Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000?

["Tom Scales" <tscales@attglobal.net>]

Martin,

I own both scanners and, honestly, have not found the Polaroid to be better
than the Nikon.  I have never scanned slides, but with negatives, I have to
spend a few minutes cleaning up each image.  On the Nikon, I can use Clean
and don't have to do it.

That said, I love the Polaroid.  The amount of work isn't that big a deal.
The KEY is to keep the scanner covered when you don't use it.

Tom
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barbara & Martin Greene" <martbarb@earthlink.net>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 7:41 AM
Subject: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000?


> I've been told that the Polaroid Sprintscan 4000 does not exaggerate dust
> and crud to the same extent that the Nikon LS 4000 does.  I've examined
> Photo CD scans and found that, while there is much less, nevertheless a
good
> deal of spots show up.  Perhaps, dust is a problem in every scanner.  I'd
> appreciate if users of the Sprintscan would tell me just how much stuff
> shows up in their slide scans.  With a reasonably clean slide, just how
much
> work has to be done using the rubber stamp in Photoshop to get a really
> clean 13 x 19 print?  Also, if you use a dust removal software program,
such
> as Polacolor, Silverfast, or vuescan, how helpful is that?  If such a
> program is used, to what extent does it soften the image and can that be
> restored using unsharp mask.
>
> Martin