Even though we ARE Nikon lovers,we are NOT affiliated with Nikon Corp. in any way.

English German French

Sign up Login
Home Forums Articles Galleries Recent Photos Contest Help Search News Workshops Shop Upgrade Membership Recommended
members
All members Wiki Contests Vouchers Apps Newsletter THE NIKONIAN™ Magazines Podcasts Fundraising

D1X vs Coolscan 4000 comparison

AlanC

UK
2700 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

"RE: D1X vs Coolscan 4000 comparison"

AlanC Basic Member
Sun 23-Dec-01 01:42 PM

Derek,

Thanks for going to the trouble of putting those pages together and taking the time to upload some very large files. I'd also like to apologise for not commenting before now: I'd visited your web site shortly after you made the post, but I was away most of yesterday and didn't want to reply before I'd had a chance for a really good look at the results.

Oh, and I almost burnt my phone line out downloading one of the D1x TIFF's with a 56K modem.

First off, I know you'd have liked some better weather, but you've got some unusual and rather dramatic pictures there: just how I'd visualise the Misty Mountains from "The Lord of the Rings".

Looking at the comparisons, I have to confess to being surprised by how much noise there is in the film scans. After the experience of doing a comparison with some of BJ Nicholls images (https://www.nikonians.org/dcforum/DCForumID11/180.html#) I was expecting this, but not to such a degree. I'm not sure why this should be - does using negatives rather than slides have that much effect, or could it be the combination of a dull day (less dynamic range) and auto levels in Photoshop magnifying the noise?

The thing I really noticed, though, is that there seems to be considerably more detail apparent in the digital shots. Firstly, the camera seemed better able to resolve fine detail: in the first pair of crops you can see a group of three fine twigs hanging from the upper branch in the digital version, but they're barely visible in the film version. Secondly the digital camera appears better able to resolve subtle shades: to my eyes this is most apparent in the final pair of crops - a lot of the detail surrounding the waterfall isn't apparent in the film image despite its greater size.

Without pulling down one of the film TIFFs (60Mb over a modem... ) I don't want to comment on how the results might look when printed - I suspect the noise in the film shots would be far less of an issue.

Overall I'm very impressed by what the D1x can do - it's a major leap forward over my D1. It also seems to be a capable challenger to the combination of film and a 4000dpi scanner, which surprises me.

Again, thanks for taking the time to do these comparisons.

Alan.

A general, generic topic D1X vs Coolscan 4000 comparison [View all] , hilld , Fri 21-Dec-01 03:48 AM
Subject
ID
Reply message RE: D1X vs Coolscan 4000 comparison
1
Reply message RE: D1X vs Coolscan 4000 comparison
2
Reply message RE: D1X vs Coolscan 4000 comparison
4
Reply message RE: D1X vs Coolscan 4000 comparison
3
     Reply message RE: D1X vs Coolscan 4000 comparison
5
          Reply message RE: D1X vs Coolscan 4000 comparison
6
Reply message RE: D1X vs Coolscan 4000 comparison
7
Reply message RE: D1X vs Coolscan 4000 comparison
8
Reply message RE: D1X vs Coolscan 4000 comparison
9
Reply message RE: D1X vs Coolscan 4000 comparison
10