filmscanners: Archive address please!
Someone please remind me of the archive address. I've just re-subscribed, need to catch up.. Thanks -- David Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
filmscanners: I love/hate SilverFast
SilverFast, don't you luv it? Fantastic scans from tranies, pants when it comes to negs. So I spend two days getting it sorted. Now I can scan negs with SilverFast! It's all to do with NOT TOUCHING that 'Auto' button, cos it automatically messes everything up. A quick fiddle with the 'Color Cast Removal' slider and now we're getting there. Does this slider get a mention in any instructions, anywhere? Anyway, now my neg scans are as good as my tranie scans, it only took a year. So I happen to be passing the LaserSoft web site and what do you know? They updated SilverFast to version five and a half. And what does five and a half do that five can't? Yup, they sorted the neg scanning problem. And they really have. I tried the demo and was so impressed I coughed up the $45. Of course there's no film profiles for Kodak Supra... But the 'no profile' setting is better than good enough. (No green shadows either!) Uno problemo. I got a mail from LaserSoft telling me my new serial number and to enter it in the demo version to remove the watermark. But the demo doesn't give an option to put a serial number in... So it's still pants, until someone tells me how! Oh, by the way, you can do batch scanning with individual correction for each frame now. Of course they all get watermarked... -- David Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: filmscanners: I love/hate SilverFast
David Hoffman [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on Sat, 4 Aug 2001 18:52:31 +0100 >Maybe you also need to click the 'credit' box. No, I tried all that! When I've updated SF in the past or reinstalled the first thing I got when launching the program was the serial number input. Didn't happen with this version. -- David Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: filmscanners: I love/hate SilverFast
Ian Lyons [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on Sat, 4 Aug 2001 20:44:45 +0100 >Ian Lyons >http://www.computer-darkroom.com Stop teasing and send your mail ! -- David Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: filmscanners: SilverFast vs Others
Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on Sun, 5 Aug 2001 18:15:54 -0500 > I prefer VueScan as it gets the range and color scanned >essentially well in the first instance, and *will* pick up all of the >dynamic range my scanner will retrieve, and any corrections I wish to make I >will make in Photoshop. > The point about SilverFast is that you don't need to make any final corrections in PhotoShop. Using the IT-8 calibration means the preview and the final scan will exactly match your original tranie. Of course the support is almost non existent and the manuals written by someone with no idea how to explain complex ideas to simple folk. They then appear to have been translated from German to English via Greek and Spanish ... It's good, no, it's very good. But it's hard. And very expensive! -- David Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: filmscanners: IT8 Calibration was Re: filmscanners: I love/hateSilverFast
Rob Geraghty [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on Mon, 6 Aug 2001 09:15:55 +1000 >It occurs to me to wonder how much difference IT8 calibration on a film >scanner makes? All the difference. Suddenly what you see on your preview is what you get in your final scan. It means you can make all the colour and tonal corrections before you scan and know exactly what the PhotoShop file will look like. >Presumably the IT8 target is an ektachrome slide, Yes but you can get prints too! >so you'd be calibrating for that type of film. Yes but all 'slide' film is based on Ektachrome - even Fujichrome. The only exception is Kodachrome but as Kodak don't want you to use it >What about negs? Good scanning software will come with profiles for various neg films. These profiles take the characteristics of the film into account and get you 95% of the way there. Scanning negs is more of a subjective process anyhow as you don't have anything to refer to. (SilverFast just became good by providing profiles for negs!) Of course to make the calibration work you need to have the rest of your system (ColorSync in Macs, WhoKnowsWhat for Pcs as well as RGB Setup etc in Photoshop) set up correctly. -- David Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: filmscanners: I love/hate SilverFast
Hemingway, David J [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on Mon, 6 Aug 2001 05:34:19 -0400 >As I have not played with the new version, I and I think the other list >members would be very interested in how effective this new release is in >correcting negatives. >From a quick attempt with the demo it the canine's testicles. Unfortunately, as you can't enter your serial number after paying for the upgrade, it's still pants. -- David Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
filmscanners: SilverFast 5.5 - How to update!
