Digital ICE v FARE

Discussion in 'Computer Information' started by John, Jul 14, 2007.

  1. John

    John Guest

    Does Digital ICE work with positives as well as negatives or is it
    just for negatives?

    How much better are the Digital ICE scanners with optical density of
    4.0D compared with the 3.4D ones? E.g. the 4490 compared to the 4990?

    The Canon range of scanners that have the Fare/Qare(sp) IR film
    correction/dust removal facility that is supposed to be similar to the
    Digital ICE of the Epsons, I just wondered how it stacks up in

    When I have done a bit of research on the Canon websites I can't find
    any specifications on what the optical densities are that the
    different levels of Fare/Qare for the Canon Scanners.

    I am presuming that seen as they don't mention this they are probably
    nowhere near as good as the Epsons?

    John, Jul 14, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. John

    Alan Browne Guest

    Both color negatives and positives, except kodachrome.

    Ektachrome is fine.

    Negative (really damaged), point at image to see scratch-correction.

    Ick! Get a dedicated film scanner. Nikon CoolScan 5000, 9000 or a
    used, non - II Minolta 5400; or even a Nikon V.
    If they're dedicated film, they're probably better than the Canon's.

    For a quick idea of scan density: where n is the number of bits per
    color channel.

    Scan dens = log 2^(n-1.5). For 16 bits this = 4.36.

    Alan Browne, Jul 14, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. John

    Alan Browne Guest

    Alan Browne, Jul 14, 2007
  4. John

    tony sayer Guest

    tony sayer, Jul 14, 2007
  5. John

    Colin_D Guest

    Density has basically been hijacked as a sales term. Density is a
    logarithmic function similar to decibels. Zero density is specified as
    0.0D (clear film), a density of 4.0 implies a 10,000:1 density range
    (10^4), while a density of 3.4 (10^3.4) implies a range of 2,511:1.
    Given that Dmax of most films is about 2.0, both scanners have more than
    adequate range. IMHO a D of 4.0 is advertising hype.
    FARE works as well, and is basically the same method as ICE in both
    systems. Both work by scanning the film with IR light, to which film
    dyes are transparent, so the resultant image contains IR-blocking items
    like dust and scratches. This image is then used to fill in the
    corresponding areas in the color image with color derived from adjacent
    False presumption. I have a Canon 9950F, and it is every bit as good as
    the Epsons. You can specify low, medium, or high settings for FARE. I
    find that medium does all I require.

    Colin D.
    Colin_D, Jul 15, 2007

  6. Umm, not quite. Slide films have Dmax values as high as 4 and
    sometimes beyond. C41 (color print) film densities are lower,
    usually peaking at 2.5 or so. Log scale, of course.

    You can look it all up in the film data sheets; Fuji's are available
    on the web.

    So, with regard to scanners, C41 film is actually quite a bit
    easier to scan, as it will almost never push a scanner beyond
    its dynamic range. Slide film is another matter.

    rafe b
    Raphael Bustin, Jul 15, 2007
  7. I have seen examples that are even more impressive. This technology
    really works, especially on color negatives.
    Barry Watzman, Jul 17, 2007
  8. John

    John Guest

    I used to think that FARE was not as good as ICE, based on my experiences on a
    I think you're probably right about Fare v Digital ICE on dedicated
    machines. Probably the implementation and the machines with ICE were
    just better designed.

    As far as flatbed scanners go I have been reading quite a few reviews
    on different sites and so far I've arrived at the conclusion that
    there isn't much difference between Fare and ICE as far as dust
    removal is concerned. If anything though from this review I have read,
    it seems that Fare may be slightly better just based on the fact that
    it scans a lot faster using the dust removal facility than the Epson
    machine with ICE.

    You'll have to scroll down to near the bottom of the page. The Epson
    with ICE on took 7 and a half minutes whereas the Canon with Fare took
    under 2 minutes. I think that would be the key selling point for me
    despite the poor reputation of Canon here in the UK for support.

    Maybe newer Epson models have improved with the speeds? This was just
    comparing the Canoscan 9950F to the Perfection 4870. I think both
    these models were from a few years ago, so maybe Epson speeds have
    improved since then. Thing is though I don't have the money for a
    V700/750 so it would still be out of the question anyway even if the
    speeds had improved. I think I am going to be looking at a buying
    used scanner, models like the Epson Perfection 4990, 4870 and 4490 as
    well as the Canon Canoscans 9950F, 9900F, 8600F, 8400F etc. Probably
    be able to afford the Canon model new.

    A lot of the scans I have looked at the dedicated film scanners like
    from the Nikon Coolscans the picture is a lot better I have to admit
    that, even ones with lower resolution scans the picture is miles
    better, so that proves to me that you shouldn't read too much into the
    resolution specs. However I don't think you can scan regular prints
    (positives) with these dedicated ones like the Coolscans can you? They
    are just for negatives and slides right? For me I don't want to spend
    big bucks on a dedicated scanner when the largest majority of the
    scans I will be doing are from prints not negatives or slides.

    Maybe I will just buy a flatbed for now for prints and you never know
    I might get a dedicated film scanner for my old slides and negatives
    at a later date if the flatbed proves not good enough.

    John, Jul 17, 2007
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.