Re: filmscanners: Emulsion flaws (was dust in SS4000)
Roger, it would also be interesting if you exposed two identical rolls of film, sent one to a good lab for processing, and then processed the other yourself. If the "bubbles" appear on both rolls, then they would be related to the film or the processing chemicals. If they only appear on film that you process, then you would want to vary your processing technique until you found a way to make the bubbles go away. I know that water, or a water based developing chemical, that is saturated with air and gases and has its temperature raised by even a few degrees will readily form small bubbles on anything submerged in it, including film, as the excess gas tries to escape the liquid. That might account for the fact that you have an old roll of Kodachrome with "bubbles." This is all speculation on my part. The "dirt" that I once saw on several rolls of transparency film was to small to see with the na! ked eye. When scanned, it looked like small black spots. I never looked at them with a microscope. They were easy to remove with the clone tool without doing any damage to the image, but it was somewhat tedious. I haven't had that problem since, but suspect contaminated processing chemicals. I think that most of the problems people have with dust involve pieces large enough to see with the naked eye. They can easily be removed with a brush. But dirt and "bubbles" embedded in the film are not common and there's really no excuse for them. For what it's worth, I sometimes go to the effort of boiling water for a few minutes if I want to use it to mix darkroom chemicals that I don't intend to use up right away. Boiling removes most of the air, oxygen, and gases from the water. I let it cool in air tight bottles in the refrigerator before using it to mix chemicals. You might try that if you think the bubbles on your film are due to gases precipitating onto the film during processing. Like I said, I'm only speculating. But if the bubbles are making it difficult to scan the film, I'd sure look for a solution to the problem rather than rely on something like ICE to fix a problem you shouldn't have in the first place. In a message dated 9/21/2001 8:52:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: How very interesting! I am now more sure of my theory. Either these bubbles occur during manufacturing or processing, and are, I suspect, either introduced in the base plastic or as the coatings are layered onto the film, or, the processing creates some gas which doesn't fully migrate out of the emulsion during washing and drying. Art Roger Smith wrote: > > Martin and others: > This is another Roger (not Miller), but I have been following > the "Dust" thread with interest. > I have often noticed tiny spots on my scans (particularly > since I got a Minolta Scan Dual II, which shows the spots much more > than my previous Canon FS2710). > I stuck a Kodak Ektachrome 64T slide (that I developed this > morning) under my microscope and cranked up the magnification to > 400x. The enclosed Nikon Coolpix 995 image taken through the > microscope shows what I saw. This is an area of the slide which is > almost transparent - the orange area at the bottom shows the film > grain. The bubble-like flaws are in a different plane from the grain, > on the outside layer of the emulsion. I can tell this by where I have > to focus the microscope to see them. > I developed the film myself, using double distilled water for > the final rinse. I must admit this is one of the worst examples of > these bubbles I have seen, but they do show up on most of my slides, > on many different types of film. I thought it might be the result of > a processing error, but then I saw the same bubbles on a Kodachrome > 64 slide from 1975. > Any ideas? > > Regards, > Roger Smith
Re: filmscanners: VueScan on XP?
