Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
Michael Wilkinson wrote: Most of us just ignored it !!! : In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Laurie Solomon : wrote: : : you are still more or less *c*nt* and can afford : : Eh!!! : : Brian Rumary, England : : http://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm But he's a "virgin" ^^^ ;-) Art
Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
Laurie Solomon wrote: I never intended to write anything of the sort. The computer skipped some characters in transmitting the message. It should have read: "you are still more or less current and can afford" Sorry about that. Was that Freudian web-slip? Art
RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
Actually it was purely electronic and mechanical. I typed "current" in but the computer only registered the first two and the last two characters. When I sent the email the spell checker did not catch the word; Microsoft obviously views it as a legitimate old Anglo-Saxon word. :-) What is unusual about this post is that the spell checker did not catch the problem. The system that I use for my email tends to drop characters a lot for one reason or another; but typically the errors are caught by the spell checker before transmission. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 3:35 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? Laurie Solomon wrote: I never intended to write anything of the sort. The computer skipped some characters in transmitting the message. It should have read: "you are still more or less current and can afford" Sorry about that. Was that Freudian web-slip? Art
RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
This is not to chastise. Anyone reading that who has read any of your previous posts would know that was unintentional, as well as out of context in the sentence. However, I usually try to reread my stuff, as I have become a less reliable typist. Perhaps you might stop relying on the spell checker so much. The fact it doesn't flag an error doesn't prove there wasn't one. Hersch At 11:24 AM 01/31/2001 -0600, you wrote: Actually it was purely electronic and mechanical. I typed "current" in but the computer only registered the first two and the last two characters. When I sent the email the spell checker did not catch the word; Microsoft obviously views it as a legitimate old Anglo-Saxon word. :-) What is unusual about this post is that the spell checker did not catch the problem. The system that I use for my email tends to drop characters a lot for one reason or another; but typically the errors are caught by the spell checker before transmission. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 3:35 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? Laurie Solomon wrote: I never intended to write anything of the sort. The computer skipped some characters in transmitting the message. It should have read: "you are still more or less current and can afford" Sorry about that. Was that Freudian web-slip? Art
Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
Laurie: Thanks for your philosphical approach. I am terminating this discussion before it gets out of hand in the sense that it clogs this List with OT matters. Hart Corbett -- From: "Laurie Solomon" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? Date: Mon, Jan 29, 2001, 7:18 AM Your comments bring a smile to my face. Although they are economically reasonable and express pragmatic prudence, I fear they are no longer applicable, economically rational, or pragmatically sound in today's high technology world. The pace of advances far outstrips the longevity and operability of the technological products produced by it. Things are outdated and obsolete much before they drop from a hardware or software point of view, which is why the tax schedules now accept three year depreciation of high tech devices rather than the older standard of seven years. In today's world, you never get your money's worth out of equipment in the sense that you are using the phrase. Aside from the fact that as new stuff comes out expectations rise and we are no longer satisfied with the operation or quality of the older stuff we have, there is the fact of life that there is no point in waiting for the near perfect or perfect device or software since perfection is an unachievable moving target that is never reached or even approximated. If one waits for something that meets your standards of perfection before you get it, you will never get the item. What was considered archival today is no longer considered archival tomorrow because it has been replaced by something that has set new standards of what is meant operationally as archival as well as establishing a new unachievable goal of archival ness for future items to try and achieve. Ironically, the same sort of thing can be said to be true for analog photography. Color photography went through a long period of several decades to finally get to the point of being as archival as it is now, which is no where near he standard for BW silver halide photography, which in itself is in a constant but slow state of change. It is sage advice to buy items that are two steps behind the bleeding edge and at the best price you can for the best devices of that generation that you can get. That way, you are still more or less cunt and can afford to upgrade more often to stay current. Obviously, some items last longer than others. I still use an Epson 1200 inkjet for my images which I produce as a working stage in a longer production process; but I no longer use the Epson original Photo Stylus model for that process. It has been relegated to home use now and considered too obsolete for commercial use by myself. An old HP 660 inkjet which is than the Epson Photo is still being used as a home printer for text. At work, I am still using an old QMS BW postscript laser printer for text. Given my uses for the 1200 and its relative newness in terms of models, I should be able to use it for another couple of years before needing to replace it with a more up-todate model; whereas the laser can be used until it drops. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Hart or Mary Jo Corbett Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 12:27 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? It's pretty much like buying a new car (which I just did 2 weeks ago). The value drops by thousands the moment you drive it out the door. However, my wife and I intend to drive it for the next 10 years or so -- being a Toyota, it is built to last. The point is, if you're figuring on driving it until it drops -- or use a printer or other piece of hardware until it drops -- or it no longer operates on whatever the OS is that has supplanted (perhaps by several times) whatever you're using now -- then you've gotten your money's worth. Hart Corbett -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Derek Clarke) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? Date: Sun, Jan 28, 2001, 4:00 AM There are a load of large format Stylus Pro models that appear to use the same ink technology as the 2000P and therefore might have the same longevity, but i can't remember the model numbers offhand. Does anyone else think that Epson are producing new printers too fast now? I just this moment bought an 890, that has just arrived in the UK, and already it's been made obsolete by the 900XMP that's on their Japanese web site... In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Frank Paris) wrote: That's a long way from 100 years, though, claimed for the 2000P. I suppose that's next, though: 2880dppi, 100 years. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tony Sl
Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Laurie Solomon wrote: you are still more or less *cunt* and can afford Eh!!! Brian Rumary, England http://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm
filmscanners: pseudo1200dpi scanners (was RE: Pigmented inks was Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?)
Hi, Pete! Isn't the Epson 1200dpi scanner one of those that uses two 600dpi CCD arrays, offset by 1/2 pixel? If so, then of course it looks like a 600 dpi scanner-- it is merely doing hardware interpolation. The only way this kind of dual array sensor could work would be if the individual pixel elements on the CCD were half the size of their regular 600dpi arrays, so that the area seen by the offset element wasn't just the combination of that area seen by the adjacent CCD elements of the primary array. My two cents,anyway! Guy Clark -Original Message- From: Photoscientia [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 3:45 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pigmented inks was Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? snip! I recently bought one of their so-called 1200dpi flatbed scanners, which had worse image sharpness than the cheap 600dpi Mustek that I had intended to replace. The 1200dpi was simply 'empty resolution' containing no detail, because they had obviously skimped on the optical system, and the image had the same appearance as 600dpi interpolated to 1200. Another half-arsed Epson design job, which in my view was again falsely advertised. The box clearly stated 'true 1200 dpi optical resolution', and this was plainly nonsense, since the lens couldn't actually resolve anything near that. I tested it with a resolution test plate, and it struggled to about 600dpi. Contrary to popular belief, this isn't due to the glass in the way. Removing the glass platen gave the same result. It just has a poor lens. I see Canon will be pouring millions into RD on their printer range over the next few years. Good luck to them! Regards, Pete.
RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
I never intended to write anything of the sort. The computer skipped some characters in transmitting the message. It should have read: "you are still more or less current and can afford" Sorry about that. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of B.Rumary Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 6:42 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Laurie Solomon wrote: you are still more or less *cunt* and can afford Eh!!! Brian Rumary, England http://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm
Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
Most of us just ignored it !!! - Original Message - From: "B.Rumary" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 12:41 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? : In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Laurie Solomon : wrote: : : you are still more or less *cunt* and can afford : : Eh!!! : : Brian Rumary, England : : http://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm : :
Re: Pigmented inks was Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
Epson tries to walk a fine line on this matter. One the one hand, they are absolutely within their rights to refuse service, or charge for service for any printer returned during warranty which has head problems which could be related to the ink used, and in fact, I would go as far as saying they should do so. On the other hand, the cost of proving the inks were indeed not theirs is probably greater than simply repairing the unit. US law does make third party consumables a protected "right", and no company may carte blanche void warranties based upon the use of 3rd party expendables which meet or exceed manufacturer's guidelines, nor may they refuse warranty service on non-related systems. However, I also know that Epson went from a 2 year to one year warranty on many products, plus pulled toll-free support in recent years, and I do, in part, blame people who have abused their goodwill for this. I know of several people who admitted on the Epson list that they continually used 3rd party inks, and whenever they had a massive ink clog, they would return the printer to Epson with Epson ink carts in it. In some cases these people made several returns leaving Epson to cover the cost of shipping and repair. This is downright deceptive, IMHO. I have used Epson color printers since the original Epson Color Stylus. Up until now, I have used Epson inks, and up till now I have had no ink blockages I could not resolve myself. Perhaps the same would be the case with 3rd party inks, I don't know. In all likelihood, quality ink sets from any reputable dealer would be unlikely to do damage to the heads. Art Rob Geraghty wrote: "Robert DeCandido" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You do not void your warranty by using third party inks in an Epson. If you need to return the printer for servicing, just remove the CIS and re-install the Epson cartridges. See the Inkjetmall web site (Cone Peizography, eg) for a discussion of this. We have been back and forth on that issue on the Peizo list...Repeat: You do not void the warranty! I suspect Epson would take a different view if the reason the printer was being returned has due to head blocks caused by non-OEM inks. AFAIK Epson's official line is that the use of 3rd party inks voids the warranty as far as anything to do with the ink flow is concerned. Rob
RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
Your comments bring a smile to my face. Although they are economically reasonable and express pragmatic prudence, I fear they are no longer applicable, economically rational, or pragmatically sound in today's high technology world. The pace of advances far outstrips the longevity and operability of the technological products produced by it. Things are outdated and obsolete much before they drop from a hardware or software point of view, which is why the tax schedules now accept three year depreciation of high tech devices rather than the older standard of seven years. In today's world, you never get your money's worth out of equipment in the sense that you are using the phrase. Aside from the fact that as new stuff comes out expectations rise and we are no longer satisfied with the operation or quality of the older stuff we have, there is the fact of life that there is no point in waiting for the near perfect or perfect device or software since perfection is an unachievable moving target that is never reached or even approximated. If one waits for something that meets your standards of perfection before you get it, you will never get the item. What was considered archival today is no longer considered archival tomorrow because it has been replaced by something that has set new standards of what is meant operationally as archival as well as establishing a new unachievable goal of archival ness for future items to try and achieve. Ironically, the same sort of thing can be said to be true for analog photography. Color photography went through a long period of several decades to finally get to the point of being as archival as it is now, which is no where near he standard for BW silver halide photography, which in itself is in a constant but slow state of change. It is sage advice to buy items that are two steps behind the bleeding edge and at the best price you can for the best devices of that generation that you can get. That way, you are still more or less cunt and can afford to upgrade more often to stay current. Obviously, some items last longer than others. I still use an Epson 1200 inkjet for my images which I produce as a working stage in a longer production process; but I no longer use the Epson original Photo Stylus model for that process. It has been relegated to home use now and considered too obsolete for commercial use by myself. An old HP 660 inkjet which is than the Epson Photo is still being used as a home printer for text. At work, I am still using an old QMS BW postscript laser printer for text. Given my uses for the 1200 and its relative newness in terms of models, I should be able to use it for another couple of years before needing to replace it with a more up-todate model; whereas the laser can be used until it drops. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Hart or Mary Jo Corbett Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 12:27 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? It's pretty much like buying a new car (which I just did 2 weeks ago). The value drops by thousands the moment you drive it out the door. However, my wife and I intend to drive it for the next 10 years or so -- being a Toyota, it is built to last. The point is, if you're figuring on driving it until it drops -- or use a printer or other piece of hardware until it drops -- or it no longer operates on whatever the OS is that has supplanted (perhaps by several times) whatever you're using now -- then you've gotten your money's worth. Hart Corbett -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Derek Clarke) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? Date: Sun, Jan 28, 2001, 4:00 AM There are a load of large format Stylus Pro models that appear to use the same ink technology as the 2000P and therefore might have the same longevity, but i can't remember the model numbers offhand. Does anyone else think that Epson are producing new printers too fast now? I just this moment bought an 890, that has just arrived in the UK, and already it's been made obsolete by the 900XMP that's on their Japanese web site... In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Frank Paris) wrote: That's a long way from 100 years, though, claimed for the 2000P. I suppose that's next, though: 2880dppi, 100 years. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tony Sleep Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 11:46 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:01:40 -0600 Robert Kehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: However, when something better comes along my 2000P will be up for sale. I'll let you know in a hundred years how the prints are holding up. Perhaps you shouldn't have tempted fate. New
Re: Pigmented inks was Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
Hi Art. Arthur Entlich wrote: Epson tries to walk a fine line on this matter. One the one hand, they are absolutely within their rights to refuse service, or charge for service for any printer returned during warranty which has head problems which could be related to the ink used, and in fact, I would go as far as saying they should do so. Do you work for Epson by any chance Art? If Epson charged a reasonable price for the 20 pence worth of ink you get in a cartridge, or simply put a reasonable quantity of ink in them, then their customers wouldn't feel quite so cheated, and so wouldn't feel the need to exact some recompense from Epson by what you term 'deception'. I have absolutely no sympathy for Epson, and I don't think anybody should have. I recently bought one of their so-called 1200dpi flatbed scanners, which had worse image sharpness than the cheap 600dpi Mustek that I had intended to replace. The 1200dpi was simply 'empty resolution' containing no detail, because they had obviously skimped on the optical system, and the image had the same appearance as 600dpi interpolated to 1200. Another half-arsed Epson design job, which in my view was again falsely advertised. The box clearly stated 'true 1200 dpi optical resolution', and this was plainly nonsense, since the lens couldn't actually resolve anything near that. I tested it with a resolution test plate, and it struggled to about 600dpi. Contrary to popular belief, this isn't due to the glass in the way. Removing the glass platen gave the same result. It just has a poor lens. I see Canon will be pouring millions into RD on their printer range over the next few years. Good luck to them! Regards, Pete.
Re: Pigmented inks was Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
We seem to be misunderstanding one another. I have an 860, and am quite happy with it. I expect to be concerned about longevity in due course. I believe my printer will take unchipped archival pigmented ink cartridges from 3rd party sources. It is also my understanding that those sources will be less expensive than Epson, but I have not yet explored that. In the meantime, I'm archiving on CD-R... The one thing I'm especialy hesitant about is the matter of profiling all elements of my system. Reading all the traffic here and on the Epson Digest, that sounds like an unending headache, especially for the retiree hobbyist with limited funds. My LS-30 was a big splurge., coming after a modest windfall. Hersch At 09:31 PM 01/27/2001 -0800, you wrote: "Hersch Nitikman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What about the 860/1160 with 3rd party archival inks? Aren't they much less costly than the 2000P? Or, what am I missing? Isn't the Epson 2000 the printer with ink cartridges with control chips in them ... eliminating any possibility of 3rd party sources(?) shAf :o)
Re: Pigmented inks was Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
"Robert DeCandido" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You do not void your warranty by using third party inks in an Epson. If you need to return the printer for servicing, just remove the CIS and re-install the Epson cartridges. See the Inkjetmall web site (Cone Peizography, eg) for a discussion of this. We have been back and forth on that issue on the Peizo list...Repeat: You do not void the warranty! I suspect Epson would take a different view if the reason the printer was being returned has due to head blocks caused by non-OEM inks. AFAIK Epson's official line is that the use of 3rd party inks voids the warranty as far as anything to do with the ink flow is concerned. Rob
Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
"Hart or Mary Jo Corbett" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for clearing away the fog, so to speak! What you say certainly sounds logical to my unscientific mind. Gives me something more to think about. It's looking like I'll have to wait a few more years, if possible, before a good archival printer comes along that will meet my needs without filling the room! Huh? The Epson 760 is unbelievably cheap, will do A4 photo quality printing, and you can get 3rd party *pigment* based archival inks (try Generations). At least have a look at the results you can get from one - it might not be *the* answer, but it ought to give pretty decent results until a smaller OEM pigment ink printer comes along. A lot of people complain about colour crossovers with printing BW on Epsons other than the 870/1270, but I don't find them so bad on my 700, and the 760 is better technology than my 700. Rob
RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
