Art, a very good response here. And where you mention the Polaroid and it's
possible risk due to corporate financial concerns, you can also purchase the
Microtel version of the scanner, which other than firmware and possibly the
QC grade of the CCD is the same hardware as the Polaroid (but the Polaroid
costs less and comes with Silverfast). Sorry to play Devil's advocate here,
David <g>.
I think I haven't seen any direct comparisons between the Nikon and Polaroid
scanners where they were both judged excellent with advantages to each. If
the Polaroid had been it's current price when I bought my Minolta Elite a
few months ago, Id be happily scanning with it right now, instead of 2800
dpi with ICE.
Pat
----- Original Message -----
From: "Arthur Entlich" <artistic@ampsc.com>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2001 5:01 PM
Subject: Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners: Best
film scanner, period!!!
> Although I very much empathize and support your concerns about planned
> obsolescence in computer equipment, no matter how well it fuels
> capitalism and environmental havoc, I have to say that your demands
> aren't completely reasonable, and you seem to really be fighting with
> yourself in your refusal to make certain changes which ultimately would
> save money.
>
> If I bought a car which required a fuel that was no longer manufactured
> in my country, and the only way I could drive the beast was to import
> the fuel from someplace else at tremendous cost, hassle and maybe even
> risk, I'd cash in my chips on that vehicle and accept the inevitable,
> that the car had been a bad purchase within the realm of the
> marketplace. Many Beta VCR supporters have had to face this reality,
> perhaps with some frustration, since Beta was likely better in quality.
>
> If my reel to reel player failed and the parts were no longer made, and
> my only choice was buying a Revox at thousands of dollars, I might just
> decide it was time to buy a CD player, or whatever.
>
> Regarding your implication that the Nikon 4000 was considerably superior
> to the Polaroid SS 4000; that doesn't seem to hold up in the reviews
> I've read, but Polaroid's current financial state might be cause for
> concern if you worry about obsolescence.
>
> If you very simply are saying that "I absolutely refuse to upgrade"
> then, indeed you are probably stuck with limitations as to your purchase
> options, but then, if that's the case, the weak link might not be the
> LS2000...
>
> Art
>
> Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> >
> > Rob writes:
> >
> > > Where did you get that idea? Worst case scenario
> > > you could use direct cable networking with a laplink
> > > cable for about $20.
> >
> > I currently have a continuous external Internet connection on the NIC.
> >
> > > RAM is about US$40 for 256MB in Australia so I
> > > can't imagine it would be so expensive in France.
> >
> > The machine I have requires special 128 MB DIMM modules or something.
Last time
> > I bought a pair, it cost me around $500, although that was a couple of
years
> > ago. I'd have to buy two pairs to bring the machine up to the maximum
> > configurable RAM of 512 MB.
> >
> > > Why do you need Photoshop and a top quality monitor?
> >
> > Because I have to adjust the scans after making them, and I need
Photoshop to do
> > that, plus a good monitor to be able to see the results.
> >
> > > AFAIK Vuescan supports the LS4000 so you could
> > > dump raw scans from it and port them across to
> > > the NT box.
> >
> > After I've invested in networking hardware.
> >
> > > Or you could buy a Polaroid SS4000 which uses
> > > SCSI and you wouldn't have a problem - just no ICE...
> >
> > I understand the dynamic range is quite limited, though.
>
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at
