At 05:07 PM 9/7/2001 -0500, you wrote:
I read the article, and based on owning two of the three tested 4000dpi
scanners, I'd come to the same conclusion they did. The SS4000 gives the
best scans. But, using the Nikon LS-4000 is so much easier, with the roll
film adapter, that I'm willing to make a compromise. I thought it was
interesting they said the Polaroid had better shadow detail, but the Nikon
was sharper.
Tom
Tom,
I have owned two film scanners, the Nikon LS-20 and now the Polaroid
SS4000. Sharpness was always superb with the Nikon -- almost across the
entire scan even. The Polaroid seems to me to cope with the slight curve of
film better, but I'm sure there is some sort of compromise to get this
uniform level of sharpness. In any case, this is nothing that a very
little skill in Photoshop cannot make simply distinctionless.
Unfortunately, the Nikon-Polaroid debate has a lot of the silliness of OS
platform wars. I can do more to affect the quality of my scans by very
tiny bad decisions in technique than would ever be noticed in A-B-ing the
two scanners themselves.
I'm sure you'll enjoy the Nikon since it suits your needs. I reckon if I
could get a roll feeder for the SS4000 I might start shooting c-negative
again. However, I also seem to be shooting more sparingly lately, so the
SS4000 and slide suits me OK.
Joel W.
< 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 >
|