Re: filmscanners: 35mm filmscanner choice

[RogerMillerPhoto@aol.com]

Jim, if you really expect to print 11x14s, you need a 4000 ppi scanner.  It's 
just a matter of deciding which one.  If you buy a 2700 ppi scanner and want 
to send the required 300 ppi data to your printer, you can only print a 
maximum of a 9x13.5.  Since there's some cropping by a slide mount, and since 
you'll undoubtedly want to do some additional cropping yourself, the final 
maximum print size will be even less.  Don't have any false hopes that some 
magic software sharpening system can make a 2700 ppi scanner as good as a 
4000 ppi one.  It can't.  Sharpening is a necessary evil needed to remove 
some of the artifacts of the scanning process, but it can't put detail where 
none existed before.  That said, most of the list members here do not have 
4000 ppi scanners and a lot of them will claim that they can do 11x14s.  But 
the theory says otherwise.  I suppose it depends on how critical you are when 
viewing the final print, but with the price of the Polaroid SS4000 running 
less than $700US (I assume the $200 rebate is still in effect), it ought to 
be a prime consideration for you.  I own one, so maybe I'm biased, but I 
bought my SS4000 when it cost double what it cost now and it was the best 
choice for me at that time since I also require large prints.

Do you need automatic dust spotting in a scanner?  Yes, if you normally store 
your slides/negatives unprotected on a well traveled hallway floor.  But, if 
you have your film processed at a professional level lab and scan immediately 
when you receive it back, then you can get buy just fine without it.  In the 
latter case, buy a Static Master brush, or equivalent, to brush off the 
occasional dust spot before scanning (about 15 to 20 percent of my slides 
require this 10 second treatment) and you won't have a problem with dust at 
all.

I'm only familiar with the SS4000, so I can't comment on the other scanners 
you mentioned.  At first, I too, worried about Polaroid not being around to 
service their products.  But I've decided (maybe "rationalized" is a better 
word) that history shows that companies in similar financial trouble get 
bought up and seldom go bankrupt and disappear completely.  I've put my money 
where my mouth is by buying a $3000US Polaroid last Friday.  By the way, I 
bought mine from www.pagecomputer.com.  They not only had the best price, but 
they also extend the manufacturer's warranty by an addition 6 months.  That 
helps me sleep a little easier, too.

In a message dated 7/28/2001 5:08:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
BeckettJB@aol.com writes:


> 35mm scanner. I have read most of the online reviews as well as list 
> traffic on the scanners which I think would meet my needs. (The best I can 
> buy for around $1,000, thus eliminating the Nikon 4000 dpi from the 
> running) 
> It seems my choices are
>
> the Nikon IV ED, Polaroid SS 40000 or the Canon FS4000, 
>
> The Polaroid scanner offers much for the money, but no FARE or ICE, yet 
> good 
> software, ie Silverfast. (Polaroid's current financial situation certainly 
> makes me a bit nervous as well)
> I have read several negative comments on sharpness about the new Canon 
> scanner yet read a reasonably positive review on Imaging Resources (Dated 
> 6/27/01) which seem to address the sharpness issue. 
> (http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN/FS4000/FS40A.HTM)
>
> Last but not least the new "low end" nikon IV ED is tempting with ICE3 but 
> only 2900 dpi. Will the decreased resolution of the Nikon be offset by the 
> Genuine Fractals software??? Will it make a difference in the quality of 
> the 
> final output (see below)
>
> I plan to use the scanner to produce 11 x 14 quadtone prints via 
> piezography 
> from 35mm negatives, both color and black and white. (as well as maybe  
> some 
> color work)
>
> Would greatly appreciate input from owners of any of the above scanners
>
> Thanks,
> James Beckett