Jack Phipps wrote:
Actually, the Nikon 8000 has a diffuse light source.
Jack Phipps
Applied Science Fiction
That's one for Nikon, only half a dozen to go, and they'll finally have
it figured out ;-p
Art
.
Jack
-Original Message-
From: Austin Franklin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 4:18 PM
To: Jack Phipps
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Nikon LS-40 vs Polaroid SS4000
Jack,
LEDs are considered a diffuse light source, as opposed to a point light
source?
Austin
Hi Jack,
I think, more than you may realize, I agree with you.
I think any scanner can benefit from the dICE trio, and I was being
quite straight with you when I said I respect what your company is doing
and the ingenuity of the concepts.
However, we seem to be mixing apples and oranges,
The few people who still consider me sane are probably going to think me
unbalanced by the end of this posting.
Yes, Jack does indeed sell dICE. He signs his name with Applied Science
Fiction, which is indeed the company that owns the rights to dICE, ROC,
GEM, and a few other acronyms I can't
Listen. I'm not for or against any scanner in particular. I am pleased with
my Polaroid to date. As I stated previously, this is the only scanner I've
owned and used, and you must admit I have limited my comments re scanners
to that unit (the SS4000). Does that sound fair so far?
If Digital Ice
I use it on an LS2000 it saves me 3-5 hours a week. That's worth
real money! There is very slight image degradation but far less than
in the transition from pixels to ink.
David Hoffman
Is there a control to it, to where it can directed to work on just a given
part of the image, or be
All or nothing deal.
Maris
- Original Message -
From: Tris Schuler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 8:06 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Nikon LS-40 vs Polaroid SS4000
I use it on an LS2000 it saves me 3-5 hours a week. That's worth
real money
I know you love your Polaroid scanner. It is a great scanner. But, it
will
be a better scanner with Digital ICE.
I don't agree with that. Digital Ice is needed more so on a scanner that
uses a point light source, and is not near as needed on a scanner with a
diffuse light source, and the
Tris wrote:
By the way, I would like to use Digital Ice once just to see how well it
works, but I'm rather confident I'd be disappointed in the results. I
assume the before-and-after pictures I've seen are best-case examples, and
they didn't impress me much.
Tris,
I made some examples a
Arthur Entlich wrote:
In my haste, I made a few errors which made reading this difficult:
It should read:
If you can get a SS4000 for a good price, I would grab it. It was,
and is, a great scanner. Both units are supported by Silverfast,
both units can use the full features of
: [filmscanners] Re: Nikon LS-40 vs Polaroid SS4000
Is there one at anywhere near the price of the SS4000/SS4000+? ;-)
Art
Moreno Polloni wrote:
I may be biased because I own the SS4000s, but even if I was hired by
Applied Science fiction I would not change to an inferior scanner
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 19:14:19 -0500
From: Hemingway, David J [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gees Al, we introduced the 4000 Plus only weeks ago. How elderly can that be
He's referring to the old, now-obsolete,
Sure, the SS4000+ is a very nice product, and if you're in that market
as a first time purchaser, or upgrading from a 2700 dpi scanner, you'll
be very happy with it. But, the SS4000 is no slouch. People who bought
it at closeout got the best buy in a prosumer film scanner available.
And even
The current 4000 dpi Polaroid scanners (in my opinion) are about as good as
CCD scanners get. I scan Kodachromes frequently with my (elderly) SS4000
and get all the shadow detail I see on the light table, with very little
noise. A drum scan may be a bit more open at the bottom, but the Polaroid
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
After problems with 2 separate Minolta Elite IIs (which I won't bother
repeating in this post), I'm contemplating jumping ship and going for
either for a Nikon LS-40 or a Polaroid Sprintscan 4000 (some dealers
here in the UK are still advertising it). In my price
Al,
I'm attracted by the extra resolution, low shadow noise, good depth of
field and SCSI interface of the SS4000 (and Polaroids general customer
service) but I have found ICE invaluable at times
The Polaroid is bundled with SilverFast Ai and HDR. A forthcoming version of
SilverFast will
Al,
For what it's worth I have an SS4000 (not the plus) which I like very much.
I've scanned a variety of slides and negs with what I consider to be
excellent results. The only comparison I can make is to a Canon FS2740 and,
to me, the difference is significant. I am using VueScan and am also
Al -
I just bought a Polaroid Sprintscan 4000 Plus, which is a significant
improvement over the old 4000. It is available here in the US for $1200,
about $500 less than the Nikon LS-40 (CoolScan 4000ED?).
I'm pretty new to filmscanning, but have had absolutely no trouble with
this machine or
Gees Al, we introduced the 4000 Plus only weeks ago. How elderly can that be
!!! :)
Great sharp scans at Max OD in a single pass!!
Good focus across then slide!!
Great software bundle!
What more could you ask for??
Ahh, dust removal you say. It's a coming from Polaroid and Lasersoft. See
Al -
I just bought a Polaroid Sprintscan 4000 Plus, which is a significant
improvement over the old 4000. It is available here in the US for $1200,
about $500 less than the Nikon LS-40 (CoolScan 4000ED?).
I'm pretty new to filmscanning, but have had absolutely no trouble with
this machine or
Firewire may or may not be an improvement--SCSI strikes me as the best
going at present. The increased Dmax would be welcome, if in fact that's a
real-world figure. I've been pleased with the shadow detail I retrieve with
the SS4000, though. I shoot a lot at night (pitch dark, not that
Tris Schuler wrote:
Firewire may or may not be an improvement--SCSI strikes me as the best
going at present. The increased Dmax would be welcome, if in fact that's a
Astonishing conclusion.
SCSI is old fashined for a long time already. SCSI is expensive,
demands heavy 50 or 66 wires cables
Tris Schuler wrote:
So far I've read not one horror story authored by a Polaroid user.
Neither have I. That was another (and important) reason I finally
decided on a Polaroid scanner, that plus the helpfulness and easy
availability of David Hemingway, and his (and others') assurances that
Tris Schuler wrote:
So far I've read not one horror story authored by a Polaroid user.
Neither have I. That was another (and important) reason I finally
decided on a Polaroid scanner, that plus the helpfulness and easy
availability of David Hemingway, and his (and others') assurances
Tris Schuler wrote:
Firewire may or may not be an improvement--SCSI strikes me as the best
going at present. The increased Dmax would be welcome, if in fact that's a
Astonishing conclusion.
SCSI is old fashined for a long time already. SCSI is expensive,
demands heavy 50 or 66 wires
25 matches
Mail list logo