The SilverFast 5.5 demo cannot be turned into a full version. The information given out by LaserSoft over the weekend was incorrect! I've spoken to them so they know the problem. To get the update you need a new login and password for the SilverFast downloads page. I expect that info will be mailed to you when you pay the $45 upgrade fee. By the way, I called Germany, who blamed the US. But they sorted me in two hours so they're no longer pants! If you scan negs, it's worth the money. -- David Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: filmscanners: SilverFast Upgrade Disaster
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on Tue, 7 Aug 2001 18:53:05 -0400 >Does anyone know if the $45US upgrade includes both SilverFast Ai and HDR? I think it does but I've always been confused about HDR. My Polaroid 5.5 upgrade allows me to save raw scans, that's HDR ain't it? (Scan Type: 48 Bit HDR Color) I'm confused because when I bought (note, bought, not bundled!) SilverFast I received two serial numbers, one for Ai and one for HDR. I seem to remember putting the HDR serial number in once, but never since I've used an update and 5.5 hasn't asked either. Of course as HDR is doing a raw scan the NegaFix will be of no importance. >I don't >want to go through the effort of another IT-8 calibration if the upgrade >destroys the calibration. Remove your "Polaroid (SilverFast)" folder from your Photoshop Plugins folder and put it some where safe. Then install the 5.5 upgrade - which is a full version and does not update the old copy. You now have two copies, version 5.whatever and 5.5. You will need to calibrate for 5.5 but it will not have any effect on your old version. Come to think I had both versions in my Plugin folder at once, no problem. >My recommendation would be that no one have anything to do with SilverFast >until they get their house in order. They sorted my serial number/password problem within two hours of my calling. You need to speak to the Florida office. They are helpful, despite everything! -- David Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: filmscanners: SilverFast Upgrade Disaster
John & Anne Mahany [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on Wed, 8 Aug 2001 14:37:33 +0100 >trying to get any sensible help from Silverfast This is their phone number, they are helpful, call after 2 pm UK time! 00 1 941 383 7496 >Silverfast, when it works, has a hell of a learning curve. Why struggle >with that as well as Photoshop? The same reason you'd buy fresh quality ingredients when cooking! -- David Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Ron Carlson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on Wed, 8 Aug 2001 23:33:00 -0700 > This was a subject of intense discussion on this list about a >year ago last spring. And here's a link to tell you everything everyone needs to know about CD-R >http://www.macintouch.com/cdrfailure.html -- David Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: filmscanners: SilverFast Upgrade Disaster
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on Sun, 12 Aug 2001 22:15:22 -0400 >SilverFast can't be "uninstalled" because >it's a plug-in; you have to hunt for the files to be deleted. What's the problem? There's a folder called SilverFast (Polaroid) in Adobe Photoshop -> Plug-Ins -> Import/Export all you need to do is delete it! Or is this another PC problem? > For some reason >when I upgraded to 5.5, I was required to do the IT8 calibrations over again. Because the data for the calibration is the SilverFast folder which you replace when doing an upgrade -- David Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: filmscanners: Image management software
Karl Schulmeisters [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on Mon, 13 Aug 2001 01:53:52 -0700 > what image management software iView is the dog's http://www.iview-multimedia.com/ This one has unique features which work especially if you use the IPTC data Mac only but they are working on a PC version. -- David Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: filmscanners: Good neg stck on Scanwit
Oostrom, Jerry [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on Mon, 13 Aug 2001 15:48:10 +0200 >Kodak Supra negative stock seems to scan with less >grainy appearance than the Fuji Superia 400 film. Maybe what Kodak claim is true then! The finest grained 400 neg film available... -- David Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: filmscanners: Image management software
frankmazz [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on Tue, 14 Aug 2001 00:52:01 -0500 > And, again dreaming, the system would be able to connect (relate) each >variation (filename) to each other and to the original. I'm not sure what you mean but I think iView will do this... http://www.iview-multimedia.com -- David Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: filmscanners: Nikon Scan and USB card?
