Joel,
>> You're a bit like my older brother who used to say "Let's see who can think
>> of a higher number. You go first." <g>
My brother is younger, but bigger :-(
>> 1. Information rendering from lower "zones" (i.e., shadow penetration) is
>> exemplary
Better
>> 2. No grain aliasing and capable of very sharp *final* images without a
>> penalty in grain emphasis
Better
>> 3. Reasonably fast
For 35mm, better
>> 4. Accurate color balance: a little bias to magenta or red with extremely
>> low-key images, but easily correctable
No magenta bias and thus MUCH better
>> 5. Range of rendered values can allow one to shoot E6 where previously only
>> C-41 might be suitable
I don't scan enough negative so I can't say either way
>> 6. Even sharpness across entire image (I had a Nikon LS-20 which drove me
>> nuts from being sharp in the middle and soft at the corners, so though one
>> might view this as just "normal," to me it has restored mental health)
Hmm, that's not fair Better for 35mm and the SS4000 can't scan anything
bigger. SS120 wins :-)
>> 7. In general, the SS4000 seems to make slide very good scanning film. With
>> previous generations of scanners, I think we were forced to resort to print
>> just to be able to get something decent. I certainly was and was quite
>> unhappy about it.
Same response as above. Not enough colour negative scans to comment on how
good or bad it is.
> In general, the SS4000 makes a soft, unassuming scan, like a darkroom
print
>> on a #1 paper. It seems to get almost ALL the information off the film and
>> allows one to maximize one's use of Photoshop (or whatever) to "find the art
>> in the raw material."
Send it back for repair or engage the autofocus the SS4000 is in no way
soft. I'm kidding and do appreciate the visual effect you are trying to
describe. The SS120 would tend not to produce the effect you describe it
definitely gives a sharper scan, but this may be more down to improved
contrast than actual sharpness.
Ian Lyons