www.microsoft.com they have been selling the beta for months. - Original Message - From: "David Lew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2001 1:44 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: VueScan on XP? > > How did you get XP?? > > Dave > > On Fri, 21 Sep 2001, Doug Wise wrote: > > > > > Has anybody successfully run VueScan on the final release of XP? > > > > I am using an Epson flatbed scanner and have disabled the events. The > > Twain driver works fine. > > > > When I run VueScan I get the splash screen, but it never seems to finish > > loading. It uses 50MB of Ram and just hangs at 75% utilization. > > > > Any suggestions? > > > > Doug Wise > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > >
Re: filmscanners: Emulsion flaws (was dust in SS4000)
Art, Roger and others What you have found offers a plausible explanation for the junk that has been plaguing many of us although not seen or of concern to others. I just finished removing at least one thousand spots from a scan. This was from a pristine, perfect slide scanned on an SS 4000, blown up for a 13x19 print, and rubber stamped in Photoshop. Clearly, they were not the result of dust. Nor was it from my brand new scanner. The slide was processed by an excellent lab. The only explanation for this is that they are in the emulsion. Martin > From: Arthur Entlich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 20:52:55 -0700 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: filmscanners: Emulsion flaws (was dust in SS4000) > > How very interesting! > > I am now more sure of my theory. Either these bubbles occur during > manufacturing or processing, and are, I suspect, either introduced in > the base plastic or as the coatings are layered onto the film, or, the > processing creates some gas which doesn't fully migrate out of the > emulsion during washing and drying. > > Art > > Roger Smith wrote: >> >> Martin and others: >> This is another Roger (not Miller), but I have been following >> the "Dust" thread with interest. >> I have often noticed tiny spots on my scans (particularly >> since I got a Minolta Scan Dual II, which shows the spots much more >> than my previous Canon FS2710). >> I stuck a Kodak Ektachrome 64T slide (that I developed this >> morning) under my microscope and cranked up the magnification to >> 400x. The enclosed Nikon Coolpix 995 image taken through the >> microscope shows what I saw. This is an area of the slide which is >> almost transparent - the orange area at the bottom shows the film >> grain. The bubble-like flaws are in a different plane from the grain, >> on the outside layer of the emulsion. I can tell this by where I have >> to focus the microscope to see them. >> I developed the film myself, using double distilled water for >> the final rinse. I must admit this is one of the worst examples of >> these bubbles I have seen, but they do show up on most of my slides, >> on many different types of film. I thought it might be the result of >> a processing error, but then I saw the same bubbles on a Kodachrome >> 64 slide from 1975. >> Any ideas? >> >> Regards, >> Roger Smith >> >> >> Name: emulsion_1.jpg >> emulsion_1.jpgType: JPEG Image (image/jpeg) >> Encoding: base64 >
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan & SS4000 & Preview
You could have Vuescan do an index file from the roll film adapter, effectively creating a contact sheet. ** I M P O R T A N T R E P L Y I N F O Please adddress ALL offlist messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED] This hotmail.com email address is ONLY used for this mailing list subscription and I will probably not notice any private messages addressed here. *** >From: "Tom Scales" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: filmscanners: Vuescan & SS4000 & Preview >Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 14:17:49 -0500 > >That would be really useful. I sure don't know how to do it with my SS4000 >or LS4000. > >Hey, can I get 40 really small previews with the roll film adapter . > >Tom >- > > > I used to use (until yesterday :-)) an HP Photosmart scanner. Using > > Vuescan, a strip of negatives would display in the preview window as a >strip > > of negatives. That made it easy to see all of them at the same time. > > > > Now I have a new Polaroid SS4000. Can Vuescan do the same preview with >the > > SprintScan as I used to do with the HP? I tried quickly this morning >and > > each preview image was displayed by itself. There wasn't an option to >see > > the entire 5-6 images on the filmstrip at one time. > > > > Ed - Can you help? Does Vuescan support whole filmstrip preview with >the > > SS4000? > > > > Skip > > > > _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan & SS4000 & Preview
Haven't tried that yet, but discovered that the other day. I'll try it this weekend. Tom > You could have Vuescan do an index file from the roll film adapter, > effectively creating a contact sheet. >
Re: filmscanners: Emulsion flaws (was dust in SS4000)
Hi Martin, I can tell you that dust is everywhere! If you handle slides with cotton gloves, the slides become filthy. If you place the slide into the slide holder it will grab any dust that you let get on the holder while it sat on the table. The minute the motors start whirring in the scanner, the electrostatic charges pull dust in from all around the scanner. I scanned a slide which I made a year ago and compared it to the scan of it I made 10 months ago. The slide sat in its Print File sleeve for 10 months. I cleaned the slide with a sable artists brush, then compressed air ( Dust Off ) and scanned it. The scan looked like I dumped an ashtray on the slide??? Compared to the first scan I made, it was worse. My theory is that the slides themselves not only attract dust electrostatically, but degrade and crack over time. These micro-cracks aren't seen when we project the slides but under the microscopic scrutiny of the scanner, become larger than life. Once the cracks open to the atmosphere, all sorts of things can get into the emulsion layers of the slide. Art & Roger are taking the manufacturers to task in their theories; I'm just accepting the chemistry & physics. Again, when we blow these slides up in Photoshop, they are magnified beyond the 8 x 10" or 13 x 19" prints that we make so the spots become exaggerated on the screen not in the prints. I've printed a lot of scans from the SS-4000 to an Epson 2000P printer in the past 10 months and I don't see the crud in the print; only on the CRT of the computer. Just my two cents worth of opinion. Regards, Owen Owen P. Evans Osgoode, Ontario. Canada (near our nation's capital; Ottawa) [EMAIL PROTECTED] J.33-3 - Original Message - From: "Barbara & Martin Greene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2001 8:46 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Emulsion flaws (was dust in SS4000) > Art, Roger and others > > What you have found offers a plausible explanation for the junk that has > been plaguing many of us although not seen or of concern to others. I just > finished removing at least one thousand spots from a scan. This was from a > pristine, perfect slide scanned on an SS 4000, blown up for a 13x19 print, > and rubber stamped in Photoshop. Clearly, they were not the result of dust. > Nor was it from my brand new scanner. The slide was processed by an > excellent lab. The only explanation for this is that they are in the > emulsion. > > Martin >
Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000?
