Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 ppi film scanner

[Arthur Entlich <artistic@ampsc.com>]

I think categorically, anyone who can pick up the SS4000 for $450 US is
a happy camper, and I don't think many would argue that.

The question is how it fits with other scanners in other places than the
US.  Here in Canada it is at par or a little more expensive than the
Canon FS4000, so that changes the geography somewhat.

  From everything I have seen, and from those who have used both these
scanners, between the Canon FS 4000 and Polaroid SS4000 each with their
native software, the Polaroid SS4000 will probably better serve anyone
who shoots slides and doesn't abuse them physically, due to improved
dynamic range or at least low noise in the shadow regions.  Since
negative film is less demanding in this area, and is more likely to be
damaged in processing or storage, if the color rendition one gets is
good with the Canon, it might have an advantage with the FARE feature.

Again, the SS4000 appears to limit surface defects from showing up in
scans, and does have a software solution to dust and scratches, so its
not as cut and dry a decision as it may first appear to be.

Art
petru.lauric@rcn.com wrote:

 >>I do not want to say that FS4000 is better choice
 >>but IMO scanner without infrared channel is just a mistake. You will 
spend
 >>hours
 >>on dust and scratches removing.
 >>
 >
 > Sorry, I disagree. I recently purchased a SS4000 and, trust me, 
getting such a great scanner for $450 WAS NOT A MISTAKE!!!
 > I don't have a ton of old dusty film and I find that scanning new 
slides/negs is very easy. On average I spend about 10 seconds using a 
StaticMaster brush and maybe 2-3 minutes de-spotting in Photoshop. Which 
is nothing compared to the time I spend tweaking color, contrast etc.
 >
 >
 >
 >
 > .
 >
 >