Mike Duncan [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on Mon, 13 Aug 2001 18:51:27 -0400 >Vuescan works fine on my Mac G3 with OS9.04 and 640MB, but NikonScan >doesn't seem to recognize the scanner. I'm using an OrangeLink >Firewire/USB card. The OrangeLink driver uses Apple's USB software. Why are you using a FireWire/USB card? Is this an early G3? Try updating to Mac OS 9.1 there are various fixes for FireWire in that release. There is also a FireWire firmware update but that's only of use if you have FireWire 'on board'. Maybe there's also an Orange firmware update? -- David Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: filmscanners: Scanner slide feeders for 35 mm scanners - likesand dislikes
Matthias Luthi [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on Wed, 15 Aug 2001 00:05:12 -0700 >A feeder that uses standard trays would be great. You mean a feeder which used Carousel (spelling?) trays. Which would hold 80 tranies at a time. (Did David Hoffman suggest this here or elsewhere?) -- David Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: filmscanners: SS4000 cycles continuously - sensor problem?
Rob Geraghty [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on Thu, 16 Aug 2001 12:47:22 +1000 >The scanner is cycling continuously as though >it is trying to initialise but can't. The brush will fix your problem - I 've seen it with my own eyes! Call Polaroid for one or ask someone here who might be close to wherever you are to borrow one. -- David Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: SS4000 cycles continuously -sensor problem?
Rob Geraghty [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on Thu, 16 Aug 2001 14:47:29 +1000 > Polaroid in Sydney are send me a brush. > I hope it comes with instructions or at leas a diagram of where the sensor >is located! :) The brush fits onto the 35mm slide carrier which you then run through the scanner and out the back. Repeat three times. The instructions say do it monthly. -- David Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: filmscanners: where's the list archive?
Rew, Alan [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on Tue, 21 Aug 2001 12:07:14 +0100 >Is there an archive of the messages on this list, or a FAQ somewhere? Tony, Why don't you auto send a FAQs every month or so with the archive address etc. It's a busy list so I don't think people would mind, would they...? -- David Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and brush
Rob Geraghty [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on Fri, 24 Aug 2001 11:01:16 +1000 >The scanner still cycles >continuously. Since it's three months out of warranty I'm going to try >opening the case and using a "normal" brush on the sensor. A year ago - before the brush was invented I had the same problem. I took the scanner to Polaroid UK who were really helpful because they know I am a professional photographer. They took the lid off and cleaned various bits, doing what we now know the brush does. Didn't work. We gave up after an hour and sent the unit to the service people who replace a circuit board. So, although the brush does work - I have seen it fix "my" problem on a friends machine, you may have more serious trouble. Good luck opening the box but I think you may be sending it to Polaroid. -- David Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: filmscanners: Re:proofing 35mm negs
Tony Sleep [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on Fri, 31 Aug 2001 07:46:00 +0100 >My local lab now does colour contacts by some foul scanning process >using a Noritsu piece of junk. You don't need a loupe to see that they are >*all* blurry, even from a foot away. Any reasonable flatbed + inkjet would >be an improvement. Same in Sowf Lundin. The lab near me actually uses a Canon inkjet to print out 'contact' sheets. And they charge the same rate as they did when making 'real' prints, about £12. -- David Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: filmscanners: where's the list archive?
