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

BJNicholls

Salt Lake City, US
10095 posts

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

"RE: D1X vs Coolscan 4000 comparison"

BJNicholls Gold Member Awarded for his contributions to the community and the Resources Charter Member
Thu 27-Dec-01 07:13 AM

Derek,

I have a DSL connection but I'm not up for downloading the full original TIFF files. The jpeg details are more than adequate for monitor comparison purposes. If you save the full frame files as high quality jpegs, the file sizes would be a fraction of the TIFF size and jpeg artifacts would be essentially invisible.

Although my observations comparing Alan's image files to my scans from film produce some similarities to the results you show, I have to suggest that you do not use "auto levels" on any scan or image file where you intend to get high quality and accuracy. Doing this seemingly simple adjustment throws off color balance - often dramatically and destructively. The film image in the first set shows a distinct yellow cast that I doubt is true to the film image (of course since this is a scan from a negative, color accuracy can't be measured nor can you obtain a calibrated scan). Since the RAW files undergo color balance processing in Nikon Capture as well as black and white point adjustments, auto levels is destructive to showing an accurate image for the digital capture as well. Since these images are low in color content, the shifts aren't extreme. Try doing an autolevels to a sunset image to see just how bad this tool can be.

If you need to tweak the tonal levels for some parity between the images, do it manually for all RGB channels together using the levels control panel sliders. Autolevels adjusts each color channel separately and that's how it messes up the image color balance.

A print sample of each to 8x10 would be a wasted effort. The resolution of a 4000 ppi scan from film is overkill for such a small print and the D1X resolution also exceeds any detail that can be reproduced either by a photo inkjet or Lightjet print. I'm going to be testing 11x14 and 12x18 print sizes to examine the relative enlargement potential of my scans vs. Alan's D1 image files. I believe that the D1 files will hold up very well and the D1X files would be even better, but the idea is to do output testing at print sizes that actually reproduce grain and/or flirt with showing pixellated edges from the digital captures.

Thanks for all the work! I wish I had the kind of server space you have to post these monster files

BJ








BJ

Zenfolio gallery

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