There are a load of large format Stylus Pro models that appear to use the same ink technology as the 2000P and therefore might have the same longevity, but i can't remember the model numbers offhand. Does anyone else think that Epson are producing new printers too fast now? I just this moment bought an 890, that has just arrived in the UK, and already it's been made obsolete by the 900XMP that's on their Japanese web site... In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Frank Paris) wrote: That's a long way from 100 years, though, claimed for the 2000P. I suppose that's next, though: 2880dppi, 100 years. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tony Sleep Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 11:46 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:01:40 -0600 Robert Kehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: However, when something better comes along my 2000P will be up for sale. I'll let you know in a hundred years how the prints are holding up. Perhaps you shouldn't have tempted fate. New Epson : Stylus Pro 5500, 2880dpi, 3pl, Epson claim '20yrs light fast when mounted behind glass'. #2,495GBP tho'. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Derek Clarke Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2001 4:15 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? Does anyone else think that Epson are producing new printers too fast now? Hmmm. That's an interesting question, but what does it mean? Too fast for what? Too fast for Epson to get their act together and produce something reliable? Too fast for the consumer who can't afford to keep up with the latest technology? Does the semi-conductor industry produce faster processors too fast? Even better, does the video card industry produce video cards too fast? They seem to double in speed every six months. Is life too fast these days? I think the answer is simple. Life is competitive, and manufacturers have to keep on top of the technology curve if they are to remain competitive, hence profitable, hence alive. New Epson printers come out at the pace they do because the technology is growing at that pace throughout the industry. It won't stop until technology hits a wall, then everyone will have perfect printers for free and only one or two printer manufacturers will exist. I suspect that's a ways off, so the pace will continue frantic for a while yet. Meanwhile, Epson printers are good enough to produce amazing results right now, regardless of all the Epson bashing that seems so fashionable, here and elsewhere. So get one now and enjoy. Then in five years when it breaks, get another one, and meanwhile don't worry about the pace of technology. Sounds like everyone is wringing their hands over the way life works these days. It will only get "worse" (or better, depending on your attitude), so relax and enjoy the show, dipping into it as the pocketbook can afford, but not lamenting that things are going too fast for us. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684
RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
Frank, Your reply itself is an interesting one. It is good; but it does raise some new questions from a policy standpoint as well as from a manufacturing standpoint. Taking the easy question first - e.g., the manufacturing question. Given that research, design, development, and manufacturing does not take place over the relatively short periods of a month, 6 months, or even a year but typically take several years and given that Epson, in particular but others as well, appear to come out with new relatively innovative models every 6-12 months, one has to wonder if this pace causes manufacturers like Epson to commit to the production and distribution before they can really test the new products and make changes in them if flaws are found during the research, design, development, and manufacturing stages of the process or to commit to the distribution of a known flawed product because they already have so much invested in its development and need to have a new model to introduce to the public or the public will think that the company is non-competitive due to the companies reinforcement of the notion that a new bigger and better improved model will be forthcoming every 6-12 months. In short, the race to get new models with new technological features and improvements out to the public may be the sort of rush to judgment that causes the consumer to become the beta testers for the company, which in turn may cause bad feelings toward the company similar to what Microsoft is experiencing and to what Epson has experienced as a result of the orange fade issue surrounding the 1270/870 printer and the Premium Glossy Photo Paper. From a public policy perspective, the policy question becomes should the world and countries within it, as well as the people who populate the world, accept, support, and further the continued enhancement and exasperation of a policy which perpetuates wastage of natural resources for minimal advances or gain just for the sake of private profits and competition. This is not to say that profit and competition should be done away with altogether; but it is to say that maybe it should be made to be less of the motivating factor behind the decisions and actions of private companies. I realize that this is an age old question around which wars have been fought; but the recent increased pace of technological development has resulted in a lot of unanticipated consequences that cause the question to come to the fore again. Namely, as a by-product of rapid technological advances, many new and unproven products are introduced into the market under the cloak of promotional and advertising hype that are not ready to be introduced or offer enough innovation and usefulness to be worthy of being introduced. This is not only wasteful of the world's natural resources; it contributes to the world's non-recyclable wastes products that make their way to the garbage heaps and junkyards. This goes for nonfunctional, dysfunctional, and still functional but unfashionable products. Another by-product of this rush to compete in the technological race is that it causes the unintended consequences which come from arms races, where all the participants are so concerned with one-ups-manship that one winds up with each participant producing 10 models of the same basic design but different names and claims which are all obsolete before they even go into production rather than producing 10 distinctively different, innovative and unique, models which do different things and offer really beneficial features. A third unintended consequence of the mythology that underlies the increased pace of technological development is the believe in phantom development and technological advances. I would suggest that much of what is held out as technological advances are merely marketing advances or hype (i.e., the "new and improved version") with actual technological advances and developments moving at a much slower pace than the promoters would have the public think. A net result is that we get fictitious entities ( e.g., corporations) issuing stock whose value is based on non-existent phantom products and vaporware services that exist on paper and in the minds of the participants only - i.e., the technology stock Dot Coms). End of rant. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Frank Paris Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2001 10:57 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Derek Clarke Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2001 4:15 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? Does anyone else think that Epson are producing new printers too fast now? Hmmm. That's an interesting question, but what does it mean? Too fast for what? Too fast for Epson to get their act together and produce something reliable
RE: Pigmented inks was Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
The one thing I'm especially hesitant about is the matter of profiling all elements of my system. Reading all the traffic here and on the Epson Digest, that sounds like an unending headache, Hersch, All technological devices require more or less constant tuning and retuning to be and remain calibrated and consistent; none are merely turnkey operations where you just plug it in, turn it on, and push the play button. The real questions are how much tuning and returning does one have to do, at what cost in terms of time and money, and to what end. If you are a perfectionist or if you are earning your livelihood off of printing images, then you are going to be more demanding than if you are a casual user or someone who is relatively easily satisfied. The more demanding one is the more effort one will need to expend in the tuning and retuning of the system, the more costly it will be, and the more accurate, reliable and repeatable the outcome will become. In absolute terms, the higher the likelihood will be that a higher quality product will be produced. Thus, how much one invests in such things as profiling depends on what one is willing to accept as a good enough outcome. Also remember that some of the folks on these lists are like hot rodders; they get pleasure in its own right out of fiddling with and customizing their rigs and would not be satisfied with driving a rig that is right off the shelf. Others are perfectly happy using a product right off the self or they are more instrumental in their approach to tools, which they view as having no intrinsic value in their own right but only value in use. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Hersch Nitikman Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2001 1:08 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pigmented inks was Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? We seem to be misunderstanding one another. I have an 860, and am quite happy with it. I expect to be concerned about longevity in due course. I believe my printer will take unchipped archival pigmented ink cartridges from 3rd party sources. It is also my understanding that those sources will be less expensive than Epson, but I have not yet explored that. In the meantime, I'm archiving on CD-R... The one thing I'm especialy hesitant about is the matter of profiling all elements of my system. Reading all the traffic here and on the Epson Digest, that sounds like an unending headache, especially for the retiree hobbyist with limited funds. My LS-30 was a big splurge., coming after a modest windfall. Hersch At 09:31 PM 01/27/2001 -0800, you wrote: "Hersch Nitikman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What about the 860/1160 with 3rd party archival inks? Aren't they much less costly than the 2000P? Or, what am I missing? Isn't the Epson 2000 the printer with ink cartridges with control chips in them ... eliminating any possibility of 3rd party sources(?) shAf :o)
RE: Pigmented inks was Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
Actually Rob is right concerning Epson's official position. Furthermore, just removing the CIS, if your printer allows for the use of a CIS since many do not - especially the newer chipped models, and reinstalling the Epson cartridges by itself will not necessarily work. You would have to flush and clean all the old third party ink out of the machine as well. Any third party ink residue left in the machine for an Epson tech to find and analyze would be grounds for voiding the warranty legally. Basically, what you are suggesting and what those who you cite are suggesting constitute an illegal work around the provisions of the warranty and hence would void the warranty. That Epson personnel may not be able to determine that you have voided the warranty or turn a blind eye to that fact is another matter altogether. It is a practical issue and not a legal one. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rob Geraghty Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2001 2:06 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pigmented inks was Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? "Robert DeCandido" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You do not void your warranty by using third party inks in an Epson. If you need to return the printer for servicing, just remove the CIS and re-install the Epson cartridges. See the Inkjetmall web site (Cone Peizography, eg) for a discussion of this. We have been back and forth on that issue on the Peizo list...Repeat: You do not void the warranty! I suspect Epson would take a different view if the reason the printer was being returned has due to head blocks caused by non-OEM inks. AFAIK Epson's official line is that the use of 3rd party inks voids the warranty as far as anything to do with the ink flow is concerned. Rob
RE: Pigmented inks was Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