Tony Sleep [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on Fri, 31 Aug 2001 07:46:00 +0100 >> Why don't you auto send a FAQs every month or so with the archive address >> etc. It's a busy list so I don't think people would mind, would they...? > >Good idea! Except I'll have to do it manually. I bet someone here has Eudora, AppleScript and the knowledge. Or a similar combination! -- David Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Steve Greenbank [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on Thu, 6 Sep 2001 23:55:42 +0100 >I have never had a roll go >through an x-ray machine. Planning on coming to the UK? If you do your film will be x-rayed. Or you won't leave. -- David Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Jeff Moore [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on Fri, 7 Sep 2001 11:34:15 -0400 >Actually... I've been able to get hand-checks of film on the way out >of Heathrow the last two times -- after polite but dogged insisting. I >remember reading somewhere that x-raying of film in UK airports ceased >to be strictly mandatory after Lord Snowdon had some film destroyed... Well done! The only official way to avoid x-ray is to contact the airport prior to departure and request hand checking. You will have to have a good reason for it though - ie you are a professional photographer carrying a large quantity of high speed film. It's up to the duty manager whether you are granted this facility. I guess you were just lucky. I wouldn't count on being able to insist! -- David Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: filmscanners: Filmscanning vs. the Business of Photography
Norman Unsworth [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on Wed, 12 Sep 2001 08:53:00 -0400 >This is a list on filmscanning and >while discussions on topics such as model releases and copywriting of images >may be informative, they really would be more appropriately posted in a list >specific to the business of photography. Here's a couple of lists which deal with The Business of photography Editorial Photographers - go to http://www.editorialphotographers.com for joining information. They are a high volume Yahoo Groups list. EPUK - Editorial Photographers UK, http://www.epuk.org You must be a professional photographers to join this list but the web site is open to all. There are French and German photographers groups, you will find links at the other sites. -- David Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: filmscanners: brandnew user queries
David Lewiston [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on Sun, 16 Sep 2001 13:57:58 -1000 >Which >brand of compressed air/gas is recommended? I've recommended this before Don't use compressed air or gas, get down to your local medical supplies shop and buy an enema bulb. I've used one for years (only for my negs and tranies you understand) and don't have a dust problem. I can't remember the last time I bought canned air. For those in London, you can buy them in John Bell & Croyden, Mortimer Street. Maybe big Boots store have them too. They lasty for years and really are just as powerful as Dust Off. -- David Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
filmscanners: Polaroid SS4000 / 4000+ / 120 ???
This is really a question for David Hemingway but maybe others have experience... How much better is the SS4000 + compared to the 'old' 4000? On paper it's a better bit depth, am I correct? The Firewire doesn't matter, are the results noticeably better? And, just for 35mm, will the SS120 produce a better scan than the SS4000 or the 4000+? -- David Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: filmscanners: Polaroid SS4000 / 4000+ / 120 ???
Hemingway, David J [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on Thu, 29 Nov 2001 12:52:57 -0500 >I would imagine one could develop a test that showed the differences but I >am not sure you would see that much difference on a practical basis. This is between the 4000 and the 4000 + ? Would a reasonable person see any difference between a 35mm scan done on a SS120 against a 4000 or 4000+ ? BTW what's happening about the bulk slide feeder device for the 4000? Is there a chance of seeing an uncut film loader too - something to allow me to scan a whole roll of 35mm? -- David Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: filmscanners: Canon's flash metering
Alex Zabrovsky [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on Tue, 11 Dec 2001 18:11:13 +0200 >First of all, I'm still confused how exactly both work, what is exact >differences between them, The difference is one works and one doesn't. A-TTL is pants, unless you have a certain camera and the wind is blowing from the right direction. E-TTL works. (the real difference is E-TTL uses a preflash just before exposure to set the flash output, just like Nikon, A-TTL uses a kind of infra red preflash during exposure measurement and then normal flash TTL metering during exposure to set flash output.) >I've heard A-TTL flash measurements are linked to the active AF sensor >for given exposure, so can handle well off-center subjects (of course if >focused properly). Is that correct ? Sometimes, depending on the camera. FEL works best for off centre (EOS 3, IV) -- David Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: filmscanners: VueScan Histogram
Colin Maddock [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on Sat, 15 Dec 2001 10:07:11 +1300 >I don't feel the need for a histogram in VueScan either. Setting the >black and white clipping levels does all that is needed at the scanning >stage, along with control of gamma. How do you know where to clip the black and white points? -- David Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: filmscanners: VueScan Histogram
