Does Digital ICE work with positives as well as negatives or is it
just for negatives?

How much better are the Digital ICE scanners with optical density of
4.0D compared with the 3.4D ones? E.g. the 4490 compared to the 4990?

The Canon range of scanners that have the Fare/Qare(sp) IR film
correction/dust removal facility that is supposed to be similar to the
Digital ICE of the Epsons, I just wondered how it stacks up in
comparison?

When I have done a bit of research on the Canon websites I can't find
any specifications on what the optical densities are that the
different levels of Fare/Qare for the Canon Scanners.

I am presuming that seen as they don't mention this they are probably
nowhere near as good as the Epsons?

John

John wrote:
> Does Digital ICE work with positives as well as negatives or is it
> just for negatives?

Both color negatives and positives, except kodachrome.

Ektachrome is fine.

Negative (really damaged), point at image to see scratch-correction.

Cheers,
Alan

>
> How much better are the Digital ICE scanners with optical density of
> 4.0D compared with the 3.4D ones? E.g. the 4490 compared to the 4990?

Ick! Get a dedicated film scanner. Nikon CoolScan 5000, 9000 or a
used, non - II Minolta 5400; or even a Nikon V.

> When I have done a bit of research on the Canon websites I can't find
> any specifications on what the optical densities are that the
> different levels of Fare/Qare for the Canon Scanners.
>
> I am presuming that seen as they don't mention this they are probably
> nowhere near as good as the Epsons?

If they're dedicated film, they're probably better than the Canon's.

For a quick idea of scan density: where n is the number of bits per
color channel.

Scan dens = log 2^(n-1.5). For 16 bits this = 4.36.

Cheers,
Alan



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Alan Browne wrote:

> Negative (really damaged), point at image to see scratch-correction.
Sorry, meant to include:

http://www.aliasimages.com/ScanScratch.htm

In article <YX9mi.73887$(E-Mail Removed)>, Alan Browne
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> Negative (really damaged), point at image to see scratch-correction.
>Sorry, meant to include:
>
>http://www.aliasimages.com/ScanScratch.htm

Impressive
--
Tony Sayer

John wrote:
> Does Digital ICE work with positives as well as negatives or is it
> just for negatives?
>
> How much better are the Digital ICE scanners with optical density of
> 4.0D compared with the 3.4D ones? E.g. the 4490 compared to the 4990?

Density has basically been hijacked as a sales term. Density is a
logarithmic function similar to decibels. Zero density is specified as
0.0D (clear film), a density of 4.0 implies a 10,000:1 density range
(10^4), while a density of 3.4 (10^3.4) implies a range of 2,511:1.
Given that Dmax of most films is about 2.0, both scanners have more than
adequate range. IMHO a D of 4.0 is advertising hype.
>
> The Canon range of scanners that have the Fare/Qare(sp) IR film
> correction/dust removal facility that is supposed to be similar to the
> Digital ICE of the Epsons, I just wondered how it stacks up in
> comparison?

FARE works as well, and is basically the same method as ICE in both
systems. Both work by scanning the film with IR light, to which film
dyes are transparent, so the resultant image contains IR-blocking items
like dust and scratches. This image is then used to fill in the
corresponding areas in the color image with color derived from adjacent
pixels.
>
> When I have done a bit of research on the Canon websites I can't find
> any specifications on what the optical densities are that the
> different levels of Fare/Qare for the Canon Scanners.
>
> I am presuming that seen as they don't mention this they are probably
> nowhere near as good as the Epsons?

False presumption. I have a Canon 9950F, and it is every bit as good as
the Epsons. You can specify low, medium, or high settings for FARE. I
find that medium does all I require.

Colin D.
>
> John
>
>

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 15:14:34 +1200, Colin_D <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:


>Density has basically been hijacked as a sales term. Density is a
>logarithmic function similar to decibels. Zero density is specified as
>0.0D (clear film), a density of 4.0 implies a 10,000:1 density range
>(10^4), while a density of 3.4 (10^3.4) implies a range of 2,511:1.
>Given that Dmax of most films is about 2.0, both scanners have more than
>adequate range. IMHO a D of 4.0 is advertising hype.


Umm, not quite. Slide films have Dmax values as high as 4 and
sometimes beyond. C41 (color print) film densities are lower,
usually peaking at 2.5 or so. Log scale, of course.

You can look it all up in the film data sheets; Fuji's are available
on the web.

So, with regard to scanners, C41 film is actually quite a bit
easier to scan, as it will almost never push a scanner beyond
its dynamic range. Slide film is another matter.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

I have seen examples that are even more impressive. This technology
really works, especially on color negatives.


tony sayer wrote:
> In article <YX9mi.73887$(E-Mail Removed)>, Alan Browne
> <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>>> Negative (really damaged), point at image to see scratch-correction.
>> Sorry, meant to include:
>>
>> http://www.aliasimages.com/ScanScratch.htm
>
> Impressive

Colin_D <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> FARE works as well, and is basically the same method as ICE in both
> systems. Both work by scanning the film with IR light, to which film
> dyes are transparent, so the resultant image contains IR-blocking
> items like dust and scratches. This image is then used to fill in the
> corresponding areas in the color image with color derived from
> adjacent pixels.