Here is a quote from the FAQ's section of epson's website (http://files.support.epson.com/txt/pho127/pho127f1.txt) which may be of interest: "Q: Can the Epson ink cartridges be refilled or can 3rd party ink cartridges be used without voiding the warranty? A: EPSON does not recommend refilling or using 3rd party ink cartridges. Using these products will not void the Epson warranty, however, if these products cause a failure, the repair of that failure will not be covered under warranty. " For what it's worth. At 01:15 PM 1/28/01 -0600, you wrote: Actually Rob is right concerning Epson's official position. Furthermore, just removing the CIS, if your printer allows for the use of a CIS since many do not - especially the newer chipped models, and reinstalling the Epson cartridges by itself will not necessarily work. You would have to flush and clean all the old third party ink out of the machine as well. Any third party ink residue left in the machine for an Epson tech to find and analyze would be grounds for voiding the warranty legally. Basically, what you are suggesting and what those who you cite are suggesting constitute an illegal work around the provisions of the warranty and hence would void the warranty. That Epson personnel may not be able to determine that you have voided the warranty or turn a blind eye to that fact is another matter altogether. It is a practical issue and not a legal one. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rob Geraghty Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2001 2:06 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pigmented inks was Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? "Robert DeCandido" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You do not void your warranty by using third party inks in an Epson. If you need to return the printer for servicing, just remove the CIS and re-install the Epson cartridges. See the Inkjetmall web site (Cone Peizography, eg) for a discussion of this. We have been back and forth on that issue on the Peizo list...Repeat: You do not void the warranty! I suspect Epson would take a different view if the reason the printer was being returned has due to head blocks caused by non-OEM inks. AFAIK Epson's official line is that the use of 3rd party inks voids the warranty as far as anything to do with the ink flow is concerned. Rob
RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
I'm suggesting that maybe getting printers into the market but simultaneously announcing their obsolescence might be a smidgen too fast :-) Even the video card companies don't do that... In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Frank Paris) wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Derek Clarke Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2001 4:15 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? Does anyone else think that Epson are producing new printers too fast now? Hmmm. That's an interesting question, but what does it mean? Too fast for what? Too fast for Epson to get their act together and produce something reliable? Too fast for the consumer who can't afford to keep up with the latest technology? Does the semi-conductor industry produce faster processors too fast? Even better, does the video card industry produce video cards too fast? They seem to double in speed every six months. Is life too fast these days? I think the answer is simple. Life is competitive, and manufacturers have to keep on top of the technology curve if they are to remain competitive, hence profitable, hence alive. New Epson printers come out at the pace they do because the technology is growing at that pace throughout the industry. It won't stop until technology hits a wall, then everyone will have perfect printers for free and only one or two printer manufacturers will exist. I suspect that's a ways off, so the pace will continue frantic for a while yet. Meanwhile, Epson printers are good enough to produce amazing results right now, regardless of all the Epson bashing that seems so fashionable, here and elsewhere. So get one now and enjoy. Then in five years when it breaks, get another one, and meanwhile don't worry about the pace of technology. Sounds like everyone is wringing their hands over the way life works these days. It will only get "worse" (or better, depending on your attitude), so relax and enjoy the show, dipping into it as the pocketbook can afford, but not lamenting that things are going too fast for us. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684
RE: Pigmented inks was Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
A: EPSON does not recommend refilling or using 3rd party ink cartridges. Using these products will not void the Epson warranty, however, if these products cause a failure, the repair of that failure will not be covered under warranty. " Which is essentially what I wrote below - any problem caused by 3rd party inks is not covered by the warranty. :) I suspect Epson would take a different view if the reason the printer was being returned has due to head blocks caused by non-OEM inks. AFAIK Epson's official line is that the use of 3rd party inks voids the warranty as far as anything to do with the ink flow is concerned. Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
RE: Pigmented inks was Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
Technically and literally, this may not be construed to be "voiding the warrantee; but for all practical purposes, it certainly sounds like it with respect to the specific problem to me (e.g., "if these products cause a failure, the repair of that failure will not be covered under warranty.") -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of John Woodworth Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2001 6:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Pigmented inks was Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? Here is a quote from the FAQ's section of epson's website (http://files.support.epson.com/txt/pho127/pho127f1.txt) which may be of interest: "Q: Can the Epson ink cartridges be refilled or can 3rd party ink cartridges be used without voiding the warranty? A: EPSON does not recommend refilling or using 3rd party ink cartridges. Using these products will not void the Epson warranty, however, if these products cause a failure, the repair of that failure will not be covered under warranty. " For what it's worth. At 01:15 PM 1/28/01 -0600, you wrote: Actually Rob is right concerning Epson's official position. Furthermore, just removing the CIS, if your printer allows for the use of a CIS since many do not - especially the newer chipped models, and reinstalling the Epson cartridges by itself will not necessarily work. You would have to flush and clean all the old third party ink out of the machine as well. Any third party ink residue left in the machine for an Epson tech to find and analyze would be grounds for voiding the warranty legally. Basically, what you are suggesting and what those who you cite are suggesting constitute an illegal work around the provisions of the warranty and hence would void the warranty. That Epson personnel may not be able to determine that you have voided the warranty or turn a blind eye to that fact is another matter altogether. It is a practical issue and not a legal one. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rob Geraghty Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2001 2:06 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pigmented inks was Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? "Robert DeCandido" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You do not void your warranty by using third party inks in an Epson. If you need to return the printer for servicing, just remove the CIS and re-install the Epson cartridges. See the Inkjetmall web site (Cone Peizography, eg) for a discussion of this. We have been back and forth on that issue on the Peizo list...Repeat: You do not void the warranty! I suspect Epson would take a different view if the reason the printer was being returned has due to head blocks caused by non-OEM inks. AFAIK Epson's official line is that the use of 3rd party inks voids the warranty as far as anything to do with the ink flow is concerned. Rob
RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
The Epson comments must be metameric then. Or perhaps you've missed a few posts. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jim Snyder Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2001 8:30 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? Frank Paris wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Does anyone else think that Epson are producing new printers too fast now? Meanwhile, Epson printers are good enough to produce amazing results right now, regardless of all the Epson bashing that seems so fashionable, here and elsewhere. I have been following this list for a long time, and I have seen no Epson bashing. Jim Snyder
Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
Rob: Thanks for putting some ground back under my feet. I was feeling particularly frustrated when I wrote that. I'm checking into non-proprietrary inks and probably will end up following your and other's recommendations. For me, such a printer would be an intermediate step until something better (and proved to be so) comes along. I'm in a somewhat unique position as the result of a fairly good cash windfall (courtesy of Steve Case) in that cost is much less of a factor than physical space and practicality. Have you tried non-proprietary inks? It sounds like you have. Any nozzle clogging problems? You also used a term "A4 photo quality". Is this something special to digital terminology or are you referring to the A4 size letter paper which is used in Europe as opposed to US letter size? I hope all this discussion is not too OT for Tony. IMHO, a scanner is not much use if you can't print what you scanned without buying a professional printer for almost as much as I paid for my last car, so the two subjects (input output) are a bit intertwined. Hart Corbett -- From: "Rob Geraghty" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? Date: Sun, Jan 28, 2001, 12:00 AM "Hart or Mary Jo Corbett" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for clearing away the fog, so to speak! What you say certainly sounds logical to my unscientific mind. Gives me something more to think about. It's looking like I'll have to wait a few more years, if possible, before a good archival printer comes along that will meet my needs without filling the room! Huh? The Epson 760 is unbelievably cheap, will do A4 photo quality printing, and you can get 3rd party *pigment* based archival inks (try Generations). At least have a look at the results you can get from one - it might not be *the* answer, but it ought to give pretty decent results until a smaller OEM pigment ink printer comes along. A lot of people complain about colour crossovers with printing BW on Epsons other than the 870/1270, but I don't find them so bad on my 700, and the 760 is better technology than my 700. Rob
Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
It's pretty much like buying a new car (which I just did 2 weeks ago). The value drops by thousands the moment you drive it out the door. However, my wife and I intend to drive it for the next 10 years or so -- being a Toyota, it is built to last. The point is, if you're figuring on driving it until it drops -- or use a printer or other piece of hardware until it drops -- or it no longer operates on whatever the OS is that has supplanted (perhaps by several times) whatever you're using now -- then you've gotten your money's worth. Hart Corbett -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Derek Clarke) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? Date: Sun, Jan 28, 2001, 4:00 AM There are a load of large format Stylus Pro models that appear to use the same ink technology as the 2000P and therefore might have the same longevity, but i can't remember the model numbers offhand. Does anyone else think that Epson are producing new printers too fast now? I just this moment bought an 890, that has just arrived in the UK, and already it's been made obsolete by the 900XMP that's on their Japanese web site... In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Frank Paris) wrote: That's a long way from 100 years, though, claimed for the 2000P. I suppose that's next, though: 2880dppi, 100 years. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tony Sleep Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 11:46 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:01:40 -0600 Robert Kehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: However, when something better comes along my 2000P will be up for sale. I'll let you know in a hundred years how the prints are holding up. Perhaps you shouldn't have tempted fate. New Epson : Stylus Pro 5500, 2880dpi, 3pl, Epson claim '20yrs light fast when mounted behind glass'. #2,495GBP tho'. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