Julian Vrieslander [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on Sat, 15 Dec 2001 00:33:41 -0500 >Maybe with more experience I will get better at inspecting VueScan's >displays and choosing the right values for WP, BP, and gamma. But since >these displays are not color managed, I also have to mentally compensate >for how the image appearance is going to change when it goes into >Photoshop. What I see in the VueScan window is what I get in Photoshop - am I doing something right! -- David Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: filmscanners: VueScan 7.3.4 Available
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on Sat, 15 Dec 2001 10:49:42 -0500 >I just released VueScan 7.3.4 for Windows, Mac OS 8/9/X Isn't this mention (on the download page) of something which doesn't exist >Please note that the shareware version of VueScan will be disabled on >PowerPC G5 processors, and updated product and pricing information for >these processors will be announced at a future date. the kind of thing that caused a heap of trouble with Apple and led to your decision to stop supporting the Mac platform recently? ;) I don't want to see you go the way of www.macosrumors.com ! -- David Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: filmscanners: VueScan Histogram
Julian Vrieslander [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on Sun, 16 Dec 2001 12:31:34 -0500 >Maybe you are running on a PC and using sRGB as your color space. If so, >a color managed display is less important. An outrageous suggestion, you shall be hearing from my lawyers in the morning... ;) >I run on a Mac with a gamma >1.8 monitor, and I prefer to use Adobe RGB as my color space. Me to! > With >VueScan set to Adobe RGB, images appear very different than how they >appear in Photoshop: the VueScan version is very flat and desaturated. You seem to have a roundabout way of getting the file into Photoshop! How are your ColorSync settings? I too am using Adobe RBB (1998), when I've finnished fiddling in Vuescan the final preview looks the same as the file when opened in PS. Isn't that the way it's meant to work, Ed? -- David Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[filmscanners] Re: filmscanners: Polaroid SS4000
Tony Sleep [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on Fri, 21 Dec 2001 16:05:00 + >Do Powerbooks not take PCMCIA cards? I have an ancient IBM/Futuredomain >SCSI2 card which I use for scanners with my laptop PC when necessary, cost >me =$30US in GBP Yes, but... You need the Mac drivers, which is why I recommend the Adaptec SlimSCSI -- David Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe' in the title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Discussion list for Polaroid 4000
Thomas B. Maugham [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on Sun, 23 Dec 2001 11:29:43 -0500 >Can anyone point me to a discussion list for the Polaroid 4000 film scanner? You are here! What was the question!! -- David Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe' in the title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Discussion list for Polaroid 4000
Thomas B. Maugham [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on Mon, 24 Dec 2001 10:39:44 -0500 >especially now that Silverfast comes with it. My >question to the group is: What are your experiences (good and bad) with the >4000 and should I be considering something else? It is a very good scanner. Don't worry about Silverfast, it's too hard to learn properly, stick with Polaroid Insight or (better still) Vuescan. Basically - it works! -- David Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe' in the title or body
Re: Silverfast IT8 calibration
on 17/9/00 8:33 pm, John Mahany wrote: > The Polaroid SS4k scanner is supplied with a film strip carrier which holds 6 > negatives or a slide carrier holding 4 slides. I can find no way in > SilverFast of defining which slide to scan. Can it only scan the first slide > on the carrier? > on 17/9/00 11:58 pm, ILyons wrote:> > READ the tutorials at my site. They tell you the answer to both questions, as > does the manual on the cdrom. The poor user interface of Silverfast is it's most annoying feature. I had the same problem as John when I tried the demo. I don't expect to have to read the manual (Silverfast's second most annoying feature) to work out the most basic stuff. Polaroid's Insight shows how to do it properly. The "icon" you need is the one which looks like a grid in the scan window. Clicking that runs the film holder through the scanner and does a preview of each frame. You can then click the image you want to scan as a proper preview. You don't have to wait for the thumbnails though, if you know you want frame 3, you can click it before Silverfast has done the strip. Which is a stupid way of going about the process. For your next assignment, see if you can find the highlight and shadow droppers! I've always been suspicious of software which does not follow user interface guidelines. Generally it's software which was written for DOS or Windows and ported to Mac OS by someone who never used a Mac. Silverfast gives that impression. Not only do you have to struggle to learn to use an immensely powerful program but you have to learn the stupid way Silverfast does things, making the whole process very frustrating. I hope Lasersoft are working on bringing Silverfast up to Mac OS X standard, otherwise I'll be using Insight for everything. BTW Insight is 100% better for scanning negs. David Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
Re: SS4000 toast?
