[filmscanners] Re: film scanner
Personally I have been avoiding all hardware branded Polaroid until the company is more financially secure. I don't want to get stuck with a $ piece of hardware without any support, driver updates, parts and/or repairs. Buy their film but be careful about hardware right now. Don Doucette Camera911 At 10:00 PM 8/27/2002 -0400, you wrote: >can anyone tell me if they've actually used and/or read any reviews on the >polaroid sprintscan 4000 plus? i can only find reviews on it's predecessor. i >have been researching film scanners in the medium price range, $900-$1500, & >have found conflicting opinions. recommendations? >thanx much, >ts > > >Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe >filmscanners' >or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title >or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film scanner
I have used one, contact me via private mail for more info. Art [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > can anyone tell me if they've actually used and/or read any reviews on the > polaroid sprintscan 4000 plus? i can only find reviews on it's predecessor. i > have been researching film scanners in the medium price range, $900-$1500, & > have found conflicting opinions. recommendations? > thanx much, > ts > > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film scanner
I have this scanner on a Mac/Firewire. A number of others on this list also have it. In general, we're a happy bunch of scanners, and I don't remember anyone who has one ever said they wish they'd have purchased anything else. Downside on the mac is that it doesn't run under OS X. I run it under 9.2. And you should note that I didn't say that I run it under Classic Mode. I've not been able to get that to work since I upgraded to OS X and classic. So I just keep my old Sys 9.2 on a separate partition and boot from it when I want to scan. I've only used Polaroid Insight scanning software, so I can't comment on using other scanning software. I'm very happy. Brad Smith On 8/27/02 7:00 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > can anyone tell me if they've actually used and/or read any reviews on the > polaroid sprintscan 4000 plus? i can only find reviews on it's predecessor. i > have been researching film scanners in the medium price range, $900-$1500, & > have found conflicting opinions. recommendations? > thanx much, > ts > > -- > -- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe > filmscanners' > or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or > body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film scanner
Hi Brad, You are correct, I had a laps of memory that the person was using a Mac. I do not believe the Mac version exists yet. Art Brad Smith wrote: > Art, > If I remember correctly, they only wrote a Windows version. Have they done > a Mac version and I've missed it? The person asking the question said he > was running a Mac. > Brad Smith > > > On 8/28/02 4:22 PM, "Arthur Entlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>... >>... >>... >>Further, Polaroid supplied a free plug and and separate scratch and dust >>filter which is pretty effective once you learn how to use it, for the >>dust that does show. >> > > > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film scanner
That is great news! Could we ask that you post a note here when it is available. Thanks very much Brad On 8/29/02 5:02 AM, "Kapetanakis, Constantine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There will be OS X support for the Polaroid scanners. We are currently in > testing. > > -Original Message- > From: Arthur Entlich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 3:05 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film scanner > > > I forgot to mention that the current dust and scratch filter from > Polaroid is not written for the Mac, only the PC. The program is a nice > extra, but not required. > > Art > > Brad Smith wrote: > >> I have this scanner on a Mac/Firewire. A number of others on this list > also >> have it. In general, we're a happy bunch of scanners, and I don't > remember >> anyone who has one ever said they wish they'd have purchased anything > else. >> >> Downside on the mac is that it doesn't run under OS X. I run it under > 9.2. >> And you should note that I didn't say that I run it under Classic Mode. >> I've not been able to get that to work since I upgraded to OS X and > classic. >> So I just keep my old Sys 9.2 on a separate partition and boot from it > when >> I want to scan. I've only used Polaroid Insight scanning software, so I >> can't comment on using other scanning software. I'm very happy. >> Brad Smith >> >> >> Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: film scanner
Hi Costas, Does that mean the current Dust and scratch filter that Polaroid offers on its website for Polaroid scanner owners will be available for Mac owners too eventually? I know a number of SS120 and some SS4000 who would like to have that plug in for Adobe (and or the stand alone version). Art Kapetanakis, Constantine wrote: > There will be OS X support for the Polaroid scanners. We are currently in > testing. > > -Original Message- > From: Arthur Entlich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 3:05 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film scanner > > > I forgot to mention that the current dust and scratch filter from > Polaroid is not written for the Mac, only the PC. The program is a nice > extra, but not required. > > Art > > Brad Smith wrote: > > >>I have this scanner on a Mac/Firewire. A number of others on this list >> > also > >>have it. In general, we're a happy bunch of scanners, and I don't >> > remember > >>anyone who has one ever said they wish they'd have purchased anything >> > else. > >>Downside on the mac is that it doesn't run under OS X. I run it under >> > 9.2. > >>And you should note that I didn't say that I run it under Classic Mode. >>I've not been able to get that to work since I upgraded to OS X and >> > classic. > >>So I just keep my old Sys 9.2 on a separate partition and boot from it >> > when > >>I want to scan. I've only used Polaroid Insight scanning software, so I >>can't comment on using other scanning software. I'm very happy. >>Brad Smith >> >> >> Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: film scanner