Brian: Frankly, that's a wrinkle I hadn't thought of -- using other than proprietary inks. I'll check out the sites. Thanks! Hart Corbett -- From: "B.Rumary" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? Date: Fri, Jan 26, 2001, 2:32 PM In 001d01c0879f$04737840$cec90fd2@phoenix, Rob Geraghty wrote: Pardon me. I should have said the only one in the realms of a dekstop printer category that someone might buy for home studio use. The 7000 and up printers are all *big* printers intended for professional print-shop use. And they're priced accordingly. As someone else pointed out, they do have pigmented ink - I wasn't aware of that until now since even the 2000P is out of my price range. You could get a smaller Epson printer, such as the Photo 750, and then use special cartridges with "archival" inks. These have many of the qualities of the inks used in the 2000P and bigger printers. These two web sites have some details:- www.tssphoto.com/sp/dg/index.html www.graphicstar.clara.net/index.htm Some of these inks, including pigment based and special all grey/black cartridges for BW photo printing, are made by the UK company Lyson:- www.lyson.com They also sell to dealers in the US. Brian Rumary, England http://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm
RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
All dye based inks fade given the right conditions - time and lighting among others. Black tends to go toward the brown ( sometimes the bluish side and sometimes the greenish side). Even some users of pigment inks have complained about the Blacks not being true blacks to begin with a tendency toward exhibiting the same bluish-brownish-greenish characteristics both fresh out of the printer and after a few days/weeks/months. Black dye based inks fade less quickly than the light magenta and light cyan in 6 color printer and a little less quickly than the full colors of CYM. Under strong UV light they all fade relatively quickly. One of the reasons more research information is directed toward color than black is that straight pure black ink prints generally are a rarity for images - even black and white images. It is used primarily for text and line art in which fading is not as noticeable or important in many cases. Black white or grayscale images are typically printed using the color inks because in the past and even currently the printers and those inks seem to do a better job printing grayscale images. Keep in mind here that true photographic quality has been the standard that inkjet printers attempt to match - not watercolors, oil paintings, spot color images, etc. Thus, the color dye based inks tend to furnish a smoother tonal quality and range for grayscale images than does the black only ink which comes closer to meeting the standard. Thus, the focus on color inks more than black. A caveat, some of this may not apply to third party inks as much as to OEM inks. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Hart or Mary Jo Corbett Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2001 12:11 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? Thanks for the quick reply! What's the fade resistance, do you suppose? I somehow have assumed that black ink generally lasts longer than the various colors but most info about longevity is focused on colors. Hart Corbett -- From: "Rob Geraghty" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? Date: Fri, Jan 26, 2001, 5:46 AM "Hart or Mary Jo Corbett" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (1) My question pertains to BW archival printing; apparently, the 2000P can't even do that. Is there any printer out there which can at fairly high res? I'm used to sharp prints. [Prints not to exceed 8X10] You might want to look at an Epson 760 (I'd have said 1160 except you said no larger than 8x10) with the Cone Piezography system. The 760 seems unbelievably cheap at the moment in the USA so it would probably be worth a try. Rob
Pigmented inks was Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
"Hersch Nitikman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What about the 860/1160 with 3rd party archival inks? Aren't they much less costly than the 2000P? Or, what am I missing? Rob wrote: AFAIK the 2000P is the *only* printer Epson make with OEM pigment based inks Note "OEM" above. Yes, you can get 3rd party archival inks. You also void your warranty if you use them. Obscanning (kinda): has anyone tried printing a 2700dpi scan to an A3 page with an Epson 1160? Did it look OK? Rob
Re: Pigmented inks was Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
Rob: You do not void your warranty by using third party inks in an Epson. If you need to return the printer for servicing, just remove the CIS and re-install the Epson cartridges. See the Inkjetmall web site (Cone Peizography, eg) for a discussion of this. We have been back and forth on that issue on the Peizo list...Repeat: You do not void the warranty! rdc Rob Geraghty wrote: "Hersch Nitikman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What about the 860/1160 with 3rd party archival inks? Aren't they much less costly than the 2000P? Or, what am I missing? Rob wrote: AFAIK the 2000P is the *only* printer Epson make with OEM pigment based inks Note "OEM" above. Yes, you can get 3rd party archival inks. You also void your warranty if you use them. Obscanning (kinda): has anyone tried printing a 2700dpi scan to an A3 page with an Epson 1160? Did it look OK? Rob
Re: Pigmented inks was Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
Canon FS2710 to 1160 looks fine Rob. Geoff Murray www.geoffmurray.com - Original Message - From: "Rob Geraghty" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2001 1:45 AM Subject: Pigmented inks was Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? "Hersch Nitikman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What about the 860/1160 with 3rd party archival inks? Aren't they much less costly than the 2000P? Or, what am I missing? Rob wrote: AFAIK the 2000P is the *only* printer Epson make with OEM pigment based inks Note "OEM" above. Yes, you can get 3rd party archival inks. You also void your warranty if you use them. Obscanning (kinda): has anyone tried printing a 2700dpi scan to an A3 page with an Epson 1160? Did it look OK? Rob
Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
Laurie: Thanks for clearing away the fog, so to speak! What you say certainly sounds logical to my unscientific mind. Gives me something more to think about. It's looking like I'll have to wait a few more years, if possible, before a good archival printer comes along that will meet my needs without filling the room! Hart Corbett -- From: "Laurie Solomon" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001, 8:26 AM All dye based inks fade given the right conditions - time and lighting among others. Black tends to go toward the brown ( sometimes the bluish side and sometimes the greenish side). Even some users of pigment inks have complained about the Blacks not being true blacks to begin with a tendency toward exhibiting the same bluish-brownish-greenish characteristics both fresh out of the printer and after a few days/weeks/months. Black dye based inks fade less quickly than the light magenta and light cyan in 6 color printer and a little less quickly than the full colors of CYM. Under strong UV light they all fade relatively quickly. One of the reasons more research information is directed toward color than black is that straight pure black ink prints generally are a rarity for images - even black and white images. It is used primarily for text and line art in which fading is not as noticeable or important in many cases. Black white or grayscale images are typically printed using the color inks because in the past and even currently the printers and those inks seem to do a better job printing grayscale images. Keep in mind here that true photographic quality has been the standard that inkjet printers attempt to match - not watercolors, oil paintings, spot color images, etc. Thus, the color dye based inks tend to furnish a smoother tonal quality and range for grayscale images than does the black only ink which comes closer to meeting the standard. Thus, the focus on color inks more than black. A caveat, some of this may not apply to third party inks as much as to OEM inks. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Hart or Mary Jo Corbett Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2001 12:11 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? Thanks for the quick reply! What's the fade resistance, do you suppose? I somehow have assumed that black ink generally lasts longer than the various colors but most info about longevity is focused on colors. Hart Corbett -- From: "Rob Geraghty" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? Date: Fri, Jan 26, 2001, 5:46 AM "Hart or Mary Jo Corbett" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (1) My question pertains to BW archival printing; apparently, the 2000P can't even do that. Is there any printer out there which can at fairly high res? I'm used to sharp prints. [Prints not to exceed 8X10] You might want to look at an Epson 760 (I'd have said 1160 except you said no larger than 8x10) with the Cone Piezography system. The 760 seems unbelievably cheap at the moment in the USA so it would probably be worth a try. Rob
Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
The Epson 7000, 7500 and 9000 all use archival inks and all claim 100 to 200 years, per the Epson site [sprinkle on as much salt as you think is appropriate!!] Hart Corbett -- From: "Rob Geraghty" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? Date: Thu, Jan 25, 2001, 3:01 PM "Hart or Mary Jo Corbett" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's sure a long ways from the 100 to 200 years longevity that Epson was caliming on its Web site for it printers from the 2000P on up! Presumably the new printer doesn't use pigment based inks. AFAIK the 2000P is the *only* printer Epson make with OEM pigment based inks, and the *only* one they have claimed over 20 years longevity for. Rob
Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
I agree. If it's UV filtering glass in a sealed frame, that might be a different story. (1) My question pertains to BW archival printing; apparently, the 2000P can't even do that. Is there any printer out there which can at fairly high res? I'm used to sharp prints. [Prints not to exceed 8X10] (2) Second question: I have determined to get an SS4000 or perhaps it's 120 film size cousin when available. I also need a *flatbed scanner* and am looking at Microtek scanners. Most likely a Scanmaker X12USL or possibly a ScanMaker 4700. Reason: I have a lot of BW prints to copy and a lot of old negs on od sized film [616, 127, "postcard" sized, 4X5, etc.] to scan. I alos use the OCR feature a lot. I'd sure appreciate any help that any of you expert, highly experienced people can give. Thanks very much! Hart Corbett -- From: "Robert Kehl" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? Date: Thu, Jan 25, 2001, 11:29 AM IMO we need to take ALL claims in sales literature with at least a couple of pounds (or kilos) of salt, not just a grain or two. Yes, the qualifiers such as "behind glass" and of course the kind of temperature and humidity that is only found in Paradise are NOT real world parameters. It's much like how that computer you're typing on was rated in its sales literature. The manufacturers obviously put the best sounding specifications forward. But it's not really a question of whether your prints will last 20 years or 100 years as the manufacturer claims, (soon it will be 1000 years - millennial prints??) But the real question is which printer and ink/paper combo will give you the longest life in the real world. If (this month) that's not Epson, who is it? Bob Kehl - Original Message - From: Laurie Solomon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 11:40 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? "Lightfastness' maybe; but what about "gasfastness" or "ozonefastness?" Afterall, it was not the lack of lightfastness that caused the orange fade in the 1270 case and usually within a period of time much much shorter than the 10 year lightfastness claim for the Premium Glossy paper. I really think that we all need to take such longevity and archivalness claims with a grain or two of salt. Yes, adding the provision of "when kept behind glass" is or maybe the qualifier than makes the claim standup; but how many people keep many, if not most - not even saying all, their prints behind glass or stored in individual Mylar enclosures. Moreover, is the 20 year claim for glossy or matte papers? Typically the claims of 20-25 years lightfastness have been for Epson Heavyweight Matte Paper and not for glossy papers such as EPP, which have, at best, a lightfastness claim of only 2-5 years ( often even if under glass in the case of the EPP paper this is extended to 5-10 years). -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Robert Kehl Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 9:35 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? - Original Message - From: Tony Sleep [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 1:46 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:01:40 -0600 Robert Kehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: However, when something better comes along my 2000P will be up for sale. I'll let you know in a hundred years how the prints are holding up. Perhaps you shouldn't have tempted fate. New Epson : Stylus Pro 5500, 2880dpi, 3pl, Epson claim '20yrs light fast when mounted behind glass'. 2,495GBP tho'. I believe the 5500 claims 200yrs light fastness. But how 'bout the new 1290, 2880dpi, 4pl with 20yrs lightfastness! BK
Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
Robert Kehl wrote: I believe the 5500 claims 200yrs light fastness. But how 'bout the new 1290, 2880dpi, 4pl with 20yrs lightfastness! BK That makes a lot more sense... that would be the 2000P technology being used in the 5500. Being that the 7500 wide carriage is a 7000 with new heads for the pigmented inks, I suspect you are correct. Now, what worries me is that the 1290 sounds like the 1270 ink set, which means potential failure of the cyan dyes again, 6 colors (I want a four color system) and that darn "intellicartridge" meaning it can't be refilled. Hmmm Art
Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
Robert Kehl wrote: - Original Message - From: Tony Sleep [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 1:46 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:01:40 -0600 Robert Kehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: However, when something better comes along my 2000P will be up for sale. I'll let you know in a hundred years how the prints are holding up. Perhaps you shouldn't have tempted fate. New Epson : Stylus Pro 5500, 2880dpi, 3pl, Epson claim '20yrs light fast when mounted behind glass'. 2,495GBP tho'. So...you wanna buy a slightly used 2000P? Bob Kehl But "20 yrs under glass" is hardly the same as 100-200 years that the 2000P inks claim... I'd wait a bit before deciding the 2000P is obsolete. Art
Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
Rob Geraghty wrote: "Arthur Entlich" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I realize this thread is somewhat off topic, but I have yet to see any samples of 2880 dpi Epson output at any store. Is there really any improvement over the 1440 dpi output? Does anyone know if the banding is lessened or increased with this "higher res" printing? The samples I saw didn't look any different to me. But then, they had been printed by Harvey Norman who might sell printers but are clueless about things like head alignment. Rob Time to call Epson and ask for an "official" sample, I guess... Art
Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
Frank Paris wrote: That's a long way from 100 years, though, claimed for the 2000P. I suppose that's next, though: 2880dppi, 100 years. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 Epson tends to introduce their newer technologies in their middle price products first to test them and then, as they become "proven"" migrates them to the higher end equipment (which they don't actually make, anyway). This helps to avoid bid law suits from professional users. However, being that the 7000 and the 9000 pigmented versions (the 7500 and 9500) were announced at the same time the 2000P came out, they must be pretty sure the system works, since these are about the top of the Epson line (again, the printers aren't made by Epson) I'm still wondering, however, why the 3000 is being so neglected. I want my next printer to have a nice 16" or so width, speed, long-life inks, and individual ink carts. Where is the the 3000P or the 3500 is my question? Well, Epson is always at Comdex, and our Western Canada Comdex show was delayed this year 2 months. I hope to attend in March, and I'll just have to drive the Epson guys their nuts with my questions. (I always do ;-)) Art
Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
"Hart or Mary Jo Corbett" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Epson 7000, 7500 and 9000 all use archival inks and all claim 100 to 200 years, per the Epson site [sprinkle on as much salt as you think is appropriate!!] Pardon me. I should have said the only one in the realms of a dekstop printer category that someone might buy for home studio use. The 7000 and up printers are all *big* printers intended for professional print-shop use. And they're priced accordingly. As someone else pointed out, they do have pigmented ink - I wasn't aware of that until now since even the 2000P is out of my price range. Rob
Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
In a message dated 01/26/2001 8:46:48 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You might want to look at an Epson 760 (I'd have said 1160 except you said no larger than 8x10) with the Cone Piezography system. The 760 seems unbelievably cheap at the moment in the USA so it would probably be worth a try. Lowest current prices off Cnet: 760 $96 870$188 1160 $267 1270 $345 The 760 does seem incredibly cheap but not so for the 1160. Of course, the ability to use third party inks in the 760/1160 is an advantage as well as not having the "orange plague" issue to worry about with the 870/1270 Ed in Atlanta
Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
Hello, Why not the 860 (the smaller version of the 1160)? Does up to 8x10; It can be had for about $125.00 less a $50 rebate from Epson (total @ $75). Free shipping might also be available if you look around. Try a coupon from: http://www.techbargains.com/coupons.cfm Robert DeCandido [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 01/26/2001 8:46:48 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You might want to look at an Epson 760 (I'd have said 1160 except you said no larger than 8x10) with the Cone Piezography system. The 760 seems unbelievably cheap at the moment in the USA so it would probably be worth a try. Lowest current prices off Cnet: 760 $96 870$188 1160 $267 1270 $345 The 760 does seem incredibly cheap but not so for the 1160. Of course, the ability to use third party inks in the 760/1160 is an advantage as well as not having the "orange plague" issue to worry about with the 870/1270 Ed in Atlanta
RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
Perhaps Rob should have said the 2000P is the only archival ink printer that is affordable for individuals. The 9000 Stylus Pro is listed on BH for $12,695.95, for example. These are all large format printers for printing murals and stuff like that. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Hart or Mary Jo Corbett Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 1:06 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? The Epson 7000, 7500 and 9000 all use archival inks and all claim 100 to 200 years, per the Epson site [sprinkle on as much salt as you think is appropriate!!] Hart Corbett -- From: "Rob Geraghty" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? Date: Thu, Jan 25, 2001, 3:01 PM "Hart or Mary Jo Corbett" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's sure a long ways from the 100 to 200 years longevity that Epson was caliming on its Web site for it printers from the 2000P on up! Presumably the new printer doesn't use pigment based inks. AFAIK the 2000P is the *only* printer Epson make with OEM pigment based inks, and the *only* one they have claimed over 20 years longevity for. Rob
Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
In 001d01c0879f$04737840$cec90fd2@phoenix, Rob Geraghty wrote: Pardon me. I should have said the only one in the realms of a dekstop printer category that someone might buy for home studio use. The 7000 and up printers are all *big* printers intended for professional print-shop use. And they're priced accordingly. As someone else pointed out, they do have pigmented ink - I wasn't aware of that until now since even the 2000P is out of my price range. You could get a smaller Epson printer, such as the Photo 750, and then use special cartridges with "archival" inks. These have many of the qualities of the inks used in the 2000P and bigger printers. These two web sites have some details:- www.tssphoto.com/sp/dg/index.html www.graphicstar.clara.net/index.htm Some of these inks, including pigment based and special all grey/black cartridges for BW photo printing, are made by the UK company Lyson:- www.lyson.com They also sell to dealers in the US. Brian Rumary, England http://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm
8x10 printing was Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
"Robert DeCandido" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why not the 860 (the smaller version of the 1160)? I don't think the 860 and 1160 print heads are identical. I'm pretty sure that the 760 is the smaller version of the 1160. The 860 has more black jets so it prints plain text faster. Either the 760 or 860 would be fine provided they will work with a CIS - that would require contacting the inkjetmall and checking. Rob
Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
Thanks for the quick reply! What's the fade resistance, do you suppose? I somehow have assumed that black ink generally lasts longer than the various colors but most info about longevity is focused on colors. Hart Corbett -- From: "Rob Geraghty" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? Date: Fri, Jan 26, 2001, 5:46 AM "Hart or Mary Jo Corbett" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (1) My question pertains to BW archival printing; apparently, the 2000P can't even do that. Is there any printer out there which can at fairly high res? I'm used to sharp prints. [Prints not to exceed 8X10] You might want to look at an Epson 760 (I'd have said 1160 except you said no larger than 8x10) with the Cone Piezography system. The 760 seems unbelievably cheap at the moment in the USA so it would probably be worth a try. Rob
Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:01:40 -0600 Robert Kehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: However, when something better comes along my 2000P will be up for sale. I'll let you know in a hundred years how the prints are holding up. Perhaps you shouldn't have tempted fate. New Epson : Stylus Pro 5500, 2880dpi, 3pl, Epson claim '20yrs light fast when mounted behind glass'. £2,495GBP tho'. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
I realize this thread is somewhat off topic, but I have yet to see any samples of 2880 dpi Epson output at any store. Is there really any improvement over the 1440 dpi output? Does anyone know if the banding is lessened or increased with this "higher res" printing? Art Rob Geraghty wrote: "Tony Sleep" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps you shouldn't have tempted fate. New Epson : Stylus Pro 5500, 2880dpi, 3pl, Epson claim '20yrs light fast when mounted behind glass'. 2,495GBP tho'. Ah, so they finally produced a 2880dpi replacement for the 5000. I wonder if it has separate ink carts for each colour? :) Rob
Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
Tony Sleep wrote: On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:01:40 -0600 Robert Kehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: However, when something better comes along my 2000P will be up for sale. I'll let you know in a hundred years how the prints are holding up. Perhaps you shouldn't have tempted fate. New Epson : Stylus Pro 5500, 2880dpi, 3pl, Epson claim '20yrs light fast when mounted behind glass'. 2,495GBP tho'. I wonder when Epson is going to replace the 3000 printer with a similar format, but with variable dot technology down to 4 or 3 pl and at least the option of long life inks? Art
Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
- Original Message - From: Tony Sleep [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 1:46 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:01:40 -0600 Robert Kehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: However, when something better comes along my 2000P will be up for sale. I'll let you know in a hundred years how the prints are holding up. Perhaps you shouldn't have tempted fate. New Epson : Stylus Pro 5500, 2880dpi, 3pl, Epson claim '20yrs light fast when mounted behind glass'. 2,495GBP tho'. So...you wanna buy a slightly used 2000P? Bob Kehl
RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
That's a long way from 100 years, though, claimed for the 2000P. I suppose that's next, though: 2880dppi, 100 years. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tony Sleep Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 11:46 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:01:40 -0600 Robert Kehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: However, when something better comes along my 2000P will be up for sale. I'll let you know in a hundred years how the prints are holding up. Perhaps you shouldn't have tempted fate. New Epson : Stylus Pro 5500, 2880dpi, 3pl, Epson claim '20yrs light fast when mounted behind glass'. #2,495GBP tho'. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