Karl Schulmeisters wrote: > < and compressed air from a rather healthy air compressor (not damaging neg, > however), > > > What PSI are you using as your threshold? > Yikes, The control knob for it is near my foot when I work well under a table, and somehow it got cranked up(?) to 60 psi!! I use a sort of trigger gun arrangement which allows some regulation of output though. I'm going to turn it back down to about 15 psi. -- Jim Hayes
Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000?
Of course, waying the other pos and cons, i.e. technical support, reliability issues Polaroid vs Nikon. Barbara & Martin Greene wrote: > Jim > > I have not done a count, but I'm sure that I also find from 200- 1000 spots > on every scan, no matter how careful I am, and I live in a humid climate, > but work under much less clean conditions. I've been preoccupied with the > dust problem for some time. Some people don't seem to consider it a big > problem, but that must be because they do not spot scans from slides using > the Acutal Pixels view while making 13x19 prints. I'd hoped that a new > SS4000 purchased at Ecost would do a good enough job and save me lots of > bucks. But, the comparison between using ICE on a Nikon LS 4000 and not ICE > on the Sprintscan is too dramatic to ignore, especially since I have not > been able to see any significant difference in quality. > -- Jim Hayes
Re: filmscanners: Silverfast or Polarscan
I just received my new SS 4000, and am wondering the same thing. Silverfast seems to be pretty powerful, but cumbersome. How does it compare to Vuescan in quality (not just functionality)? I'm looking for the best quality scans, with minimal fuss. The Polaroid software is much easier to use than Silverfast, but doesn't offer nearly the amount of functions. The scanner is great so far - I just need to figure out how to use it properly - the documentation is seriously deficient! Mike
Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000?
Jim I have started to be pleased with the Sprintscan, especially considering the $1,200 difference saved. Unlike the Nikon, which has great software, mastering PolaColor, Silverfast, and Vuescan, all having terrible documentation, takes a good bit of time. I am now getting very good scans with better color than I got with the Nikon, albeit spending at least one half an hour per scan to remove the spots. Martin > From: jimhayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 09:16:36 -0600 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000? > > Of course, waying the other pos and cons, i.e. technical support, reliability > issues > Polaroid vs Nikon. > > Barbara & Martin Greene wrote: > >> Jim >> >> I have not done a count, but I'm sure that I also find from 200- 1000 spots >> on every scan, no matter how careful I am, and I live in a humid climate, >> but work under much less clean conditions. I've been preoccupied with the >> dust problem for some time. Some people don't seem to consider it a big >> problem, but that must be because they do not spot scans from slides using >> the Acutal Pixels view while making 13x19 prints. I'd hoped that a new >> SS4000 purchased at Ecost would do a good enough job and save me lots of >> bucks. But, the comparison between using ICE on a Nikon LS 4000 and not ICE >> on the Sprintscan is too dramatic to ignore, especially since I have not >> been able to see any significant difference in quality. >> > > -- > Jim Hayes > > >
Re: filmscanners: Emulsion flaws (was dust in SS4000)
Owen I'm sure you're right about the fact that dust is everywhere and instantly accumulates on any slide. But I also agree with the view that a good deal of the spots and crud are embedded in the emulsion, being either intrinsic to the film or as a result of processing. All these things together, of course also including actual dust contribute to the problem. So those of us who don't want the spots will either have to go with ICE or spend a good deal of time removing the spots. At this point I can no longer say which method is preferable. If you have lots of free time, as I do, then it's possible to work manually so long as you don't have lots of scans to work on. It seems to me that anyone who is doing quantity work would be foolish not to go for ICE. Martin > From: "Owen P. Evans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 10:35:40 -0400 > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: filmscanners: Emulsion flaws (was dust in SS4000) > > Hi Martin, > I can tell you that dust is everywhere! If you handle slides with