Tom Scales wrote:
I had an SS4000 and it with an LS-400 (4000ED). The Polaroid is a better
scanner. Better shadow detail. Crisper -- no depth of field problem.
I'd certainly agree on the depth of field but I didn't find the SS4000 had very good
shadow detail (I'm talking slides here). The
contemplating bargain purchase- apart from glowing review at
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/DSS/DSSP.HTM not much else to go
on; I'm running a powerbook 233 with a big screen so limited RAM (192Mb)
and disc space
The Scan Speed was the first Minolta 12 bit scanner. It was soon
Your choice makes some sense, because you aren't shooting BW film,
although the scan times or potential banding and poor DOF still are
there no matter which film stock you use.
Although the person asking didn't state which BW films his client is
using, if it is true BW, and not chromogenic C-41
Of the three, and yes, they all do provide 2.25x2.25 film scans, the
only one I would consider is the SS120, especially for real B+W films
(as opposed to chromogenic c-41 process films).
Both the Minolta and Nikon have dice (IR cleaning) which does not
function with true silver based BW films.
Thank you for the responses. I will pass them along to my client.
Francoise Frigola
Original Inkjet Prints in Multiple ~ Sculpture
http://www.pe.net/~franou/
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
In the last few weeks, histograms of certain scans made on my SS4000 are
showing a very narrow spike (or sometimes 2 spikes) at the lower pixel
levels, usually in blue and usually near level 0, level 1 or some level less
than 9. The images I am scanning that display this spike are generally