- Original Message - From: Tony Sleep [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 1:46 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:01:40 -0600 Robert Kehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: However, when something better comes along my 2000P will be up for sale. I'll let you know in a hundred years how the prints are holding up. Perhaps you shouldn't have tempted fate. New Epson : Stylus Pro 5500, 2880dpi, 3pl, Epson claim '20yrs light fast when mounted behind glass'. 2,495GBP tho'. I believe the 5500 claims 200yrs light fastness. But how 'bout the new 1290, 2880dpi, 4pl with 20yrs lightfastness! BK
RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
"Lightfastness' maybe; but what about "gasfastness" or "ozonefastness?" Afterall, it was not the lack of lightfastness that caused the orange fade in the 1270 case and usually within a period of time much much shorter than the 10 year lightfastness claim for the Premium Glossy paper. I really think that we all need to take such longevity and archivalness claims with a grain or two of salt. Yes, adding the provision of "when kept behind glass" is or maybe the qualifier than makes the claim standup; but how many people keep many, if not most - not even saying all, their prints behind glass or stored in individual Mylar enclosures. Moreover, is the 20 year claim for glossy or matte papers? Typically the claims of 20-25 years lightfastness have been for Epson Heavyweight Matte Paper and not for glossy papers such as EPP, which have, at best, a lightfastness claim of only 2-5 years ( often even if under glass in the case of the EPP paper this is extended to 5-10 years). -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Robert Kehl Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 9:35 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? - Original Message - From: Tony Sleep [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 1:46 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:01:40 -0600 Robert Kehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: However, when something better comes along my 2000P will be up for sale. I'll let you know in a hundred years how the prints are holding up. Perhaps you shouldn't have tempted fate. New Epson : Stylus Pro 5500, 2880dpi, 3pl, Epson claim '20yrs light fast when mounted behind glass'. 2,495GBP tho'. I believe the 5500 claims 200yrs light fastness. But how 'bout the new 1290, 2880dpi, 4pl with 20yrs lightfastness! BK
Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
IMO we need to take ALL claims in sales literature with at least a couple of pounds (or kilos) of salt, not just a grain or two. Yes, the qualifiers such as "behind glass" and of course the kind of temperature and humidity that is only found in Paradise are NOT real world parameters. It's much like how that computer you're typing on was rated in its sales literature. The manufacturers obviously put the best sounding specifications forward. But it's not really a question of whether your prints will last 20 years or 100 years as the manufacturer claims, (soon it will be 1000 years - millennial prints??) But the real question is which printer and ink/paper combo will give you the longest life in the real world. If (this month) that's not Epson, who is it? Bob Kehl - Original Message - From: Laurie Solomon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 11:40 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? "Lightfastness' maybe; but what about "gasfastness" or "ozonefastness?" Afterall, it was not the lack of lightfastness that caused the orange fade in the 1270 case and usually within a period of time much much shorter than the 10 year lightfastness claim for the Premium Glossy paper. I really think that we all need to take such longevity and archivalness claims with a grain or two of salt. Yes, adding the provision of "when kept behind glass" is or maybe the qualifier than makes the claim standup; but how many people keep many, if not most - not even saying all, their prints behind glass or stored in individual Mylar enclosures. Moreover, is the 20 year claim for glossy or matte papers? Typically the claims of 20-25 years lightfastness have been for Epson Heavyweight Matte Paper and not for glossy papers such as EPP, which have, at best, a lightfastness claim of only 2-5 years ( often even if under glass in the case of the EPP paper this is extended to 5-10 years). -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Robert Kehl Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 9:35 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? - Original Message - From: Tony Sleep [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 1:46 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:01:40 -0600 Robert Kehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: However, when something better comes along my 2000P will be up for sale. I'll let you know in a hundred years how the prints are holding up. Perhaps you shouldn't have tempted fate. New Epson : Stylus Pro 5500, 2880dpi, 3pl, Epson claim '20yrs light fast when mounted behind glass'. 2,495GBP tho'. I believe the 5500 claims 200yrs light fastness. But how 'bout the new 1290, 2880dpi, 4pl with 20yrs lightfastness! BK
Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
Tony: That's sure a long ways from the 100 to 200 years longevity that Epson was caliming on its Web site for it printers from the 2000P on up! Hart Corbett -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tony Sleep) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? Date: Wed, Jan 24, 2001, 11:00 PM On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:01:40 -0600 Robert Kehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: However, when something better comes along my 2000P will be up for sale. I'll let you know in a hundred years how the prints are holding up. Perhaps you shouldn't have tempted fate. New Epson : Stylus Pro 5500, 2880dpi, 3pl, Epson claim '20yrs light fast when mounted behind glass'. 2,495GBP tho'. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
I concur; I was only offering a word of caution and not trying to endorse any given manufacturer or model. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Robert Kehl Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 1:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? IMO we need to take ALL claims in sales literature with at least a couple of pounds (or kilos) of salt, not just a grain or two. Yes, the qualifiers such as "behind glass" and of course the kind of temperature and humidity that is only found in Paradise are NOT real world parameters. It's much like how that computer you're typing on was rated in its sales literature. The manufacturers obviously put the best sounding specifications forward. But it's not really a question of whether your prints will last 20 years or 100 years as the manufacturer claims, (soon it will be 1000 years - millennial prints??) But the real question is which printer and ink/paper combo will give you the longest life in the real world. If (this month) that's not Epson, who is it? Bob Kehl
Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
"Hart or Mary Jo Corbett" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's sure a long ways from the 100 to 200 years longevity that Epson was caliming on its Web site for it printers from the 2000P on up! Presumably the new printer doesn't use pigment based inks. AFAIK the 2000P is the *only* printer Epson make with OEM pigment based inks, and the *only* one they have claimed over 20 years longevity for. Rob
Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
"Arthur Entlich" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I realize this thread is somewhat off topic, but I have yet to see any samples of 2880 dpi Epson output at any store. Is there really any improvement over the 1440 dpi output? Does anyone know if the banding is lessened or increased with this "higher res" printing? The samples I saw didn't look any different to me. But then, they had been printed by Harvey Norman who might sell printers but are clueless about things like head alignment. Rob
RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
Frank wrote: Epson claims this was a bad batch of paper. It has been recalled and replaced with paper that doesn't have these defects, so you're thrusting at windmills. This whole issue or orange fade has been discussed ad infinitum on the Epson list, and a whole new discussion group was set up over the issue. It's not as simple as a bad batch of Epson Premium Gloss - they had to reformulate the paper to protect the ink from ozone since they refused to reformulate the ink itself. I believe that is an entirely unwarranted conclusion and only expresses your opinion. I'm sure the list members would appreciate your backing it up with facts. PLASE let's not start the whole orange fade debate again. *Especially* not here since this is a film scanning list, not an Epson inkjet list. I unsubscribed from the Epson list a while back because of it, but resubscribed when the web forum was set up specifically for the issue. The best place to ask the question of choosing between the 1270 and 2000P is the Epson inkjet list. You can subscribe to the list or digest at www.leben.com. Consider the 1160 as an option as well - much cheaper, good results, and can use 3rd party archival inks. Rob PS I'm glad to hear you're happy with the 2000P, Frank, since it seems to have received an unwarranted poor reputation on the Epson inkjet list. PPS Obscanning: what is the largest print anyone has made from a 2700dpi scan? Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
The voice of experience, I think! Once again, thanks very much! Hart Corbett -- From: "Laurie Solomon" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? Date: Tue, Jan 23, 2001, 7:56 AM You need this info.. The Epson x7x Printers Group at eGroups.com currently has over 900 members.. Unlike other EPSON Inkjet mailing lists, it is an unmoderated mailing list that formerly focused on the EPSON x7x Printers. However, now that it has become a valuable resource on EPSON inkjet printing in general, the group has expanded it's Charter to encompass any issues relating to production of art and photographic prints from EPSON Inkjets.. The new Charter reads: " This list is intended as an INTERNATIONAL resource for: owners, users, consumers, or potential buyers of EPSON's inkjet printers as used for photos, graphics, or art. This list is NOT MODERATED (meaning a broader depth of coverage, NO Censorship of relevant topics, and much faster response time to questions raised onlist than on a Moderated list. The list will now cover any topics reasonably related to these printers, including (but not limited to): profiling, protection of prints, print display, third party media, third party inkset alternatives, use of these printers for proofing, artwork, graphics, photo reproduction, the orange-shift, and worldwide EPSON Corporate policies regarding these printers. The list posts are readable by non-members, but, posting to the list and printer driver files, profiles, and misc. files are available to members only.. This list is an independent resource operated by EPSON users, and is not affiliated with, nor endorsed by Seiko-EPSON or any Seiko-EPSON Subsidiaries or Operating Groups " To join the group, simply head over to : http://www.egroups.com/group/EPSONx7x_Printers or simply send an e-mail with the word "Subscribe" as the subject to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
In order to do 16 inch bw piezo prints, I certainly need 4000. Actually I can limp along with my old scanned files at 3175. But no lower. Even if I only did 8 x 10, you never know in the future when you'll need the extra Resolution in the file. Having said that, I recently took a digital camera image at low resolution (604 X 525 pixels or thereabouts) and used Genuine Fractals to add roughly 10 times the "data" or so to it. It printed very well at 8 x 10, and passibly well at 16 inch. It printed without any grain (none there to start out with), and had an interesting semi-soft focus look to it with slightly hard edges, which somehow didn't look bad for a portrait. Depends on your POV. Robert Kehl wrote: - Original Message - From: Tony Sleep [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2001 12:25 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? I consider the 2700ppi market a different one to the 4000ppi. The majority of users won't need the higher res (at A4 or so there is little difference), and the costs of a competent PC to handle the higher res scans (twice the size) are a deterrent. So if the LS2000 already does what you want, why change it? I agree. Most people don't need 4000dpi. There seems to be very little difference between 2700dpi and 4000dpi for 8"x10" printing. -- Jim Hayes Pixelography: The marriage of silicon and silver. Images at http://www.jymis.com/~jimhayes
Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