Art, thanks for your observation, I if you intent to advocate the SS4000 for lack of ICE3 you couldn't. Perhaps I didn't' get your mood right, but in my original posting I didn't mean to blame Polaroid for absence of these features. Some people do like it some not, it depends. The Polaroid doesn't need to prove itself - it already did it gaining very good reputation. However, I was speaking for me I find ICE and GEM usefulness for my stuff. I cannot boast by sterile environment in which my originals are kept, although strive to tailor them carefully, but there are dust and scratches here and there (seem to be unavoidable) and then ICE really helps saving me a lot of time which I don't have either. Everyone makes his own decisions and choosing particular things doesn't mean unappreciating others. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 1:22 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film scanner I'll let Howard speak for himself, but I think he stated what he meant. I too have relatively unhanded slides, which do not get scratched with my processor, (finally! ;-)) and also don't have embedded dust or dirt, in general. Also, something Howard didn't mention is that the SS4000 scanners make very good use of the diffused cold cathode lighting, which very much limits the amount of surface defects that appear in the scan. Further, Polaroid supplied a free plug and and separate scratch and dust filter which is pretty effective once you learn how to use it, for the dust that does show. This uses a very different and more effective method of repairing dust and scratches than the Abode dust or scratch filters do. Until recently, anyone could download it and use it on any image (it is done to the scan, not prior to it), but I guess they realized it was something that they wanted to restrict to just Polaroid scanner owners, so you now need a serial number to get it. ICE/IR cleaning is much more of an issue with badly handled film or if you use a Minolta or Nikon scanner, both of which emphasize these surface defects considerably. I know of many users of Polaroid SS4000 and SS4000+ (and the Microtek equivalent) scanners and the vast majority would "like to" have ICE but do not find it a necessity for most applications. Few, if any, have told me they bemoan making the purchase because it lacks ICE. It is truly necessary with Nikon scanners, and a burden to be without on the Minoltas. Of course, with the SS4000 et al. you get that same lighting advantage with black and white film and Kodachrome as well, while ICE does not work at all with real silver halide B&W and some Kodachrome, leaving one with a good deal of spotting work with the Nikon and Minolta scanners. ICE is a great concept. It makes the Nikons, with their LED lighting source, functional, (owners of previous non-ICE Nikon versions told Nikon in no uncertain terms that if they didn't do something about the emphasized dust, dirt and scratches, they wouldn't be selling many more scanners)... It makes production scanners work well and quickly (it is used in many commercial scanners) and it fixes things like fungus and fingerprint damage which are difficult if not impossible to repair. It allows you to be a little less careful in your film cleaning prior to scanning. But, a well designed cold cathode lighting source and considering the cost of the SS4000/+ and its other features (and the black and white film ability without a lot of spotting) make it fine for many without ICE. I don't know how much the ICE features cost in hardware and licensing, but the Minolta Dual II without it costs $600 CAN less in Canada, literally half the price of the Minolta Elite II which has ICE, a slightly better bit depth and firewire... same resolution. People need to decide which features are most important to them, when determining how to get best value from their scanner. GEM is almost unnecessary with the SS4000/+ et al units due to the diffused lighting, (grain is emphasized by grain aliasing in lower res units and by certain lighting designs) and ROC is a separate plug in anyway, if one feels the need for it. Art Alex Zabrovsky wrote: > Howard, you obviously meant you don't miss ROC feature rather then IR > cleaning (ICE) since the originals are all susceptible to dust regardless of > being old or new and can be scratched right > away from the processor. > Otherwise, although really enjoy ICE cleaning and GEM in many cases I also > haven't had an opportunity to try out the ROC not having old faded out stuff > (my photo experience isn't longer then 5 years so far). > > Regards, > Alex Z > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL P
filmscanners: Re: film scanner advise sought
Greetings and advise please. I am considering plunging into a film scanner and am considering the Nikon. I have been scanning film on a Umax Powerlook II and it seems to do well with 2 1/4 and larger but 35mm is hit or miss. Most of the scans I produce are for use in ads, brochures, background images in catalogues, none produced over 8 .5 x 11". Working on a G3. Any suggestions/ advise? Andy --
