Bill,
I've compared the Sprintscan 4000, the Sprintscan 4000+ and the LS-4000 and
I haven't seen the problems you described, except when I was using an
'incompatible' film. I forget the name of the Kodak film that is supposed
to be optimized for scanning, but, for me, it was HORRIBLE. All I saw was
grain, it was just ugly as heck. Once I went back to WalMart purchased Fuji
Superia, the problem completely went away. Of course 800 and 1600 speed
film actually show more grain on the 4000dpi scanners than 2700-2800, just
because the resolution sees them.
I think I've used ICE once, but never really found the need for it. The
Polaroid, on the other hand, got worse and worse as it aged. It was a
terrible dust magnet and it took forever to get the negatives cleaned up
after I scanned them. Don't get me wrong, I loved the scanner, it was just
more work. Perhaps I am spoiled by the roll film adapter on the Nikon.
Tom
> I have been using a friend's Nikon 4000. I don't think I would buy one,
> unless I have tried a Polaroid. The Nikon really needs ICE and GEM, as it
> "enhances" every little thing, and reproduces the grain to excess.
>
> I understand the light source in the polaroid reduces that problem.
>
> Bill Pearce
>
< 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 >
|