The main difference between the SS4000 and the NIkon scanners has to do with the light source. The Polaroids use cold cathode fluorescent, while the Nikons use LEDs. With the Nikons that are currently on the market (not speaking of the new ones) the LEDs they used were unable to supply bright enough lighting to allow for the lens to be stopped down as much as the Polaroid's. This led to shallower DOF and you probably have read of people complaining of not being able to get sharp edges when scanning slides if they have any bow in them, without using glass mounts or some method to make them quite flat. With brighter LEDs coming to market, it is possible Nikon has improved the light source used on the newer ones.
The other noted problem also relates to the light source. Again, LED lighting is very collimated, the path is extremely straight and undiffused from the light source, unlike fluorescent, which is usually fairly diffused (the Minoltas are an exception to this). As a result, this causes film base defects, dirt and dust to be very obvious on the scan. Nikon provides dICE for this, which is effective, but requires an extra scan and channel, which does slow the scan process somewhat, but it may still be faster than your SS4000 with the newer scanners. Also, Nikon may have learned from the 8000 medium format scanner that they can reduce this situation with use of a diffuser (although again that will lower light volume). dICE cannot be used with true silver based black and white films (its fine with c-41 developed chromogenic films) and some Kodachrome versions have problems with it. One other issue that has come up with Nikon scanners, although the samples I've seen don't look bad to me, is that due to the fact that LEDs have very narrow spectral response, it may be that certain colors are not being accurately captured during the color separation process. The cold cathode tubes used by others do have special peaks in R G and B areas, but they are by nature wider color spectrums, while Nikon's LEDs have very narrow bands of R G and B, and this may cause some colors (notably in Kodachrome films) seems to be difficult to reproduce accurately. Then again, all film stocks tend to alter color rendition, for accuracy digital seems to be the way to go. As for mechanical reliability, it seems Nikon has worked out most of the bugs that existed on earlier models, which suffered from stepper motor failures. Just out of interest, what is (or isn't) your SS4000 doing? If it is completely dead, it may be as simple as a fuse has blown. Art Jim Levitt wrote: > My Polaroid Sprintscan 4000 has just died on me. The repair charges are not > cost effective. I will need a replacement. > > Does anyone have hands-on experience with the new Nikon 5000 scanner? Does > it output clearly superior scans to those produced by the Polaroid (or > equivalent Microtek?). I realize the Nikon has infrared cleaning > capabilities that are lacking in the Polaroid. > > Have the Nikon scanners been mechanically reliable, in general? My Polaroid > always sounded like a coffee grinder, and died despite rather light use. > > Thanks for any advice. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