on 24.09.00 08:37, JimD wrote: > My SS4000 has quit working. It sounds as if a motor is > continuously running and the yellow light remains blinking. > > Has anyone else experienced this problem? Yes. I needed a new electronic something or other ... My problem was that when I switched the scanner on it never completed it's start up routine. I left it off overnight and it was fine - for a couple of days! Then it went to Polaroid. My scanner was always noisy before it packed up. It sounded as if there was something inside which needed screwing up properly - apart from my originals which I'm quite capable of screwing up myself! -- David Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
filmscanners: Re: filmscanners-digest V1 #32
on 02.12.00 08:59, filmscanners-digest aka Tony Sleep wrote: > I also need to work out how to configure Majordomo so digest members can post > to the list. Does this explain why my message hasn't turned up on the list? -- David Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: filmscanners: Polaroid SS4000 Extended Service Contracts
I'm sorry if you have seen this already but I understand that digest readers can't post, which is what I was ... Tony Sleep writes: > Until recently I had heard very little of failures apart from the initial > cable detachment problem Well here's another. My SS400 is at Polaroid UK again. It was first there in October after it failed to initialise. I sent it back again because it is making an unhealthy straining noise when scanning. > Service contracts generally seem bad value to me, ... If the scanner goes pop, > I would have to buy another one immediately while the original was repaired - > but since prices fall during product lifetime ... this isn't such a bad idea. > Especially as I could resell the spare once no longer needed. I think I'd have > to be pretty unlucky to lose more by this route than a service deal would > cost, and of course there's a possibility of it costing nothing. I should do a bit more homework, Tony! Polaroid UK offer two levels of cover, Silver at £200 gets an additional two years guarantee with a ten day turn around. Gold is £300 but they bring you a loan scanner while yours is away. If you buy a second scanner for £800, thats more than the service contact. And if you were to sell it after two years for (say) £500 it will have cost £300 - the price of a contract! In the meantime if your original scanner goes pop it will cost a minimum £240 to have Polaroid just look at it. If you are out of luck you might have to pay £350 depending on the type of repair (they have three levels). So even if you don't have a brakedown, buying and selling a spare will likely cost the same as a contract - but, you will have to front up more than double money. Of course you would never sell the second scanner but having £800 worth of capital equipment just sitting there is madness. You'd end up using it - better get a spare spare then - for which you will need even more computers. A slippery slope! I plan to buy the Silver cover, but as my scanner has been away for more or less ten days now and CRC (the service contractor) are "waiting for something from Polaroid". -- David Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners-digest V1 #32
on 03.12.00 02:00, Tony Sleep wrote: >> Does this explain why my message hasn't turned up on the list? > > Did you receive a bounce message? You should have. No bounce message. -- David Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: filmscanners: Insight 5.0 ??
on 15.12.00 17:29, Larry Berman wrote: > Is there any word on Insight 5.0? > > Polaroid appears to have pulled it from their server: Oh dear, does that mean I'm not the only one having trouble making it work?! -- David Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: filmscanners: New scanners from Nikon
on 09.01.01 08:52, Mikael Risedal wrote: > Nikon Coolscan IV ED, LS-40 http://www.macintouch.com has a couple more detals. -- David Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
