[filmscanners] RE: film scanner

["Alex Zabrovsky" <alexz@zoran.co.il>]

Art, thanks for your observation, I if you intent to advocate the SS4000 for
lack of ICE3 you couldn't.
Perhaps I didn't' get your mood right, but in my original posting I didn't
mean to blame Polaroid for absence of these features. Some people do like it
some not, it depends.
The Polaroid doesn't need to prove itself - it already did it gaining very
good reputation.
However, I was speaking for me I  find ICE and GEM usefulness for my stuff.
I cannot boast by sterile environment in which my originals are kept,
although strive to tailor them carefully, but there are dust and scratches
here and there (seem to be unavoidable) and then ICE really helps saving me
a lot of time which I don't have either.

Everyone makes his own decisions and choosing particular things doesn't mean
unappreciating others.

Regards,
Alex Z

-----Original Message-----
From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 1:22 AM
To: alexz@zoran.co.il
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film scanner


I'll let Howard speak for himself, but I think he stated what he meant.
  I too have relatively unhanded slides, which do not get scratched with
my processor, (finally! ;-)) and also don't have embedded dust or dirt,
in general.  Also, something Howard didn't mention is that the SS4000
scanners make very good use of the diffused cold cathode lighting, which
very much limits the amount of surface defects that appear in the scan.

Further, Polaroid supplied a free plug and and separate scratch and dust
  filter which is pretty effective once you learn how to use it, for the
dust that does show. This uses a very different and more effective
method of repairing dust and scratches than the Abode dust or scratch
filters do.  Until recently, anyone could download it and use it on any
image (it is done to the scan, not prior to it), but I guess they
realized it was something that they wanted to restrict to just Polaroid
scanner owners, so you now need a serial number to get it.

ICE/IR cleaning is much more of an issue with badly handled film or if
you use a Minolta or Nikon scanner, both of which emphasize these
surface defects considerably.

I know of many users of Polaroid SS4000 and SS4000+ (and the Microtek
equivalent) scanners and the vast majority would "like to" have ICE but
do not find it a necessity for most applications. Few, if any, have told
me they bemoan making the purchase because it lacks ICE.  It is truly
necessary with Nikon scanners, and a burden to be without on the Minoltas.

Of course, with the SS4000 et al. you get that same lighting advantage
with black and white film and Kodachrome as well, while ICE does not
work at all with real silver halide B&W and some Kodachrome, leaving one
with a good deal of spotting work with the Nikon and Minolta scanners.

ICE is a great concept. It makes the Nikons, with their LED lighting
source, functional, (owners of previous non-ICE Nikon versions told
Nikon in no uncertain terms that if they didn't do something about the
emphasized dust, dirt and scratches, they wouldn't be selling many more
scanners)...  It makes production scanners work well and quickly (it is
used in many commercial scanners) and it fixes things like fungus and
fingerprint damage which are difficult if not impossible to repair.
It allows you to be a little less careful in your film cleaning prior to
scanning.

But, a well designed cold cathode lighting source and considering the
cost of the SS4000/+ and its other features (and the black and white
film ability without a lot of spotting) make it fine for many without ICE.

I don't know how much the ICE features cost in hardware and licensing,
but the Minolta Dual II without it costs $600 CAN less in Canada,
literally half the price of the Minolta Elite II which has ICE, a
slightly better bit depth and firewire... same resolution.

People need to decide which features are most important to them, when
determining how to get best value from their scanner.

GEM is almost unnecessary with the SS4000/+ et al units due to the
diffused lighting, (grain is emphasized by grain aliasing in lower res
units and by certain lighting designs) and ROC is a separate plug in
anyway, if one feels the need for it.

Art

Alex Zabrovsky wrote:

> Howard, you obviously meant you don't miss ROC feature rather then IR
> cleaning (ICE) since the originals are all susceptible to dust regardless
of
> being old or new and can be scratched right
> away from the processor.
> Otherwise, although  really enjoy ICE cleaning and GEM in many cases I
also
> haven't had an opportunity to try out the ROC not having old faded out
stuff
> (my photo experience isn't longer then 5 years so far).
>
> Regards,
> Alex Z
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
> [mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of HMSDOC@aol.com
> Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 1:10 PM
> To: alexz@zoran.co.il
> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film scanner
>
>
> <<can anyone tell me if they've actually used and/or read any reviews on
the
> polaroid sprintscan 4000 plus?>>
>
> I have one and have been quite happy with it.   I find the Firewire
> connection extremely fast.  The shadow noise is exceedingly low and
> sharpness
> also excellent.   My slides are all new so I don't particularly miss the
IR
> cleaning, though that would be nice.  I am a relative novice so am not
sure
> I
> can give you real 'technical' data or evaluation but would be glad to help
> you out if you have specific questions.
>
> The only thing that I don't like has more to do with the software.  I get
a
> greenish color cast that is easy to fix in PS with the Polaroid software
> that
> I do not get with VueScan.
>
> Howard
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
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