cotton > gloves, the slides become filthy. If you place the slide into the slide > holder it will grab any dust that you let get on the holder while it sat on > the table. The minute the motors start whirring in the scanner, the > electrostatic charges pull dust in from all around the scanner. I scanned a > slide which I made a year ago and compared it to the scan of it I made 10 > months ago. The slide sat in its Print File sleeve for 10 months. I cleaned > the slide with a sable artists brush, then compressed air ( Dust Off ) and > scanned it. The scan looked like I dumped an ashtray on the slide??? > Compared to the first scan I made, it was worse. > My theory is that the slides themselves not only attract dust > electrostatically, but degrade and crack over time. These micro-cracks > aren't seen when we project the slides but under the microscopic scrutiny of > the scanner, become larger than life. Once the cracks open to the > atmosphere, all sorts of things can get into the emulsion layers of the > slide. Art & Roger are taking the manufacturers to task in their theories; > I'm just accepting the chemistry & physics. > Again, when we blow these slides up in Photoshop, they are magnified beyond > the 8 x 10" or 13 x 19" prints that we make so the spots become exaggerated > on the screen not in the prints. I've printed a lot of scans from the > SS-4000 to an Epson 2000P printer in the past 10 months and I don't see the > crud in the print; only on the CRT of the computer. > Just my two cents worth of opinion. > Regards, > Owen > > Owen P. Evans > Osgoode, Ontario. Canada > (near our nation's capital; Ottawa) > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > J.33-3 > - Original Message - > From: "Barbara & Martin Greene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2001 8:46 AM > Subject: Re: filmscanners: Emulsion flaws (was dust in SS4000) > > >> Art, Roger and others >> >> What you have found offers a plausible explanation for the junk that has >> been plaguing many of us although not seen or of concern to others. I > just >> finished removing at least one thousand spots from a scan. This was from > a >> pristine, perfect slide scanned on an SS 4000, blown up for a 13x19 print, >> and rubber stamped in Photoshop. Clearly, they were not the result of > dust. >> Nor was it from my brand new scanner. The slide was processed by an >> excellent lab. The only explanation for this is that they are in the >> emulsion. >> >> Martin >> > >
Re: filmscanners: Silverfast or Polarscan
Mike No doubt that the documentation is for hunger. After recently returning a Nikon Super coolscan 4000 and buying a SS 4000 with the goal of saving $1200, I have a basis to compare the two and some advice on how to proceed. The Nikon software is a pleasure to use, and the documentation, while sparse, is clear and to the point. As for the SS 4000, go with Vuescan. Using both Polarscan and Silverfast, I got terrible results. Using the latest version of Vuescan with some help from those on the forum who are proficient with it, I've gotten great scans with excellent color and detail. I do wish that the documentation for it was clearer and gave more information on how to set the various controls. Martin > From: "Mike Stephens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 13:20:54 -0500 > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: filmscanners: Silverfast or Polarscan > > I just received my new SS 4000, and am wondering the same thing. > Silverfast seems to be pretty powerful, but cumbersome. How does > it compare to Vuescan in quality (not just functionality)? I'm looking > for the best quality scans, with minimal fuss. The Polaroid software > is much easier to use than Silverfast, but doesn't offer nearly the > amount of functions. > > The scanner is great so far - I just need to figure out how to use it > properly - the documentation is seriously deficient! > > Mike
Re: filmscanners: Silverfast or Polarscan
Mike, I can't really comment as I don't have and have never used Silverfast. I would suggest, though, download the trial of Vuescan and try it (www.hamrick.com). It puts a watermark on it, but it will give you the idea. I'm a huge fan of Vuescan and use it for every scan I do. Tom > I just received my new SS 4000, and am wondering the same thing. > Silverfast seems to be pretty powerful, but cumbersome. How does > it compare to Vuescan in quality (not just functionality)? I'm looking > for the best quality scans, with minimal fuss. The Polaroid software > is much easier to use than Silverfast, but doesn't offer nearly the > amount of functions. > > The scanner is great so far - I just need to figure out how to use it > properly - the documentation is seriously deficient! > > Mike
