Digital BW, The Print

Monday, November 11, 2002, 7:57:43 PM, Christopher Williams wrote:

CW> I went with the CanoScan FS4000 because it does cost $400-500 less than the
CW> Nikon 4000 scanner. Sure, it's a bit slower, but FARE works much better than
CW> ICE. ICE softens up the image alot more than FARE does.


I went with Nikon for the exact opposite reason: that ICE works much
better than FARE.  I've never used FARE but George Lepp and John Shaw
both had and went with Nikon mainly because they found FARE to be very
inconsistent and downright poor in some areas like color transitions
and such.  George Lepp has been sponsored for years by Canon and when
the 4000 came out he and his crew tested it extensively as I imagine
they really wanted to use it.  In the end they went with Nikon instead
(much to Canon's chagrin). Tim Grey, who's George's "tech man" put it
this way:

"I do feel very strongly that it is worth the extra money to get the
Nikon scanner. It has a higher dynamic range than the Canon scanner,
has better software, and includes Digital ICE Cubed. The FARE
technology used in the Canon scanner does not work anywhere near as
well compared to Digital ICE. The Canon 4000 does produce great basic
scans, but the Nikon does a better job. If you need the 4000 dpi
resolution and the Nikon Super CoolScan 4000 ED simply isn't in your
budget, the Canon is a reasonable compromise, but the results won't be
as good as you would get with the Nikon scanner."

Glad you're happy with your Canon I just happen to hear others I
respect and who are well-known pros say otherwise so I went with the
Nikon.

And FWIW I find that using the ICE on normal does not soften the image much at
all, at least not something that cannot be easily compensated for very
well with unsharp mask.

Best regards,
 Richard  

mailto:richard@...

L i n k s  t o  m y  g a l l e r i e s:
http://fujirangefinder.com/document.php?id=246