Ok, if that is the case then I stand corrected; but I was under the
impression that the Coolscan 8000ED has been is continues to be on backorder
such that no one has actually been able to get their hands on one or has any
idea when they will be really available. :-) I must admit that when I wrote
my reply, I was not thinking of the 8000 ED but of the 4000 ED and the
Polaroid 35mm 4000ppi scanners, so I do accept your correction of my
statement.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Pat Perez
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 8:13 PM
To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
Subject: Re: filmscanners: What is 4,000 scanner quality like in
practice.
Actually, Nikon has the Coolscan 8000, and Polaroid is now also shipping
(it's name escapes me) a medium format, 4000 dpi scanner. The Nikon has the
ASF ICE^3 suite.
Pat
----- Original Message -----
From: "Laurie Solomon" <laurie@advancenet.net>
> I believe you may be mistaken or misinformed. The new 4000 ppi scanners
are
> 35mm film scanners and not medium format scanners; hence they will not
> handle 120 films
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> [mailto:owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of TREVITHO@aol.com
> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 4:52 PM
> To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> Subject: filmscanners: What is 4,000 scanner quality like in practice.
>
>
>
> In a message dated 23/5/01 9:28:55 am, Jerry.Oostrom@Alcatel.nl writes:
>
> << If you ever want to use your scanner for other purposes (full res
> scanning
> etc., full quality), then you are better off with another more expensive
> scanner with ICE or FARE (dust removal algorithms), >>
>
> Apparently some photographers are using 4000 ppi scanners for digital
stock
> picture submissions. The new 4000 scanners from Polaroid and Nikon which
> take
> 120 film make this an interesting proposition for me. However, I am
> concerned
> on several points and Cornwall is not the place to find these scanners in
> action.
>
> Dust seems to be a big concern. Just how much time is spent dust busting a
> scan? A test I did on PCD was giving me about 15 minutes work on dust
alone
> which is far too long.
>
> Does ICE lose scan quality?
>
> Is a cheap, if you call £3,000 cheap, scanner a workable substitute for a
> drum scan?
>
> I can currently get 50Mb CGI drum scans at £7.50 each which are absolutely
> spotless.
>
> If I got a 4000 desktop scanner of my own it would need to produce about
ten
> fully finished scans per hour to be worth considering. Is this possible
> considering the amount of time that dust busting might take?
>
> Yours
>
>
>
> Bob Croxford
> Cornwall
> England
>
> www.atmosphere.co.uk
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at
