>===== Original Message From [EMAIL PROTECTED] =====
>I just looked at the Polaroid 4000 and Canon scans of the Halloween slide,
>after reading that comment that the Polaroid didn't look much (or any) better
>than the Canon. One reason might be that the slide was inserted backwards in
>the Polaroid, so the emulsion side is facing the wrong way. Might this have
>some effect on the sharpness of the scan?
>
>Jim (who just bought a Polaroid and sure as hell HOPES that it is clearly
>better than the Canon....)
I had a look myself after the previous comments about the Polaroid. Not to be
defensive, but ...
I should recheck this, but the rez of the scans is probably different so that
one sees the image larger with the Polaroid, therefore in more detail,
therefore grainier, etc. Not exactly apples and apples.
The "noise" in the Polaroid scan does not seem to me to be noise really but
information, of a sort. The Canon shows the hat to be an undifferentiated
black, whereas the Polaroid is finding more information in the area. It would
be very easy in PS to make the Polaroid shadows go equally black to the Canon.
The example actually tended to confirm what I know and appreciate about the
Polaroid. Go figure, huh?
Trouble is trying to sort this kind of thing out is through the web is a
little like trying to judge the quality of the television you want to buy from
the commercials on your old TV.
Joel Wilcox
====================================================================
The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