Re: filmscanners: Silverfast or Polarscan
I've had good results using Vuescan with my SS4000 with a minimum of tweaking -- I usually use the default options. Sure, the help guide is a bit opaque, but the software engine itself is high quality and worth the small payment. - Original Message - From: "Mike Stephens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2001 11:20 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Silverfast or Polarscan > I just received my new SS 4000, and am wondering the same thing. > Silverfast seems to be pretty powerful, but cumbersome. How does > it compare to Vuescan in quality (not just functionality)? I'm looking > for the best quality scans, with minimal fuss. The Polaroid software > is much easier to use than Silverfast, but doesn't offer nearly the > amount of functions. > > The scanner is great so far - I just need to figure out how to use it > properly - the documentation is seriously deficient! > > Mike >
Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000?
Martin, I never got along with Insight software, and I bought mine way before Silverfast was included ;-( But, after initial confusion, I found Vuescan the best for Tmax 100. I find I like to just pass the high bit image on through to Pshop. In fact, I wouldn't have bought the SS 4000 if Vuescan didn't exist. $$...Not only is the SS 4000 half price now, I had trouble with a previous scanner...way back in 1995 a refurbed Nikon LS-3510AF went for $3800. I could probably sell it for $300 now if I was lucky- but it's image quality is no where near the SS 4000. And Nikon never fixed a serious bug in the (Win) software they kept promising to do. Grumble, grumble... Jim Hayes Barbara & Martin Greene wrote: > Jim > > I have started to be pleased with the Sprintscan, especially considering the > $1,200 difference saved. Unlike the Nikon, which has great software, > mastering PolaColor, Silverfast, and Vuescan, all having terrible > documentation, takes a good bit of time. I am now getting very good scans > with better color than I got with the Nikon, albeit spending at least one > half an hour per scan to remove the spots. > > Martin > > > From: jimhayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Of course, waying the other pos and cons, i.e. technical support, reliability > > issues > > Polaroid vs Nikon. > >
RE: filmscanners: Silverfast or Polarscan
I've downloaded the Macintosh version of Vuescan, and tried to use it, and I'm getting a memory error. It says that it needs 91mb of memory to run? I have 160mb (just ordered 128mb more - will have that in a few days). Am I doing something wrong? I wouldn't think that it would need this much memory just to load the software. Thanks for all the help! Mike > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Barbara & Martin > Greene > Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2001 1:54 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: filmscanners: Silverfast or Polarscan > > > Mike > > No doubt that the documentation is for hunger. After > recently returning a > Nikon Super coolscan 4000 and buying a SS 4000 with the goal of saving > $1200, I have a basis to compare the two and some advice on > how to proceed. > The Nikon software is a pleasure to use, and the documentation, while > sparse, is clear and to the point. As for the SS 4000, go > with Vuescan. > Using both Polarscan and Silverfast, I got terrible results. > Using the > latest version of Vuescan with some help from those on the > forum who are > proficient with it, I've gotten great scans with excellent > color and detail. > I do wish that the documentation for it was clearer and gave more > information on how to set the various controls. > > Martin >
Re: filmscanners: Re: Emulsion flaws (was dust in SS4000)
Hi Roger et al, Interestingly enough, my best scans are from Provia 100F and 400F. I scanned a few old Kodachrome 64 & 25's this afternoon and given their age (decades ) they weren't too bad. Compared to some recent Provia scans, they looked like that ashtray's contents had fallen on them. Furthermore, when I spoke about the micro-cracks I should have also included that I think airborne particulate matter and fungal spores and any living organism can get into the film layers. Perhaps pollution levels are the culprits here?? As a coincidence, Roger; I see your address at UNB and I know a Roger Smith in the Chem. Dept. at Mt. Allison. Are you working at both campuses? Regards, Owen - Original Message - From: "Roger Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2001 3:44 PM Subject: filmscanners: Re: Emulsion flaws (was dust in SS4000) > Another interesting take on the "emulsion bubble" phenomenon. > I recently compared a few rolls of Fuji Provia 100F and Kodak Elite > Chrome 100. Each of the pairs of film was shot with the same lens and
