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

["Jeremy Nicholl" <mail@jeremynicholl.com>]

>  >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.)
>
>You want to know why I think there even is a Digital Ice? For the same
>there are upgrades to scanning programs such as Vuescan and SilverFast and
>whatnot. Because people like gimmicks and they've been brainwashed to
>believe these gimmicks with either save them time and/or make it easier for
>them to overcome their own limitations--to include laziness.
>
>I'm no genius and I have next to no experience in these matters, I never
>scanned a negative before I bought my Polaroid, yet it only took me a week
>or so to discover I'd be a chump to use the Polaroid software that comes
>with the SS4000 for anything other than to snatch a RAW file at 4000dpi.
>That's because it took me that long to learn (albeit in a rudimentary
>fashion, though I pick up new knowledge every time I work) how to use my
>two primary software packages, Paint Shop Pro v7 and Photo Shop v6 to at
>least equal effect.
>
>Believe me when I tell you I am not especially deft at computer stuff in
>general and possess hardly any artistic sense or talent at all. So if I can
>do it I have to figure almost anyone else could as well, and probably much
>more ably than I could in many cases. Yet the hordes still clamor for
>Digital Ice.
>
>I don't mean to be rude, but while that's expected it's still nonsense.
>Give me something I can use, like disc brakes, and I'll buy. But please
>lose the frills. I'm only into getting the best results.
>
>Now whether or not the SS4000 and/or SS4000 plus would have greater
>_perceived_ value if Digital Ice came bundled is another question
>altogether. My guess is it would, my guess is that is exactly what's
>happening in the mind of the buying public with regard to those scanners
>that do include such software. In fact I know that to be true just from
>remarks I've read on this list since I joined. But what else is new?
>
>By the way, I would like to use Digital Ice once just to see how well it
>works, but I'm rather confident I'd be disappointed in the results. I
>assume the before-and-after pictures I've seen are best-case examples, and
>they didn't impress me much. Certainly the work I do "by hand" is superior
>all around. (And even that assumes that I'd  regularly need to do a lot of
>pick-up work after the scan, when in fact I find no such labor before me as
>a rule, only the odd thread and dust speck to eliminate, as noted above.)
>
>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


I've no doubt that people love gimmicks and I've heard salespeople in
stores and labs promoting the Nikon/dICE combination, so it's
certainly used as a marketing tool.

I recently bought a 4000ED because of its' bulk slide feeder; the
fact that it had dICE didn't even feature on my radar. When I got
around to trying dICE I expected it to be a major disappointment. In
fact I was amazed at how well it cleaned seriously damaged originals
with little or no noticeably softening of the image.

If you only ever have to scan brand new straight from the lab
originals then you would have little use for it. If like me you've
got twenty years worth of material mishandled by editors and agents
then it's a major time saver.

Would the Polaroid 4000 be a better scanner with it? You bet; or at
least a more productive scanner. Having used both the Nikon and
Polaroid 4000s I've no doubt that the ideal reasonably priced 35mm
film scanner is a combination of the two. The Polaroid light source,
dICE and a Nikon style bulk feeder.

Unfortunately no such machine exists but if David Hemingway would
like to use his Polaroid redundo to fund production I'll be more than
happy to beta test it.

Jeremy Nicholl

--

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