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

["Arthur Entlich" <artistic-1@shaw.ca>]

Hi Jack,

I think, more than you may realize, I agree with you.

I think any scanner can benefit from the dICE trio, and I was being
quite straight with you when I said I respect what your company is doing
and the ingenuity of the concepts.

However, we seem to be mixing apples and oranges, somewhat.

Regarding why companies like Kodak, Noritsu, Durst, Gretag, Agfa
etc. would find dICE such a good selling point and so useful is because
we are speaking about high volume commercial scanners here. Labs deal
with film that has been stored under all sorts of conditions.  It can
have everything from fungus to pizza sauce on it. Further, it their case
they don't want to have to do re-dos, have to do careful cleaning and
they certainly don't even want to think about a workflow that requires
Photoshop touchup.  They also use fully calibrated products, AI
intelligence in their scanner software, and one software upgrade may
cost considerably more than any of the scanners discussed in this list
regularly.

People have to consider issues of price, scan quality and other features
in making their decisions.  I would very much like to see an IR scan
ability built into the Polaroid scanner, because then, I could state
pretty much hands down that it was the best 35mm CCD film scanner in
that price range for both people who have film with DDSG problems as
well as people, like myself, who have few problems with DDSG (for those
just joining, that's my coinage for Dust, dirt, scratches and grain).

As it now stands, people who have real DDSG problems are best off with
dICE.  The Polaroid new software will bring the competition closer, but
it is not a perfect solution.

The real question, and one I cannot answer, is what would happen to the
price of the Polaroid SS4000+ IF it had the circuitry for IR scanning
and also paid the licensing fee to ASF for the dICE trio?  Would people
pay $100, $200, $300 or $400 extra for this benefit?  I don't know.

The Minolta Dual II and the Elite II, other than the Elite II having a
slight advantage in bit depth 14 bit versus 12 (the same difference
between the SS4000 and SS4000+) seem to be basically the same unit
except the Elite has the IR circuit and the dICE trio.  Here in Canada,
the Minolta Dual II sells for under $600 CAN (It has dropped about $100
since it was first released a year ago).  The Elite II is $1200 CAN,
over TWICE the price. That's a huge difference in price, I think, and as
I stated before, I do believe the Minolta "needs" dICE to deal with DDSG
much more so than other cold cathode scanners.

Discussing the Durst Sigma on this list is fine but let's put it into
perspective.  Its a high speed scanner for lab use, which comes with a
21" monitor, and costs?  I'm guessing $10,000 to $50,000 (I can't find a
price on line).  I would HOPE it produced a better scan than my $1200 US
SS4000+.

I'm not saying the dICE is bad, or it isn't a great idea or even that I
wouldn't mind having it, because, it would be very nice to have.  In the
same way that having those small headlight wipers on my car would be
nice to have.  But, I'd rather pay that money for a rear windshield
wiper instead, or more comfortable seats, and get out and clean the
headlights at the gas station.

The issue is, what do I have to give up on the front end of the scanner
to have dICE on the back end?  Obviously, IR circuitry and your license
cost money.  I don't know how much.  So far, it seems that Polaroid has
placed their resources and costs into the scanner itself, and as such
the $1200 US you pay for a SS4000+ goes to scanner and software
(Silverfast and IT8 slide, which is a several hundred dollar product
when bought separately).  Of all the scanners I've worked with to date,
the Polaroid least needs dICE or GEM, for whatever reasons.

WHAT FOLLOWS IS TOTAL SPECULATION, I HAVE NO INFO ON HOW POLAROID
MARKETING HAS LOOKED AT THIS.

I'm trying to imagine Polaroid's dilemma.  They know they are losing
some sales because they do not have dICE.  No question, it is a selling
point. They also know, it isn't as big an issue with their scanners, as
with some which offer it, but they have a problem promoting that aspect
of their product without sounding like sour grapes.

So, they consider the options; do we redesign the scanner with IR
circuits and buy licensing for dICE, and either raise the price to do
so, or maybe dump SilverFast, (which they may have long term obligations
to) or cut other features or quality to keep the price the same, or do
we develop a software answer that is not as rigorous as dICE, but takes
care of most of the DDSG issues, and have the software incorporated into
Silverfast at little additional cost, giving us more ability to remain
competitive in the price point?  Heck, that way maybe some extra money
can be generated with selling that software module for other scanners
that don't have IR cleaning, too.

IMHO, Polaroid's problem is not that they do not have dICE, but if Nikon
fixes the problems with the DOF on their scanners, and they DO have
dICE.  I suspect by not going the route Nikon has, Polaroid has more
control over pricing, since they don't have to pay for third party
licensing and extra hardware.  If tighter battle lines were to be drawn,
I'm guessing Polaroid has more flexibility in their retail price than
Nikon does.  They lose that advantage if they have to add hardware and
third party licensing. And once again, the GAIN in doing so, especially
once the new software is released, is probably too costly for the small
benefit.

So, please don't misunderstand me, Jack.  This is not about me thinking
your company's products are bad.  I like them.  And, I think in some of
the prosumer scanners, they have allowed for correction of issues like
grain aliasing or whatever it is that causes scanners like the Minolta
to tend to emphasize DDSG.  I WISH my Minolta Dual II came with dICE!

On the other hand, having it on the Polaroid would be nice, but not if
it meant sacrificing something else to get it, because I haven't found
myself that needy for it, and the software solution being worked on
further reduces the "longing".

Art


Jack Phipps wrote:

  > 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
  >




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