I used to think that FARE was not as good as ICE, based on my experiences on a
dedicated 35mm film scanner with ICE vs. FARE on a cheapish Canon flatbed (8400F).
Later I have found the difference is probably in that the dedicated scanners just
work better; ICE on my Epson V700 is no miracle cure either, though it
works wonders in my Konica-Minolta 5400 II.

> False presumption. I have a Canon 9950F, and it is every bit as good
> as the Epsons. You can specify low, medium, or high settings for
> FARE. I find that medium does all I require.

I found on my Canoscan 8400F that higher FARE settings cause general
softness in the image, instead of just around areas with dust or
scratches.

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Toni Nikkanen
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>Colin_D <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>
>> FARE works as well, and is basically the same method as ICE in both
>> systems. Both work by scanning the film with IR light, to which film
>> dyes are transparent, so the resultant image contains IR-blocking
>> items like dust and scratches. This image is then used to fill in the
>> corresponding areas in the color image with color derived from
>> adjacent pixels.
>
>I used to think that FARE was not as good as ICE, based on my experiences on a
>dedicated 35mm film scanner with ICE vs. FARE on a cheapish Canon
>flatbed (8400F).
>Later I have found the difference is probably in that the dedicated
>scanners just
>work better;

Even on dedicated film scanners, FARE is inferior to ICE.

The FS-4000US was Canon's only dedicated film scanner with FARE and it
differed significantly in its implementation from Nikon or Minolta ICE,
with resulting lower quality. One of the problems with the Canon is
that it used a separate pass of the scan head to create the IR image and
hence the film defects. Imperfections in the mechanism meant that there
was always misalignment between the IR and the visible images, which
required the cloned area around each defect to be much larger than with
ICE. FARE on Canon's dedicated film scanner often produced quite
visible corrections that ICE concealed perfectly on the Nikon units.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

>>I used to think that FARE was not as good as ICE, based on my experiences on a
>>dedicated 35mm film scanner with ICE vs. FARE on a cheapish Canon
>>flatbed (8400F).
>>Later I have found the difference is probably in that the dedicated
>>scanners just
>>work better;
>
>Even on dedicated film scanners, FARE is inferior to ICE.
>
>The FS-4000US was Canon's only dedicated film scanner with FARE and it
>differed significantly in its implementation from Nikon or Minolta ICE,
>with resulting lower quality. One of the problems with the Canon is
>that it used a separate pass of the scan head to create the IR image and
>hence the film defects. Imperfections in the mechanism meant that there
>was always misalignment between the IR and the visible images, which
>required the cloned area around each defect to be much larger than with
>ICE. FARE on Canon's dedicated film scanner often produced quite
>visible corrections that ICE concealed perfectly on the Nikon units.

I think you're probably right about Fare v Digital ICE on dedicated
machines. Probably the implementation and the machines with ICE were
just better designed.

As far as flatbed scanners go I have been reading quite a few reviews
on different sites and so far I've arrived at the conclusion that
there isn't much difference between Fare and ICE as far as dust
removal is concerned. If anything though from this review I have read,
it seems that Fare may be slightly better just based on the fact that
it scans a lot faster using the dust removal facility than the Epson
machine with ICE.

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/int...0F/page_14.htm

You'll have to scroll down to near the bottom of the page. The Epson
with ICE on took 7 and a half minutes whereas the Canon with Fare took
under 2 minutes. I think that would be the key selling point for me
despite the poor reputation of Canon here in the UK for support.

Maybe newer Epson models have improved with the speeds? This was just
comparing the Canoscan 9950F to the Perfection 4870. I think both
these models were from a few years ago, so maybe Epson speeds have
improved since then. Thing is though I don't have the money for a
V700/750 so it would still be out of the question anyway even if the
speeds had improved. I think I am going to be looking at a buying
used scanner, models like the Epson Perfection 4990, 4870 and 4490 as
well as the Canon Canoscans 9950F, 9900F, 8600F, 8400F etc. Probably
be able to afford the Canon model new.

A lot of the scans I have looked at the dedicated film scanners like
from the Nikon Coolscans the picture is a lot better I have to admit
that, even ones with lower resolution scans the picture is miles
better, so that proves to me that you shouldn't read too much into the
resolution specs. However I don't think you can scan regular prints
(positives) with these dedicated ones like the Coolscans can you? They
are just for negatives and slides right? For me I don't want to spend
big bucks on a dedicated scanner when the largest majority of the
scans I will be doing are from prints not negatives or slides.

Maybe I will just buy a flatbed for now for prints and you never know
I might get a dedicated film scanner for my old slides and negatives
at a later date if the flatbed proves not good enough.

John