[filmscanners] RE: Nikon LS-40 vs Polaroid SS4000

["Jack Phipps" <JPhipps@asf.com>]

Hello Art--

Yes we do get a lot of comments about our name. This is a fun place to work,
and I enjoy what I do.

I can't help but notice that you do love your Polaroid! ;) I should have
looked closer at your message. I didn't mean to imply that the Acer/Benq was
superior to your Polaroid. I was responding that, yes, there are scanners in
the price range of the Polaroid that have Digital ICE. Even though, superior
may be a subjective term. Can you get better scans from and Acer/Benq or
Umax than with the Polaroid? The answer to that question is: it depends. It
depends on the image being scanned, how it will be used and the amount of
time you have to prepare it for use.

There are many excellent scanners on the market that easily out perform the
Polaroid, the extremely expensive Durst Sigma comes to mind. The Durst
incorporates Digital ICE not to overcome a problem, but to produce better
scans. I believe that is what we are all after, better scans. You will get a
better scan when you add Digital ICE to a scanner. Don't ask me, ask Kodak,
Noritsu, Durst, Gretag, Agfa or any of the other companies that improve
their scans with Digital ICE. No matter what the light source, no matter
what software you use, you will get better scans.

Many times Digital ICE corrects problems that cannot be corrected in a few
minutes or even a few hours using the clone tool. New film, old film,
professional film, consumer film, dip and dunk processing, roller
processing, film carefully taken care of or just thrown in the drawer, film
will have surface defects that have to be corrected.

I know you love your Polaroid scanner. It is a great scanner. But, it will
be a better scanner with Digital ICE.

Good luck scanning.

Jack Phipps
Applied Science Fiction

-----Original Message-----
From: Arthur Entlich [mailto:artistic-1@shaw.ca]

Jack,

I respect your affiliation, and I respect ASF, even for the  great name
your company cam e up with.  I find the concepts behind your company's
software absolutely ingenious as well.

But to imply, heck, to state, that the 2740S is a "superior scanner"
relative to the SS4000 or SS4000+ because of their license of the dICE
trio, is, well, I don't even know the terms to use.

It would be one thing if dirt dust and scratches were a big problem to
begin with when using the Polaroid scanners (which they are not, as
attested to by many who use them) but, the clean up can be handled in
the vast majority of cases in a few minutes of Photoshop or any other
program with a clone tool.

To call a film scanner "superior" because it has cleaning software built
in (and I don't know if the registration problem has been resolved with
the IR scan done separately, or not - perhaps you can comment further)
when it has nearly 1/3th lower resolution (at optical spec at the CCD),
and worse d-max and dynamic range numbers, meaning noisier shadow
detail, is a very odd type of judgment.

The Acer/Benq Scanwit 2720s and 2740S is very good scanner value, and I
have always stated so.  But value is dependent upon need of result, as
well.  As you know if you have read my views on this list, I have
promoted the Acer/Benq film scanners many times, and I also have
indicated the Minolta Dual II (without dICE) is a potentially good value
should they get a good one.

On the other hand, Minolta Elite II, with dICE is not a good value at
its current pricing, IMO, because it still has the same problems as the
Minolta Dual II, and it cost twice as much.  In this case, and to some
extent the Nikon as well, seem to suffer from the greater need syndrome.
  That being a technology was added to the product to overcome a flaw
(exaggerated dust, dirt, scratches, and grain (I think I'm going to coin
this "DDSG" from now on) is promoted as a "feature".  Although we still
have the clone tool to deal with DD and S, with both of these scanners,
for whatever reason, they require both dICE and GEM to "fix" a problem
some scanners don't have to begin with.

I have no problem in directing people toward value.  Both Acer/Benq
models show this.  But there is a vast difference between good value and
superior product, so let's no confuse the two here.

Art



Jack Phipps wrote:

> Hi Art. Yes the Acer 2740S, now the Benq 2740S and the UMax scanners are
all
> less than the price of the SS4000/SS4000+. They all have Digital ICE.
>
> Jack
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arthur Entlich [mailto:artistic-1@shaw.ca]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 2:34 PM
> To: Jack Phipps
> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Nikon LS-40 vs Polaroid SS4000
>
>
> Is there one at anywhere near the price of the SS4000/SS4000+? ;-)
>
> Art
>
> Moreno Polloni wrote:
>
>
>>>>I may be biased because I own the SS4000s, but even if I was hired by
>>>>
>>>>
>>Applied Science fiction I would not change to an inferior scanner for the
>>sake of digital ICE. :-)<<
>>
>>Would you, however, change to a superior scanner with ICE?
>>
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body