At 8:38 PM +0200 30-9-01, Alex Z wrote:
>Currently I see several choices: Nikon CoolScan IV ED, Minolta Elite (or
>Elite II being released now) for 2900 and 2820 dpi resolutions respectively
>or Polaroid 4000 and Nikon CoolScan 4000ED (which is actually out of my
>budget even for the future :-( ).
BF: The CoolScan IV uses the same software as the CoolScan 4000 ED.
It's very slow on my 500MHz G3 PowerMac, but generally I like it's
features.
BF: The good thing about the CoolScan 4000 ED is that it has GEM to
remove grain. The bad thing is that you really need it! Grain isn't
too bad on Kodachrome 64 scans, but very bad on Kodak Gold 200 scans.
Don't know if the Coolscan IV is as bad at bringing out the grain.
>Price/performance is on the side of Polaroid of course and I read many quite
>favorable tests and reviews for this unit, but I'm struggle about ICE
>featuring. ... probably ICE would be quite useful for me, but then
>resolution/feature
>trade-off should be made...
BF: I have one image (Kodak Gold 200) where ICE and GEM did an
incredible job of removing scratches and grain with no visible
reduction in sharpness. I have another image (Kodachrome 64) where
ICE and GEM made the entire image VERY soft. So apparently they can
work for you or against you depending on the image and/or film.
>BTW, do you think 2800-2900 dpi is good enough for quality A3 sized print
>(about 260-270 dpi
>and that size)
BF: yes it's good enough.
>or 4000 dpi would gain quality noticeably ?
BF: yes you'll notice a difference.
--
======================================================================
Bill Fernandez * User Interface Architect * Bill Fernandez Design
(505) 346-3080 * bill@billfernandez.com *
======================================================================
