|
Articles and Reviews
|
Home >> Photography >> Digital Nikon D100 Page 4A - Compared to the Nikon Coolscan IV scanner
The Nikon Coolscan IV is priced at around $1100-1200 CAN and offers some decent specifications. Image courtesy of Nikon Japan>>
Scan times are in the two-minute range with Digital ICE turned on (normal setting). I did not bother with GEM or ROC settings for the slide or color-negative films that were scanned. Further details about the Coolscan IV can be had at Imaging Resource if you want all the gory details about how the scanner works. I am more interested in the quality of the scans and how they might fit in with my needs, which is what this report is about. D-SLR
or Film and Scanner The costs
are fairly close depending upon the options chosen for the cameras,
such as the D100 with the MB-D100, an extra battery with some high capacity
flash cards would push the price to $5000
Without considering lens costs, a basic D100 and a 512 MB Ridata card costs about $3800 pre-tax. A basic F100 and Coolscan IV costs about $3000 pre-tax. I think this comparison is still valid because of the film cost savings that the D100 user would enjoy over the long term, and if really prolific, over the immediate short term too. Some things to consider about either of the two kits:
As much as I love my F100, my own initial thoughts about such a choice as above, would be to go with the D100, despite its limitations vis a vis the F100. As my family grows larger and older (third baby on the way in February 2003), I have less discretionary income to spend on photography and running costs of film and processing for my own, selfish photography is money not so wisely spent (according to my wife). However, if the D100 is not capable of matching scanned film, then that is quite a blow for the intentions of quality photography. There have been references made that 6 megapixels is the key to obtaining digital captures that can finally match film. Hmm…them’s fighting words for so many photographers around the world who believe in the merits of silver-halide. I will not get into the headache-causing nuances of the technical reasons why 6 MP should be “good-enough” nor will I try to decipher how limitless the potential is for film. None of the technical arguments really matter, as much as the actual image on the monitor and most importantly, on paper. Comparing the D100 to a Scanned Slide
To cut to the chase, the Coolscan IV scan resolved more details in the Condos on the Waterfront test image than the D100 did. Reviewing the prints casually, they seemed very close to each other and one would be hard pressed to give the edge to one or the other. Critical reviewing at pixel resolution on the monitor indicated that the scanned image did reveal more micro details than the pure digital capture but, the micro details were harder to pick out on the prints. Where the D100 betters the scan is in the grain/noise factor. Although the film grain was not really objectionable on the prints, the D100 image is clearly smoother in look thanks to the lack of noise. I printed another copy of the D100 version of the test scene, to better reflect the amount of editing or print size I would actually do with such images, rather than continue to use the older 12x18 size print that had been res’d up with Genuine Fractals from my first round of testing. This would mean a 10x15 size print at 200 dpi, which I find to be quite good on its own merits and still large enough to be appropriate for comparing to an 11x17 size print of the scanned film at 240 dpi print resolution. The slight bit of difference from the in-camera cropping allowed for the subject matter to be nearly identical in print size, so the overall physical dimensions of the prints themselves was not a factor. Could the D100 image have been better edited? Probably and I am not so egotistical to believe that I have very good Photoshop skills, so in the hands of a more experienced digital editor, the D100 image might have sung better. The sample shots below have been edited with USM applied and one can see that the Coolscan IV resolved more texture details from the Fuji Provia 100F slide. The Coolscan IV image has been downsampled to 86% of its original size to match the D100 file size. The medium format samples have been provided for comparison purposes - note, no editing has been applied to the medium format samples.
Negative
Scanning The scan was done through Nikon Scan 3 and except for turning on Digital ICE no adjustments were made to the preview scan for color correction. It would be very intriguing to try out some Vuescan or Quicksilver profiles for color negative films and see if these automated software solutions can finally work around the orange mask of these films. Scanning a color negative was a major interest for me to see if quality enlargements could be made from such scans. I borrowed a negative from my wedding photographer friend Larry Rotta of which he happened to have a very good-looking enlargement to compare to. After finally getting a semblance of a color match to the 4x6 proof print and about 10 letter-size test prints later, I was prepared to run off a near 11x17 size print at 240 dpi on Epson Semigloss paper. On its own merits, there is a lot to like about the amount of detail resolved by the Coolscan IV. I could have touched up the image a bit more here and there to get even closer to matching the proof print, but overall I was fairly confident the print would hold up well to my friend Larry’s traditional enlargement done at a local pro-lab, which looked very good coming from 35mm format. When we finally got together to compare the prints, we were pleasantly surprised to see how well the Coolscan IV image looked compared to the traditional print. The traditional print was a little better for cleaner grain/noise in certain sections, but all the details were there for the digital print. Very impressive and up to the limits of the scanner’s resolution, which would determine the ultimate enlargement capable, the two prints were very nearly identical for overall quality. I would have no problems using the Coolscan IV for scanning well exposed, fine-grain color negative films for enlargement purposes. Of course, this would fly in the face of my earlier conclusion about the Super Coolscan 4000 versus traditional prints. From this past test session, I concluded that the Super Coolscan 4000 exhibited or resolved too much grain and noise to be able to produce good looking enlargements comparable to wet prints. So, what gives with the Coolscan IV seeming to do better? A couple of factors may explain the differences:
For absolute quality with slide film, the Coolscan 4000 would still be my first choice but the Coolscan IV is also a lot of scanner for the money and the limited experience indicates very good looking images with color negatives, which is one of my main reason for wanting a film scanner.
