Nikon Coolscan LS9000 ED, ICE, and CanoScan F4000US - Part 2

<p><strong>Abstract:</strong><br /> I try out the Nikon Super Coolscan 9000ED and compare it to my older scanners. This time, also including some comparison of the Noise/dust/etc. reduction capabilities of each.<br>

Part 1 = http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00d6UB <br>

<strong>Terminology:</strong><br /> <br />ICE = Nikon's ICE ON<br /> E = Image Enhancer ON<br /> FARE - CanoScan 4000 noise reduction<br /> <br />OFF- all filters, masks, etc. turned off so far as is possible<br /><br /><br /><br /> <strong>Prolegomenon:</strong><br /> <strong><br /></strong>Copying slides has been a way of life for me, going back to the early 1970s when I got my first Honeywell Heiland Repronar.<br />When I went digital for scanning slides, my first choice was a CanoScan FS4000US scanner - a story told at http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00arR1 and elsewhere. When I also got a digital camera, I thought I’d try some of the slide copying devices made by various vendors, including Spiratone versions (story told in third response at http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00WoRW ).<br />I even got a Honeywell Universal Repronar which actually works very well with a digital camera body and a decent copy lens ( same link as above). <br /><br />Here are the three scanners that I have reported on. <br /><br /></p><div></div>

<p><strong>The Main Body</strong><br /> Here is the Kodachrome slide I used in my post comparing the CanoScan FS4000US to the CanoScan 9000F ( http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00b9l6 ) as scanned by the CanoScan 4000 and the Nikon LS9000 with all nonuse and dust reduction turned off (top row) and with the Nikon LS2000 scans with ICE turned on and with both ICE and Image Enhancer turned on (bottom row).<br>

All of the original scans were at 4000ppi.</p><div></div>

<p>the 100% clips from those scans (including the CanoScan 9000 as 2nd) are here</p><div></div>

<p>For those IQ fetishists, here are large clips of each</p>

<div></div>

<p>Here is the slide which was the only one I saved of an effort to use the CanoScan FARE noise reduction. Since the scanner has passed on, is a dead scanner, has joined the choir invisible, etc., I can't redo any more of these.<br /><br /></p><div></div>

<p>Here are the Canon 4000 and Nikon 9000 scans, each with their FARE and ICE result.</p><div></div>

<p>What counts here, of course, are the 100% crops:</p>

<div></div>

<p>You can see very clearly why I did not try much to use the FARE dust and noise reduction on Kodachrome slides. The Nikon LS9000 ICE is far better, but still causes some loss of definition from the straight scan.<br /><br />If you’re just posting on the "internets", or not printing very large, the Nikon ICE is OK. However, if you’re trying to get all the data there is on the slide into digital form, you may want to do what I do -<br /><br /></p>

<ol>

<li>Clean everything very carefully before scanning,</li>

<li>Scan with noise/dust/etc. reduction turned off</li>

<li>Do what you’d have to do back in film days - manually spot whatever dust remains.</li>

</ol>

<p>END for now</p>

<p>BTW, to even out the slides a little bit, I applied "Auto Color" to all of them, This was the only manipulation applied to the images in post processing.<br>

Slight differences exist in color balance as they come out of the naked machine that are not significant, since they are easily altered in post-processing in Photoshop. Usually, simple auto color and auto levels will bring the images very close to one another in appearance.</p>

<p>The Nikon 9000 with ICE looks to have little if any loss of definition.</p>