Re: filmscanners: Re: Emulsion flaws (was dust in SS4000)
"Roger Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Not only is the Fuji slide sharper, it shows relatively few, > large bubbles compared to the Kodak slide. The Fuji bubbles appear as > a few fairly obvious spots on a scan - easy to spot out in Photoshop. > The Kodak slide when scanned shows a gritty, grainy appearance which > is very hard to clean up. I'm wondering whether this phenomenon has any connection with something mentioned to me by a lab when I complained about water marks on Kodak 100VS slides. The water marks were rings that had expanded from the sprocket holes on the film before drying on the surface - and ruining some nice sunset photos. When I spoke to the lab, they said that Fuji and Kodak films behaved quite differently in that chemistry tended to sit in the sprocket holes on the kodak film - resulting in the rings - but didn't on Fuji film. It sounds to me like the surface tensions of the films are very different. If the bubbles are forming on the surface of the film (in the same plane as the dust) then perhaps the higher surface tension of Kodak film "bonds" more bubbles to the surface than on Fuji film. Roger, I gather the bubbles are on the emulsion side of the film, not the base side of the film? I never used 100VS again - partly because of the rings, but also because of the strange colour shifts in some of the photos. Fuji films tend to oversaturate, but at least the colours look more sensible! Rob
filmscanners: SS4000 comments
Just got a SS4000 to replace an LS-2000. After a day of use I find the SS4000 is not as convenient as the LS-2000, but the scans are first rate! A significant improvement over the LS-2000. Here are some observations: - Got the unit from Micro Warehouse which charged US$100.00 more than eCost, and took 10 days to deliver for $28.00. My cost will be US $581.00 after rebate and including shipping. The LS-2000 was US $1700.00 when I bought it in 1998. Micro Warehouse policy is there is a 15% restocking fee and no return of open items. They refer open items directly to the manufacturer for warrantee. At the point I decided to order, eCost had run out of stock. I didn't grok Micro Warehouse's return policy until after I ordered. eCost has since come back with a good price in stock. Drat. I haven't tried asking Micro Warehouse to price match as their written policy shows total disinterest in this sort of customer concern. I recommend you try elsewhere first. (I'm done with my gripe session, now on to the scanner.) - No edge focus issues like the LS0-2000 etc.; the SS4000 is sharp all across the frame. - SS4000 shows very much less grain than the LS-2000, allowing use of much more unsharp mask. - SS4000 shadow performance exceeds the LS-2000 with 16x multi sampling. Results are very good! - SS4000 histograms are a tad compressed, unlike the LS-2000, but corrects beautifully; superior exposure performance in spite of the Nikon's analogue gain control (which was a very mixed bag). No problem with highlights blowing out to get shadows. - SS4000 color exceeds the LS-2000 in my opinion. SS4000 is a little trickier to get good color saturation as compared to the LS-2000. But the LS-2000 did very funky color for some reds, even when carefully color managed. As I gain experience with the SS4000 software, I am finding minor Photoshop levels and curves tweaks are all that's required for gorgeous color. An Oversight when choosing this film type in Polacolor Insight had me worried about the quality of the unit for a moment. I'm scanning Kodak Elite Chrome (a variation of Ektacrhome 100). The Polacolor "Color Slide" film setting is given good results. - Dust is more of a problem for the SS4000 than the LS-2000 w/ICE, but the LS-2000 wasn't perfect, even with ICE. Cleaning the film with a soft cloth and canned air is effective for the SS4000. - The SS4000 is physically faster than the Nikon, but SW processing takes longer. Scans are quicker overall, even thought the SS4000 is 4000spi and the LS-2000 is 2700. The SS4000 is much faster