Re:
a few months ago I bought an LS-30 at a camera collectors fair
(35ukpounds) sold as fully working. This scanner had the same error
symptoms, turned out to need a re-grease on both mechanisms followed by
an optics clean when scans turned out misty.
and
I bought an LS-2000 at another fair (15ukpounds) sold as untested - this
one didn't need the regrease (did it anyway - prevention's better than
cure) but had same dirty optics
*********
"re-grease" ... if that means adding more lubricant ... is NOT the
solution. You have to get the old grease OFF. And the only way to do
that is to TOTALLY disassemble the unit, almost down the very last
screw, and clean (REALLY clean) everything, with solvents. Then put it
back together and relubricate, of course. At the same time you can
(must or should) clean the optics, which really means the lower front
mirror. When I do this, I remove the mirror totally, so I have a piece
of glass, and I can clean it edge-to-edge, totally. Just wipe the
mirror across a [VERY] soft (can't emphasize that enough, SOFT .... this
is a front-surface mirror) cloth WET with Windex. Then wipe it across a
VERY soft (VERY, VERY soft) dry cloth.
Yes, it is possible that the optics are so bad that the CCD doesn't even
detect the light source at all (the POST self test does test for exactly
this; that the scanner sees all light sources (white (which I think is
RGB all on at once, but might be a separate white LED), red, blue,
green, Infra-red). This will cause failure of the scanner to pass POST.
I see it on a regular basis. But long before that your images will
look like crap. One of the best pages on that is here:
http://www.vad1.com/photo/dirty-scanner/
Compare the two images: Dirty optics & clean optics. I've seen much
worse, actually, before the CCD doesn't even detect the light source.
It is hard to overstate how fantastically good a clean, working LS-2000
(or even an LS-30) works. I have some samples that will blow your socks
off. The earlier models are no good, because they are slow and they
don't have digial ICE. And, incredibly, except for speed, the later
models are not much better. Sure, the LS-30/2000's are "only" 2,700
dpi. But that is TEN MEGAPIXELS. The later models are 4,000 DPI, which
is about 23 megapixels. BUT THERE ISN'T THAT MUCH DETAIL PRESENT IN A
35mm IMAGE TO BEGIN WITH. And, really, in some ways, that is WORSE:
because if you have a 4000 dpi image sensor, and you realize that 4,000
dpi is a joke, and so you want to cut it down, you only have two choices:
1. Use every other pixel (2,000 dpi)
2. Use "interpolated" pixels
Well, interpolated pixels are kind of a joke also, and 2,000 dpi is only
about 4 megapixels, it's not enough resolution. So, in some ways, the
2,700 dpi of the LS-30/2000 is actually superior to the 4,000 dpi of the
later models (the LS-40 is 2,900 dpi; all other later models are 4,000 dpi).
[No, I have not worked on an LS-1000; I looked at one once, but could
not figure out how to take it apart. For a number of reasons they are
pretty much worthless these days, usually on E-Bay they don't sell at
all, at any price. They have no digital ICE, and the software only
works on Windows 9x, both of those are serious limitiations. And to
scan negatives you have to use the FH-2, which is a royal pain.]