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

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

I'm being placed in the strange position here of feeling the need to
come to the defense of ASF's software, because I think there is some
misunderstanding about it.   I want to be fair here, and I suspect some
things I have stated may have been either misinterpreted or read too
casually.

The earlier Nikon scanners which used digital ice (the LS1000 and maybe
2000) incorporated dICE in a manner which might have misrepresented the
abilities of the process.

As I understand it, back then, turning dICE on did more than just engage
that feature.  It also altered or shut down certain sharpening
processes, which had nothing directly to do with dICE.  AS a result, the
images with the dICE on tended to look softer than those without it.
Again, as I understand it, the newer Nikon scanners no longer do that,
and the reports I have seen indicate dICE has little if any negative
effect upon the image.  It pretty much just repairs DDSG issues.  This
is a nice feature.

If it were an inexpensive add on, I think all scanners would provide it.
  As I have stated before, it isn't an inexpensive add on as things now
stand.  It requires reengineering the scanner, and tuning the software
and hardware to work together, and it involves licensing fees.

On the Nikons particularly, it makes them much more functional.  For
your average film, it is less necessary on the Polaroids.  If you tend
to have a lot of DDSG issues, bad film hygiene, kids with jellied
fingers who like to play with your negs, dogs, cats or cobwebs, if you
do older images that were poorly stored, if you work with film from
other clients, it can be a life saver.

This is why I always ask people a lot of questions when they ask me for
a scanner recommendation.  One of the questions is always: will you be
dealing with a fair portion of film that is poorly keep or has been
roughly handled?  If the answer is yes, I have suggested they consider a
scanner with dICE.  The Minolta Dual II is absolutely the wrong scanner
for these people, because it emphasizes these defects and it has "no dICE".

Buying a Lotus for city commutes is just plain silly, and buying a
Sprint for an Indy 500 makes just as little sense.

Art


Tris Schuler wrote:

>>I use it on an LS2000 & it saves me 3-5 hours a week. That's worth
>>real money! There is very slight image degradation but far less than
>>in the transition from pixels to ink.
>>
>>David Hoffman
>>
>
> Is there a control to it, to where it can directed to work on just a given
> part of the image, or be directed to look for certain kinds of artifacts?
> Is it an all-or-nothing deal?
>
> Tris



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