From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 11/08/02-03:54:42 PM Z
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Joe wrote:
> If you choose the Polaroid, go for the Plus version. It has a better A/D
> converter, which gives higher image quality and includes Silverfast
> (software). Worthwhile in my view. I think it might be the only 35mm
> film scanner Polaroid still makes, not sure....
I really appreciate this (and other) praise for the Polaroid -- the old
one was a pain & its software buggy (maybe I bought too soon -- or too
late), so I was thinking I OUGHT to go for the vaunted Nikon, even for
$700 more (I get an "upgrade" price on the Polaroid). How nice to learn
the contrary, for once.
At the moment, Polaroid tells me, they have both the 4000 & the 4000 plus
on hand, tho fewer of the Plus. The Plus, by the way, is 4.2 Dmax and 48
bit color vs the 4000 with "only" 3.9 Dmax and 36 bit color -- odds are
that for my street shots in black & white the extra Dmax & bits are
wasted, but the plus is USB -- I sure wouldn't mind one less scuzzy
peripheral.. The scuzzy card in G4 is ALWAYS suspect when something goes
wrong...
On the other hand... They say scuzzy is faster, but Polaroid says the Plus
is faster (than the 4000). So you get the slower connection with the
faster scanner ?! How like life !! I'm not in any big hurry with the low
volume scanning I'll do, however... My idea of fast is only 5 minutes on
hold waiting for tech support.
> I am pro-Polaroid, having used their 45Ultra and Polaroid 120 products
> with excellent results. Good detail in shadows/highlights
> (slides/negatives), sharp, low grain, good color fidelty & competitively
> priced.
>
> They _are_ in uncertain financial condition, but I expect that isn't
> going to matter in the longer term.
I'm told that Polaroid doesn't make ANY scanners -- that their scanners
are made by Microtek... tho presumably to Polaroid design.
> Now the Nikons....
> Incredibly mixed reviews about their whole product line. From
> focus-problems to film flatness problems to banding to bad software, I
> would urge you to steer clear. Plus they are more expensive......it's a
> no-brainer in my eyes. Some people are getting great results and I have
> seen really good scans (albeit no better than Polaroid, and oftentimes
> scanned with workarounds to Nikon's banding problems).
This advice is very easy to take... thanks.
> Either way, I would buy from a dealer that is going to allow you to
> evaluate the scanner and send it back if necessary. Any brand can have
> units that suffer from problems, no way around it. You want to look for
> excessive noise in the shadows (slides) or highlights (negatives). You
> want to have your monitor/software properly calibrated and check for
> color fidelity. And you want to check for banding, which is usually
> evident most in the blue channel of an RGB scan.
> This last common problem is hard to see, is sometimes random and
> sometimes consistent. You need to scan different types of
> slides/negatives (densities/subjects) and examine the separate channels
> of the scan in Photoshop, at _actual pixel size_. This is the only way
> to rule out this problem.
OK... I will...and act like it was my idea. thanks.
> BTW, Judy, do you not shoot in larger formats? Being a famous and
> undoubtedly rich artist : ) I would lay down the $1800 and buy the
> Polaroid 120 so you can scan 120 film. The difference is quite
> prominent, if only to suppress grain, which I've found can be a real
> problem with 35mm.
You don't have to be famous to be rich, you know ... and many famous
artists are utterly impoverished (especially if they have computers, which
can beggar a person very quickly). However, as far as I'm concerned , 35
mm IS large format. I haven't shot 120 since I used a rollei-clone to
take pictures of my babies to send grandma -- that was 1960 and my first
camera. It cost $25 at Camera Barn.
Then I found out about 35 mm.... what a relief ! (Tho I like grain
anyways -- grain is life -- fie on the so-called "healing brush" !!)
cheers, and again thanx to all...
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 12/17/02-04:47:04 PM Z CST