argv@danheller.com wrote:
>>Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 19:14:19 -0500
>>From: "Hemingway, David J" <HEMINGD@polaroid.com>
>>----------------------------------------
>>Gees Al, we introduced the 4000 Plus only weeks ago. How elderly can that be
>>
>
> He's referring to the old, now-obsolete, hard-to-find-but-cheap-as-hell
> SS4000 (i.e., not the 4K+). So, to answer his question:
>
>
>>Also, the SS4000 is
>>now quite elderly in scanner terms. Has anyone had direct experience
>>of both these scanners, preferably on dense slides like Kodachrome?
>>
Elderly? Obsolete? Hmmm... interesting terminology. Is a 2000 car with
nearly every feature currently available in the marketplace elderly and
obsolete? If so, you can give me one ;-). Just because the Polaroid
SS4000 scanner was the product that the other manufacturers had to catch
up to, hardly makes it elderly and obsolete now that some of those other
manufacturers have perhaps caught up to it and Polaroid has issued an
improved version.
If the Polaroid SS4000 is "obsolete" it would then be a logical
conclusion that so is the Minolta Dual II (2820 dpi) released about a
year ago, Minolta Elite II, just released 2 months ago, with its 2820
resolution, the Acer Scanwit 2740, the Canon FS2710 and the just
released FS2720, all at about 2700 dpi. And let's not forget that the
Nikon web pages still considers the Coolscan III, Super Coolscan 2000 as
current, and that their newest Coolscan IV ED is 2900 dpi. Heck, while
we're at it, how about the Canon FS4000, which is "just" 4000 dpi and
has equal or worse shadow response, and the Nikon 4000ED is also "just"
4000 dpi. I guess everything on the market is obsolete by those standards.
>
> David mentioned that dust-removal will come from lasersoft soon, but
> this is a software implementation, which concerns me greatly. I don't
> see how it can possibly detect and repair dust very well and without
> compromising the quality of the image (i.e. sharpness). Whatever the
> answer is, I don't see how it can do a better job than using an infrared
> light to detect and "see through" dust the way ICE does. Can anyone who
> is a flag-waver for silverfast come to its defense? Polaroid is going to
> have a hard time having software complete with infrared technology, at
> least at face value.
Since the final version of the software doesn't exist, its a little
difficult to make any definitive statements. I would say that it
doesn't have to be as good or better as dICE, because it is working in a
different environment. Your current choices of 35mm film scanners with
dICE are Nikon (all models), Minolta Elite, Acer Scanwit 2740. Canon
has FARE, it's own version on the FS4000. Both the Nikon and the
Minolta suffer from exaggerated dust, dirt and grain, making dICE that
much more important. The Acer apparently has had registration problems
with the visible light and IR scans, and the Canon IR system has spawned
varied views of its effectiveness.
As you know from owning and using it, the Polaroid SS4000/4000+ tend to
diminish dust, grain and scratches during the scan to begin with. The
software is faster as well.
As to dICE "seeing through" the dust and dirt, well, if the IR scan saw
through it, I suspect it wouldn't be able to detect it to remove it.
I'm not convinced of this.
>
> Also, if I buy a SS4000+ that comes with silverfast, do I get the new
> silverfast upgrades when they're released, or do I have to buy separately?
>
That is something someone else will need to answer.
> That said, I have been running my entire photo business from my older
> SS4000 (), so I know what I'll be
> dealing with if I upgrade to the SS4000+. It's a fantastic scanner, and
> I would be quite eager to pick up the extra shadow detail in the new model.
> I would buy it in a second, but....I'm still curious about some downright
> hard evidence about just how well the ICE works using a direct comparison
> of the scanners of two slides. Show me two side-by-side high-res output
> files, please. Anyone?
>
Possible the only anyone who might be able to do this is David H., since
we're all under non-disclosure.
> I also want to know the downsides. From what I know, the ICE takes up
> considerably more time to batch-scan than with it turned off. How much
> time? What other downsides?
>
Unfortunately, your questions are just a bit premature, but not unfair.
I suspect once the product is nearer to release you'll have some answers.
I think people need to look at the value they are getting versus their
needs. The SS4000+ is about $300-400 US cheaper than the Nikon, it
comes with Insight and Silverfast, doesn't suffer from limited depth of
field, has good shadow detail with low noise, and it tends to suppress
dust, dirt and scratches. With the addition of the new dust, dirt and
scratch software, the dICE versus no dICE becomes less of an issue.
Speaking philosophically, I don't think anyone should buy a product
based upon the promises of a manufacturer of a future released product.
If the dust software is the pivotal factor in your decision, it is
probably best to wait for the final release to judge. However, if, as
it stands the SS4000/4000+ merit consideration for their value as they
stand, then the dust software is just an added bonus.
Art
> --
> --dan
>
> Photo Gallery:
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
