Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000?

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

David,

While I clearly agree with your point that multiscanning is not a panacea,
that review is against older scanners. I have no idea if multipass improves
a scan on a Nikon LS-4000, for example, but I don't think there is a way to
extrapolate that review to say that single pass on the SS4000 is better than
multipass on the LS-4000.

I own them both, and honestly, the results are, at least for this amateur,
about dead even.  The Nikon is just easier to use because of the roll film
adapter and has the convenience of ICE.

Is it worth the difference in price?  Nope, but I'm happy with them both.

Tom

From: "Hemingway, David J"


> Steve,
> I need to strongly disagree with the below statement. I would refer you to
> the review by Bruce Fraser in MacWorld of about a year and half ago as
well
> as the recent review. Both reviews say the maximum OD from the SS4000
> available with a single pass are at least as good as the other scanners
with
> 16X multiscan.
> Additionally as Ed Hamrick developed the SS4000 driver, he has said that
> there is very little if any improvement with multiscanning on the SS4000.
> This is because of superior components and design. If there is little or
no
> noise you don't have to multi-scan to get rid of it.
> One of my personal disappointments has been the increased perception that
> multi-scanning is good. Multiscannng is used to remove noise. If the
design
> does not produce noise you don't need to multiscan. You will eventually
see
> multiscanning in Polaroid scanners, not necessarily to produce better
scans
> but to satisfy this misconceived impression. Many people purchase
equipment
> of all types by comparing published specifications. Particularly when
> dealing with scanners you can be very mis-informed.
> Regards
> David
>