Conclusion The Coolscan IV likely surpasses the best of the previous generation of scanners such as the Nikon Coolscan 2000 and a great many serious amateur photographers are enjoying the ability to digitize their slides and negatives in a cost effective fashion, however, the Coolscan IV is nowhere near the state the of the art for film scanning. And from a purely unsubstantiated, speculative presumption on my part (don’t say I didn’t warn you), the more expensive Coolscan 4000 may provide more quality and details but I doubt that it would come near the Eversmart either. You get what you pay for and one should not have state of the art expectations from the Coolscan IV vis a vis other top-level scanners. But…vis a vis the popular 6 MP D-SLR’s and you’re still getting a little bit extra quality and that makes the Coolscan IV very interesting for those who have a large film library and want to digitize that stock. It also indicates to me that those who are interested in digital but are hesitant about the quality surpassing 35mm film should wait for the 2003 offerings from Canon, Kodak and more than likely, from Nikon. That is if you can wait and don’t have bookings or projects that can make use of digital here and now. So, 6 MP is at or very near the cusp of matching and in some ways surpassing scanned film in certain aspects of the comparisons (noise and grain). For those excited by digital and what it has to offer, this is great news but for those still committed to film, printing traditionally or scanning via state of the art devices will still provide a measure of superiority over 6 MP D-SLRs. That is if you can live with the grain and qualitative limitations of 35mm format over medium and large format. Please keep in mind that these comparisons are very limited with only a couple of sample images to compare with. I would want to do much more testing to make any final conclusions about the merits and superiority of scanned film versus 6 MP D-SLR output. At this time all I will conclude is that D-SLR output is superior to film for noise and grain but not for micro-detail resolvement and these micro details may not even make it onto the prints themselves, so for prints at least, a 2900 ppi film scanner could be in a dead heat with a 6 MP D-SLR. Wet dream interlude - My personal ideal for a D-SLR is one that can output a 24x36 inch print at 360 dpi at native resolution without any interpolation – that would be equivalent to 112 MP and file sizes would be in the 350 MB range :-O Not even an 8000 dpi drum scanner could produce that with 35mm film, this is strictly medium or large format territory. And oh, give me this future D-SLR for under $2000…Canadian…please. For my money, my initial presumption about preferring the D100 to an F100 and Coolscan IV combo still stands despite the Coolscan IV being better for detail resolvement. I like the Coolscan IV for offering good scan quality at a decent price that mere mortals can actually afford to purchase, however, for various reasons (cost, timing etc.) I prefer to shoot digitally for the majority of my general photography. My medium format kit will still see a bit of use here or there but I have no means of scanning the chromes cost effectively at this time and I’m not keen on going with another, higher resolution flatbed unit, such as the Epson 2450 (but maybe the new Epson 3200 ppi unit though). Sure I can have the medium format stuff scanned at a lab but that means spending almost $100 per high resolution scan, not something I have much interest in and certainly not something my wallet can handle for any length of time. For the wedding and portrait photographer still shooting film and wanting a cost effective means of digitizing the film for enlargements, I think the Coolscan IV is well worth a long, hard look over other competitors. Minolta has the similar resolution Scan Elite II for the same amount of money that betters the Coolscan IV with Firewire connection and much better DMAX specs. However, the Scan Elite is not supported by the intriguing Quicksilver software with its promising Negafix feature that provides profiles for dozens of color negative films. Neither is the similarly priced but higher specified Canoscan FS4000. This makes the Nikon Coolscan IV the most versatile of the film scanners that I would look at since I’m not willing to spend double the money on the Coolscan 4000. The Coolscan 4000 would be overkill for my use and needs, so sometime in 2003, you may be able to read a more detailed review of the Coolscan IV scanner at this little web site of mine :-) |
|
Correspondence & About this website Copyright © 1998-2008 Edwin Leong |
|
 |
|
I
have not had the opportunity for another scanning session with the mighty
Creo Eversmart flatbed 
What
the original scanned image looked like, at right>
