users controls that allow you to adjust

the user interface to different requirements. A real-time window selection

helps to quickly find the optimum settings for the SRD controls. <P>

 

SilverFast�s dust and scratch removal has been integrated into the actual

scan software workflow and can be used during the scan process. Aside from

SilverFast Ai, the SRD process is also available in SilverFast HDR and can be

applied to raw data. <P>

 

Dust and scratches are recognized by SilverFast SRD highlighting the

artifacts in red. With interactive controls the user can now decrease or

increase how many artifacts will be picked up by the function. The real-time

selection control helps to quickly find the best possible setting. Any image

details that might be affected by SRD can comfortably be excluded with an

exclude-mask. <P>

 

Very difficult scratches that cannot be removed by a general setting, can be

treated in another layer and successfully be removed. Up to four layers are

available for SRD. "</I><P> I don't what the technical differences are. I am

unsure about if their is a qualitative difference. But the two approaches seem

comparable.

The difference is that Nikon uses hardware and physics to detect pretty definitively what is dust and Silverfast is using a heuristic algorithm similar to what we use when we visually scan the picture in PhotoShop. Is that little white blob dust or something in the actual picture? You can guess, Silverfast can guess, Nikon can know... (I know I've guessed wrong at times when I've done this manually.)

By the way, if you use Vuescan with the Nikon (I've tried it, but don't use it) you can actually save a raw scan that has a layer showing the IR dust detection layer. You can, if you are clever, use that in PhotoShop to correct the defects in a mostly automatic way that you could then hand tune. (Use a blurred and curves adjusted version of the layer to mask a blurred copy of the main image for instance).

 

One other thing... I seriously doubt the microtek gives better shadow detail than the Nikon. It might be on par, but better is just hard to believe since I've never seen shadow detail in a slide that the Nikon didn't get. The only place I find the Nikon lacking (unless you count being too expensive) is in color management, but I've never tried to profile it...

Thanks for the info Mr. Patel

I'll argue that you'll want ICE (or FARE on the Canon). The Polaroid and Silverfast methods are nice, but not accurate like IR detection. When the scanner physically scans for defects and the software removes them you have a better chance of having the defects removed and replaced with more relevant pixles. It will also remove only the right things, whereas the polaroid software has missed or taken out the wrong things.

<br><br>

If you're considering the Nikon, consider it's equal, the Canon FS4000. QUality is stellar, and it can pull out more shadow detail that most will have you believe. When I have time I'll actually put down my findings, but with exposure adjustment during scannign I've pulled out virtually noiseless shadow areas with detail that you cannot always see. I have to do more to be sure but it appears to be matching the Nikons shadow pulling ability. The Canon is also much sharper and handles warped film much better than the Nikon. I have some information on it <a href="http://www.rit.edu/~cgs2794/comparison">here</a>.