>===== Original Message From Winsor Crosby <wincros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> =====
>On the other side of the question, if you look at the Tony Sleep
>scanner page and read the review, he would not fully agree with you.
>He found the increase in resolution to be very impressive and
>significant. The examples are pretty impressive. He did find that the
>Nikon's scratch removal to be superior.
>
>http://www.halftone.co.uk/tech/filmscan/pol4000/pol4000.htm
>
>Winsor
I bought the SS4000 after lurking a bit on Filmscanners and getting a bit
angry with Nikon about the cost of a CLA (they charge $250 for *any* type of
service, way too much for a LS-20, my former device). I was able to get very
good scans with the LS-20 at 2700 ppi, so resolution per se was not that much
of a factor. It was probably Ed Hamrick's advice that if you shoot with fine
grain films and use a tripod, you can appreciate some difference in the
additional resolution. I don't know if this was based on something specific
or is just seat-of-the-pants opinionating. Ed is often challenged on the
filmscanners list about all sorts of things and I've never seen him
successfully refuted, as far as I could tell.
I don't always scan at 4000 ppi. Sometime I half that if I don't need the
resolution for the subject/print size. What I appreciate the most about the
Polaroid is that I get good shadow penetration. I don't know if it is the
best scanner for this, but it sure is good. I think most contemporary
scanners are pretty good at this.
Joel Wilcox
Iowa City, Iowa USA
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|