----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Sleep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2000 4:49 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Poor shadows - Monitor limitations?
>
> I stand by my conclusions that, for correctly exposed originals and sensible
black
> point settings, the Polaroid 4000 is the lowest noise unit I have looked at
so far,
> albeit with some compression of dark tones. Like all CCD scanners, it
> produces noise, but nearly all of it is below DMin on most films and can be
> safely discarded by setting a black point which retains virtually all of the
image
> info. Now if you care to argue with that, please go ahead, as it derives
> from evidence, not innuendo.
>
> Regards
>
> Tony Sleep
This sounds great but doesn't actually say anything. Too many unquantified
caveats. Most people could substitute their favorite scanner without otherwise
changing a word.
For example, what do the following mean?
1) "correctly exposed original"
2) "sensible black point setting"
3) "some compression of dark tones"
4) "nearly all of it (noise) below Dmin"
5) "on most films can be safely discarded"
6) "which retains virtually all of the image"
I see only two facts in your paragraph:
a) The Polaroid has visible noise, and
b) it compressions shadow detail.
So for these actual facts, I agree.
The rest is unquantifiable and wholly subjective. Depending on what you mean
by "sensible", "correctly", "some", "nearly all", "most", "virtually all" I may
agree or disagree. I honestly haven't a clue.
Personally, I think the Polaroid is a decent scanner. Most of the current
generation are. Hopefully someday they won't need so many caveats.
Cheers,
Byron
