PC Review
Forums
Newsgroups
Hardware
Scanners
Canon FS4000US noise
Forums
Newsgroups
Hardware
Scanners
Canon FS4000US noise
![]() |
Canon FS4000US noise |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Hi,
I am using an FS4000US (new purchase) to scan slides and negs and I am getting much more noise than I expected. This shows up as coloured pixels in a dark area with a fairly even balance of each colour. I am using Vuescan to drive the scanner and have scanned a black slide. The slide has matt black tape on both sides. I set Vuescan to image mode with exposure lock at 1 and no colour correction. I expected the pixels in the raw file to be 0 or pretty close but find that each of the colours can range from 0 to about 9 (24 bit raw file) or from 0 to about 240 (48 bit raw file). Can anybody tell me if this seems reasonable for this scanner. I can't see the value in 14 bit colour resolution with such a high noise floor. Thanks, Steven |
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
I have been using this scanner since it first came out but I admit I have
never scanned a uniform black image to measure individual pixel values. This is an interesting idea but there are many places in the system where the variation in pixel values might arise. Have you compared the pixel values of a scan made with the Canon software? Have you tried it with other scanner/software combinations? The reason I ask about the comparison is that, while I have never scanned a black slide and measured pixel values I have made many hundreds of 4000dpi scans with this now ancient machine. Unless preparing images for CMYK printing I don;t think there is a real-world value, as opposed to technically measurable value, to 48 bit scanning: no monitor or inkjet printer can display that color range and their drivers will arbitrarily truncate the color information anyway. Do you really need the >100mb scan of every image that results from 48 bit/4000dpi scanning? I have several CDs full--that is exactly 6 images per CD. I question whether Vuescan actually achieves the level of control over this scanner that the software interface implies. I have used Vuescan through many iterations, including version 8, and have not found it very usable, for practical purposes, on this particular scanner. I get better images using the Canon software. Although the software interface of Vuescan tells you it is performing a function at a certain level of precision how do you know this is true or even if the scanner is capable of performing this function at this degree of precision? Vuescan is not specifically written for the Canon scanner. You may want to download the demo version of Silverfast for comparison as well. I am not sure the latter is worth the $250 price tag for a scanner that now sells for $500 and is ancient in terms of its technical design. However, since the Canon takes so long to scan each image anyway time may be better spent scanning real images and seeing if you are satisfied with the results. If you are not satisfied, using Vuescan, try the Canon software. I wish I could justify getting the new Minolta 5400 but, slow as the old Canon is, it actually makes very, very good scans. |
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
On Thu, 13 May 2004 21:22:56 GMT, "bmoag" <aetoo@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I have been using this scanner since it first came out but I admit I have >never scanned a uniform black image to measure individual pixel values. I have to admit that scanning a black slide does sound silly (almost as silly as scanning a blank slide holder, which I have also tried) but my scans do seem a bit noisy. I have read that the FS4000 is noisy but I don't have any readings from other FS4000's. My scanner is new so I could ask to have it checked under warranty. I have tried things like SCSI instead of USB (meant to reduce noise but probably an urban myth) and also keeping the scanner remote from the PC and monitor but have noticed no difference. >Have you compared the pixel values of a scan made with the Canon software? >Have you tried it with other scanner/software combinations? I get slightly worse noise using Filmget but even with its exposure locked and options disabled I suspect it is doing more processing than Vuescan so perhaps the test is less reliable. Today I tested using a Silverfast demo. All colour values for the black slide are 43, 43, 43 (+- 1) but I can't see how to lock the exposure so the test is not a valid comparison. >I question whether Vuescan actually achieves the level of control over this >scanner that the software interface implies. I have used Vuescan through >many iterations, including version 8, and have not found it very usable, for >practical purposes, on this particular scanner. I get better images using >the Canon software. I hope that the raw file from Vuescan (during scan) is really raw. Perhaps if Ed reads this he could comment. Some of my scans are better when using Filmget rather than Vuescan. I notice that some white areas are tainted with red using Vuescan but not with Filmget or Silverfast. I hope I can overcome this as I think Vuescan is much nicer to operate. Silverfast seems good but the cost is prohibitive for me. If anybody with an FS4000 and Vuescan could scan a black slide (image mode, exposure lock 1, no colour balance) and tell me what colour values they get in the preview screen it would be most appreciated. Thanks, Steven |
|
![]() |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Rate This Thread | |
|
|

Main Page 

