Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000?

[Barbara & Martin Greene <martbarb@earthlink.net>]

Jim

I have started to be pleased with the Sprintscan, especially considering the
$1,200 difference saved.  Unlike the Nikon, which has great software,
mastering PolaColor, Silverfast, and Vuescan, all having terrible
documentation, takes a good bit of time.  I am now getting very good scans
with better color than I got with the Nikon, albeit spending at least one
half an hour per scan to remove the spots.

Martin

> From: jimhayes <jimhayes@jymis.com>
> Reply-To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 09:16:36 -0600
> To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000?
> 
> Of course, waying the other pos and cons, i.e. technical support, reliability
> issues
> Polaroid vs Nikon.
> 
> Barbara & Martin Greene wrote:
> 
>> Jim
>> 
>> I have not done a count, but I'm sure that I also find from 200- 1000 spots
>> on every scan, no matter how careful I am, and I live in a humid climate,
>> but work under much less clean conditions.   I've been preoccupied with the
>> dust problem for some time.  Some people don't seem to consider it a big
>> problem, but that must be because they do not spot scans from slides using
>> the Acutal Pixels view while making 13x19 prints.  I'd hoped that a new
>> SS4000 purchased at Ecost would do a good enough job and save me lots of
>> bucks.  But, the comparison between using ICE on a Nikon LS 4000 and not ICE
>> on the Sprintscan is too dramatic to ignore, especially since I have not
>> been able to see any significant difference in quality.
>> 
> 
> --
> Jim Hayes
> 
> 
>