Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/08/18
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Henry Ambrose wrote: >Adobe Photoshop >at least a 17" monitor, larger is better. (I like Sony) >Polaroid 4000 scanner >Epson 1200 printer > >Set this up using Apple Colorsync with profiles for all your input and >output devices and you're all set. I recently had both the Nikon LS-2000 and Polaroid 4000 for trial for a few days, and I would strongly recommend against the Polaroid until they do a major rework of their software. I'll copy what I wrote to the scanning list below: ______________________________________ I was waiting for someone to compare the two for a while, and then had a chance to do it myself. Note that I do not have calibrated test targets, but I do have tough Velvia and Kodachrome slides. Also, the conclusions and weighting are abviously my own. If someone has different priorities, he/she might come to a different conclusion based on the same results. I had the LS2000 and Polaroid at home for a couple of days and scanned a number of difficult slides and negs. At present I have the LS-20, which has a lot of noise in the denser areas and generally an insufficient dynamic range, and I want to upgrade, particularly since the local lab that does PhotoCD's has just jacked up its prices by 60%. The 4000 gave a little bit greater detail, and the shadow noise and density were acceptable, if not great. The Nikon LS2000 had slightly less detail, but especially in 16x mode had a lot better dynamic range, with extremely low levels of shadow noise. The level of noise was the lowest I've ever seen on any CCD scanner, at any price up to $20,000. The ICE on the Nikon was hugely better and of more use than the Polaroid version. When scanned singly (no Multiscan) the Nikon still had better dynamic range than the Polaroid. On the basis of the above, the lower resolution of the Nikon was more than offset by the better dynamic range and ICE capability. Even if I had liked the Polaroid better at this stage, I still would not have bought it. The software sucks. On my Mac, I had crashes and hangs, and had a lot of trouble getting a scan I liked. The automatic part of the Nikon software was a lot more stable and versatile, but the clincher was that I could import the scans as 48 bit files, and do the adjustments in Photoshop. So I'm getting a refurbished LS2000 and with the saved money get the slide feeder, and when I'm away from my desk I'll let the scanner do its thing and create a bunch of 48 bit files with 16x multisampling for me while I do something else. The Polaroid has one reason for existence. The Nikon does everything else better. ____________________________________ I now have the LS2000 with slide feeder and I'm very satisfied. I'll still go out for drum scans, but most of my scanning needs are now taken care of. * Henning J. Wulff /|\ Wulff Photography & Design /###\ mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com |[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com