overall when compared to the LS-2000 16x multisampling. - The SS4000 SCSI connectors are two different types: one DB-25 and one Centronics (and odd combination). The LS-2000 was a pair of SCSI-3 narrow connectors, so I had to change cables. The SS4000 works fine in my long SCSI chain (replacing the LS-2000). At first start after installation, the SS4000 logical device didn't appear on the chain, even after using SCSIProbe utility to force a bus reset, but this problem went away after I power-cycled the other devices on the chain. - The SS4000 film holders are quirky, but usable. The Nikon HW is much easier to use. - 8 inches of clearance is required behind the SS4000 because the film holder moves through the unit like a pipe, coming out the back. - Polacolor Insight and Silerfast AI software are harder to use than Nikon Scan and graceless in comparison. NikonScan V2.5.1 on Mac is the peak of effective and attractive UI design IMHO. I miss it. A new user will find Silverfast AI hopelessly daunting. Partly because the UI is designed for a pre-press user and partly because pre-press users expect a bunch of stuff that's irrelevant in a digital darkroom environment, such as support for separations (CMYK). Both Polacolor Insight and Silverfast AI are giving nice looking scans with a slight quality advantage to Polacolor Insight, but likely only because I am still figuring out Silverfast. I haven't yet profiled the scanner using Silverfast or Monaco EZ Color, so no comments on this yet. Also haven't yet tried Vuescan yet. BTW--I'm not sure if the following means anything, but I'll mention it anyway: The IT8 calibration target that comes with Silverfast is different than the Kodak Q60E3. Whereas the Kodak has a picture of a woman's face for visual skin tone assessment, the Silverfast target has skin tone patches. I'm hoping this Silverfast IT8 is useful with Monaco EZ Color because the Q60E3 I've got is wilting. - Multitasking the computer with the SS4000 is an issue as compared to the LS-2000. Nikonscan 2.5.1 allowed normal response of the computer to other programs while scanning, at the price of slower scanning in the background. A nice trade-off. Polacolor Insight allows other work on the computer while scanning, but foreground performance gets choppy. Silverfast AI takes over the computer (Mac OS 9.2.1) so no other work can be done while scanning. This is a drag. - Both Silverfast AI
Re: filmscanners: SS4000 comments
Thanks for the info Wire. I have a question about the different platforms for this scanner. I ran across a site with prices very close to the ecost price, but the description read for MACs - no mention of PCs. Are there two different versions of this scanner or is the only difference in the installed software? (David??) I just unloaded my S20 and will be ordering the SS4000, I just want to be sure I get the right package. I am on PC system. Thanks in advance. James Hill Freelance Photographer Mebane, NC [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "Wire Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2001 11:36 PM Subject: filmscanners: SS4000 comments > Just got a SS4000 to replace an LS-2000. After a day of use I find the > SS4000 is not as convenient as the LS-2000, but the scans are first rate! A > significant improvement over the LS-2000. Here are some observations:
RE: filmscanners: SS4000 comments
They are one in the same. Both versions of the software are included on the disk(s). Just received mine yesterday, and the bundle has it all (even includes three different power cords - US, UK, and generic European plugs!). Wire mentioned that the film/slide holders are flimsy - the slide holder seems OK, but the film holder is awkward and flimsy enough that I ordered a spare. Mike > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of James Hill > Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2001 11:01 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 comments > > > Thanks for the info Wire. > > I have a question about the different platforms for this > scanner. I ran > across a site with prices very close to the ecost price, but > the description > read for MACs - no mention of PCs. Are there two different > versions of this > scanner or is the only difference in the installed software? > (David??) I > just unloaded my S20 and will be ordering the SS4000, I just > want to be sure > I get the right package. I am on PC system. > > Thanks in advance. > > James Hill > Freelance Photographer > Mebane, NC > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
