Joao Ribeiro (jribeiro@greco.com.br)
Sat, 23 Jan 1999 10:55:03 -0200
Hi Michael and All,
Nikon, as far as I know, has 2 35 mm scanners, the Coolscan2000 at 3,6 dynamic range
and LS III at 3,0.
The difference in prices are considerable, the LSIII is a little cheaper than your
Polaroid, I had owned one last year and I am very satisfied with it. The Coolscan 2000
is a bit more expensive than the polaroid.
I am not sure about the meaning of this difference in dynamic range, but it must mean
something for that price difference.
May be someone can explain us better!
Joao
Michael Keller wrote:
> I use a Polaroid Sprintscan Plus at work, it has a ppi of 2700 (means your 1"x1.5"
> slide or neg has a pixel dimension of 2700x4000, good enough for full bleed
> magazine cover on press), and a density range of 3.4. On the previous Nikon
> Coolscans, Nikon wouldn't publish the D range. The SSPlus is now running under
> $1500 in catalogs, Nikon has a newer scanner that is a little better than the
> Polaroid now. But it's unlikely the Olympus has specs like these.
>
> Judy Seigel wrote:
>
> > I'm trying to buy a 35 mm slide/negative scanner, for the Mac. (Please, no
> > wisecracks from envious people.) I'm told about an Olympus something or
> > other for $369, but haven't yet seen it. (I gather I have to go to the
> > dread Web...) But while the topic is on, does anyone know it? Or other in
> > that price range? And why the Polaroid is nearly twice the price? (I have
> > a flatbed, but gather that's ng for 35 mm to large size, even with
> > adapter.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:44