ICE denial Hmmm..... Hardly, Although I do not like the effects of dust
removal filters whether hardware or software based, do not use them when
doing any of my personal scans, I do wish we had it for no other reason than
to use its perceived value to sell more scanners.
Surprisingly when talking to potential customers at dealers and trade shows
there are very few who straddle the fence on this issue. They either would
not be without it or say they it's not worth the negative effects on the
image. The customers viewing ICE negatively are decidedly in the medium
format camp as opposed to 35mm customers.
In my view there are many features to consider when purchasing a scanner and
dust and scratch removal is only one of the options to consider
All that said there is more than one way to skin that dust and scratch cat!
David
-----Original Message-----
From: rafeb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 8:07 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000ED
At 12:50 AM 7/12/01 -0700, Art wrote:
>Visible light does not need to be an LED source for dICE to work. Acer
>2740 uses a hybrid situation, with an IR LED, but cold cathode light
>source. Canon FS 4000 has FARE, which is also an infrared defect repair
>system and is not, to my knowledge using an LED visible lighting
>system. Finally, the Minolta Elite doesn't use an LED visible lighting
>source, and it also has dICE. I think the cheapest way to provide good
>IR is an LED array, but it doesn't seem to preclude use of cold cathode
>for the rest of the lighting.
You raise some interesting points here, Art. Clearly
there are hybrid solutions that get around the design
compromise that I cited.
But curiously, our man from Polaroid is in ICE-denial,
saying that his (perceived) clientele doesn't value ICE.
Nor did I, until I had a chance to work with it.
As I recall, David was in similar denial when some
of us informed him (way, way back) that we'd really
like a TWAIN driver for our Polaroid scanners.
rafe b.
