Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/08/19
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Henry Ambrose wrote: >What I found was that the three scanners gave pretty much the same result >up to about 600% enlargement. After that the Howtek kicked butt. I'm >pretty sure the Howtek would have really excelled if I had chosen a >"difficult" slide. The one I chose was pretty evenly exposed and not too >dense. > >I bought the Polaroid because the software (old version) was the better >of the two at that time. I have tried the new Polaroid software and I >agree it is sorry. But no sorrier that the Nikon's. I've been very >pleased (since there aren't any better that I've found) with the Polaroid >and its old version software. The Nikon software is OK. Not really great, but fine. The ICE works, the 16x multisampling on the hardware and software sides works, and the files can be saved as 48bit files. >If the only software choice of software is the latest version for the >Polaroid then you may be right. Did you have a choice? Will the 4000 work >with any other than the "idiot push button" version (new version)? There is no software which will allow you to bring all the 12bit info into Photoshop, and that is what I want. >In these desktop slide scanning machines, the software is their real >downfall, especially if you are used to good pre-press scanning software. >I wish the manufacturers would catch on to this shortcoming. I hear that >Silverfast makes great software that will work wit the Nikon but its >expensive! No CCD scanner is the equal of a decent drum scanner (yet!). The resolution of the drum scanners is higher, but the _really_ important issue is that the Dmax of the drum scanners is a lot higher, the dynamic range is higher and the noise level is lower. The Eversmart is an excellent CCD scanner, but for $50,000US is still is not as good as a number of $20,000 drum scanners. Into a more realistic range: The Polaroid 4000 has to have a lot better software before I would consider it. The Nikon has better Dmax, and a lower noise level than the Polaroid purely on the hardware side, which I feel is more important to me than the higher resolution of the Polaroid. As far as the scanning software is concerned, with 12 bit capable or better scanners, I would much rather take the raw scans into Photoshop as 48bit files and do my correction there. I just got a SF200 slide feeder for the Nikon. I intend my procedure to be: dump a bunch of slides into the feeder, set it for 16x multisampling and save the files to my hard drive. Go away for a few hours. Come back, open the images, do the basic corrections, and save the files as 8bit JPEGs at max quality (lossless). That brings the files down to between 7 and 13Mb. Then I write them to CD. * Henning J. Wulff /|\ Wulff Photography & Design /###\ mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com |[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com