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

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

The few people who still consider me sane are probably going to think me
unbalanced by the end of this posting.

Yes, Jack does indeed sell dICE.  He signs his name with Applied Science
Fiction, which is indeed the company that owns the rights to dICE, ROC,
GEM, and a few other acronyms I can't think of right now, so I don't
think he is trying to hide anything.

In spite of my comments about the advantages or disadvantages of dICE, I
want to come to Jack's defense here.  Jack, and Applied Science Fiction
should be proud of the products they sell.  They work.  Not under every
circumstance for every applications (such as dICE not working with
silver based B&W films and some Kodachrome dyes) but they do indeed
work, and the concepts are truly ingenious.

I think if Polaroid and ASF could get together and produce the same
basic scanner without an increase of cost or corner cutting on other
aspects, that the debate would be over in terms of the best scanner in
that price range.

The issue is NOT dICE, it is the scanner one has to buy currently to get
it.  Obviously, the companies most interested in dICE in this prosumer
CCD scanner market are those that have scanners that most benefit from
the dICE product.  It appears to add a good percentage to the cost, so
it has to be worthwhile (in terms of benefit) to make it worthwhile (in
terms of cost).

I think most everyone who has used them will agree the scanners
exhibiting the most DDSG (dust, dirt, scratches and grain) are the
Nikons, and the current crop of Minoltas, and to a lesser degree the
Canon FS4000.  So, which scanner companies have embraced a IR DDSG
cleaning system?  All of those, plus Acer/Benq, and even their scanner
tends to be a bit more likely to enhance DDSG.

All but Canon (who has their own) are using ASF's dICE products. This
is a very good thing.  My Minolta Dual II, which does not have dICE but
does have enhanced DDSG makes me crazy at times, well, that's an
exaggeration.  If I look very closely, I do see a lot of dots that I
could clone out.

The Polaroid, as has been mentioned, is very gentle with DDSG, making it
a minor problem for most people.  So, why would Polaroid want to add
these costs?

Hence the current dilemma, a scanner with dICE which has other problems
(mentioned by myself and others many times) or one without dICE which
requires minor clean up?

Polaroid's answer? A software solution that deals with most DDS
automatically. And other modules to deal with Grain, loss of color, etc.

Absolutely perfect solution?  No. Better compromise than the current
situation, yes.

Art

Tris Schuler wrote:

 >>I know you love your Polaroid scanner. It is a great scanner. But, it
will
 >>be a better scanner with Digital ICE.
 >>
 >>Jack Phipps
 >>Applied Science Fiction
 >>
 >
 > I've never tried Digital Ice so I can't comment on the software itself. I
 > do own an SS4000, though, and for the life of me I can't see why I would
 > ever use it to begin with. I prepare my negatives with reasonable care (I
 > examine them, I brush and I blow) and sure, each one has at least one or
 > two defects I have to clone out, but so what? It takes a minute,
maybe two.
 > (With me it's sometimes five or ten or fifteen minutes because I go after
 > _every_ defect and no matter how small, plus I pick up stuff that's not
 > actually a defect but I suspect will _look_ like one by the time I reduce
 > the image to a JPEG file.)
 >
  (much stuff in the middle cut)
 >
 > I have a question, Jack: do you sell this equipment or related
software for
 > a living? I ask for the reason you come across strongly as a salesman.
 >
 > Tris
 >



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