- Original Message - From: Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 11:26 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? Rob PS I'm glad to hear you're happy with the 2000P, Frank, since it seems to have received an unwarranted poor reputation on the Epson inkjet list. After almost 10 years of printing with an HP colorlaser and almost all of the desktop color inkjet technology they ever produced, I can say I am very happy with my Epson 2000P. I still use my HP's for quick prints because they are fast, but the 2000P produces beautiful prints. However, when something better comes along my 2000P will be up for sale. I'll let you know in a hundred years how the prints are holding up. PPS Obscanning: what is the largest print anyone has made from a 2700dpi scan? I've printed 13"x19" from both 2700 dpi (LS-2000) and 4000dpi (Mtek 4000t). The 2700 dpi at 13"x19" looked very nice.until I laid the 4000dpi next to it. The 4000dpi had better definition in the details. My judgement (just one man's opinion) is that depending on the type of photography you're doing the extra resolution may not matter. For instance, a portrait may actually benefit from the slightly softer details whereas a landscape may beg for the greater depth of reality that the extra resolution can provide. Does this mean that at this point the decision about resolution is about art rather than science? Perhaps. My early tests were somewhat slanted towards the 2700 dpi LS-2000 because I had the ICE turned on. I learned thru this list that some sharpening is applied when using ICE (I should have used Vuescan) . I'll be retesting when I get a chance without the sharpening (using Vuescan) so that the scans will be equal except for the resolution. Bob Kehl
RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
Ray, I have heard that printing on the 1270 at 240 dpi will yield the best results. Have you tried this? Spencer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ray McGuinness Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 1:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? Spencer: Very hasty*, but the results were so surprising I couldn't help myself. The picture has a helicopter in it and I have been using it to evaluate the resolution of my scanners. There is some numbering on the side of the helicopter that is very easy to read on the transparency film(using 20x magnifier). The same numbers are quite readable with the Minolta Elite 2880 scan using Photoshop. On the 8x10 print from the Epson 1270 the individual numbers can't be distingushed. They are quite clear on the fuji print. The Epson printer seems to be working properly and I believe all my color printing settings are correct. As you suggested I will bring the 2880 dpi scan to the photo processor for printing on the Fuji Pioneer 370. Also the numbers should be visible if I print the Minolta scan on the 1270 at 11x14 inches. I guess I am surprised at how good the Fuji print is compared to the Epson 1270. Not just the resolution but the smoothness and fineness of the dot patterns. It made me realize that the current Epson printers still have a way to go. By the way same old problem that one has with most low end photo processing outfits, the color balance on the Fuji print stunk, couldn't hold a candle to what I produced on the Epson. *I was printing on the Epson at 300 dpi which conventional wisdom says is good enough. I will now go back and print at something like 400 dpi. Ray Ray, Were you able to compare a 2880 scan printed with the Fuji system? The conclusion you draw seems to be a bit hasty. : ) Spencer Stone
Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
- Original Message - From: shAf [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 2:17 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? Everytime I make such a purchase I predict such innovations. For example, the SS4000 was available when I purchased my LS-2000 ... anyone could have predicted Nikon would match the resolution, and with the upper limit of available detail being ~6000ppi, you can also predict subsequent improvements. You're absolutely right. It's like this with all technology these days. Since the advent of the PC in the early eighties I've purchased eight PC's for my personal use (sorry Mac users). I've never worn one out. They were all replaced due to obscolesence. I've found that it is a lot less expensive to be just a step or two behind the "state of the art". But because I've always valued my time rather highly, I've not hesitated to spend a thousand or two per year for increased speed and efficiency. When it comes to scanners, I will also get improved product. This is something I never got by upgrading my PC. So perhaps shelling out a few extra bucks (or pounds) to have the absolute "state of the art" in scanners is a good value. I believe the key here is to weigh the cost vs. the income produced in the time saved (an assumption is made that the new equipment is going to aid in production of income). Otherwise, accept that you have a somewhat expensive hobby or stay a few steps behind the "latest and greatest" and save the money. You are in a unique position of needing to keep up ... I am not ... most of are not. Your situation might beg for the possibility of leasing or renting such equipment. I've tried that route but never found it to be much of a cost saving in the long run. What works best for me is to buy top quality equipment at the best prices, produce income with it to offset its cost, and sell it before it is a dinosaur, or reassign it to a less demanding (less producing) assignment. Still, the LS-2000 has ICE capability ... I would believe this still makes it more valuable than you suspect. I wonder if Nikonscan v.3 with ICE^3 will be made available as a purchaseable upgrade for LS-2000 scanners(?) ... or will it work with Firewire only? This software would make the LS-2000 more valuable. shAf :o) You are right again. I've discovered that e-bay buyers are paying up to $1000 for LS-2000's. Whereas my Microtek 4000t (just sold) didn't bring quite as much. I was overlooking the ICE as well as the multi-scanning capability and the SCSI interface of the LS-2000. Bob Kehl
RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
You need this info.. The Epson x7x Printers Group at eGroups.com currently has over 900 members.. Unlike other EPSON Inkjet mailing lists, it is an unmoderated mailing list that formerly focused on the EPSON x7x Printers. However, now that it has become a valuable resource on EPSON inkjet printing in general, the group has expanded it's Charter to encompass any issues relating to production of art and photographic prints from EPSON Inkjets.. The new Charter reads: " This list is intended as an INTERNATIONAL resource for: owners, users, consumers, or potential buyers of EPSON's inkjet printers as used for photos, graphics, or art. This list is NOT MODERATED (meaning a broader depth of coverage, NO Censorship of relevant topics, and much faster response time to questions raised onlist than on a Moderated list. The list will now cover any topics reasonably related to these printers, including (but not limited to): profiling, protection of prints, print display, third party media, third party inkset alternatives, use of these printers for proofing, artwork, graphics, photo reproduction, the orange-shift, and worldwide EPSON Corporate policies regarding these printers. The list posts are readable by non-members, but, posting to the list and printer driver files, profiles, and misc. files are available to members only.. This list is an independent resource operated by EPSON users, and is not affiliated with, nor endorsed by Seiko-EPSON or any Seiko-EPSON Subsidiaries or Operating Groups " To join the group, simply head over to : http://www.egroups.com/group/EPSONx7x_Printers or simply send an e-mail with the word "Subscribe" as the subject to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Hart or Mary Jo Corbett Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 9:50 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? Epson does seem to be the only manufacturer that has focussed on the longevity/archivability question and that's what attacts me to their products. I'm thinking of getting an Epson 2000P only because I don't have room for anything larger. Since I have a photo archive from 1866 onward, the longevity question is quite important to me. Hart Corbett --
RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
Spencer: Last night I tried printing the helicopter picture at a higher resolution. The highest I could get with out resampling was 360 dpi. The print was a lot closer to the Fuji 370 print then before. In fact the print and the scan(Minolta Elite) looked quite similar now. So my original suggestion that the Epson 1270 is the limiting factor with 2880 dpi scans while producing an 8x10 print is probably wrong. In addition, for convenience, my original print was produced by downsampling to 300 dpi in photoshop. Under the magnifying glass it looks bad compared to a non downsampled image. So I went back and printed at 300 dpi non downsampled and compared to the Fuji. Still looks good. So my original mistake was downsampling to produce the required image size. However the Fuji Pioneer 370 print still looks significantly better under a magnifying glass. But by eye there isn't much of a difference between the Fuji and Epson. I will try printing at 240 dpi. Ray, I have heard that printing on the 1270 at 240 dpi will yield the best results. Have you tried this? Spencer
RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
Well, I read the sentence to myself and breath fine; but I suppose if you insist on reading out loud you would need to take a breath two. :-) I guess I either forgot to put in some punctuation - namely commas - or typed so fast that the computer did not keep up and dropped the commas. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ray Amos Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 5:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? Laurie Solomon wrote: ... Thirdly, Epson has focused in its hype and literature on the longevity/archival question more out of necessity than choice as a result of its 1270/premium glossy paper farce in which they made much more limited claims only to find that they neglected to account for air contaminants and ozone pollution factors which caused orange fading of primarily the Premium Glossy paper which they had claimed had a life of 10 years but for many worldwide faded to orange with hours of printing unless immediately placed behind glass in frames or under Mylar in albums. Laurie, I'll bet you can't speak the above sentence without taking a breath. Ray Amos
RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
I am very pleased with the scanner in terms of the sharpness of 8x12 images. With the use of Photoshop and good sharpening technique, the 11x14 and 11x16 images are acceptable. The Fujix Pictrograph prints compare very well to optical enlargements. Once past that size, the limiting factor is more likely to be the 35mm slide itself, not the scanner you use. Stan Schwartz http://home.swbell.net/snsok Good point. I agree. I don't think 4000dpi is enough to do what I really envision. But probably the best I can do with today's films. But films may get even better than they are today in a struggle to not become obsolete. And as printers get finer and finer in resolution and computer memory, storage and processor speed continue to grow exponentially, 4000dpi could be come hobby level scanning. Bob Kehl
RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Laurie Solomon Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 7:51 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? It is my understanding that ... the color of the [Epson 2000P] inks tend to change colors under different lights reflecting ff of them from different angles. This happens for most objects, not just Epson 2000P inks. I believe it is called menorism (sp?) or something like that. Are you talking about metamerism? What you describe at any rate is not metamerism. Metamerism is two specimins that match under a specified illuminator and to a specified observer and whose spectral reflectances or transmittances different in the visible wavelengths. Metamerism is a good thing, not a bad thing. It is how you get color matching even if the primaries aren't the same in two devices. Secondly, the prints from the Epson 2000P, as I have read and been told, does not produce glossy prints or prints that have a photographic look and feel to them. The Epson 2000P supports Premium Luster Photo Paper and Premium Semigloss Photo Paper, both of which have a shine to them, although it is not highly glossy. Thirdly, Epson has focused in its hype and literature on the longevity/archival question more out of necessity than choice as a result of its 1270/premium glossy paper farce Epson claims this was a bad batch of paper. It has been recalled and replaced with paper that doesn't have these defects, so you're thrusting at windmills. I world suggest that the introduction of the 2000P with all its longevity and archival promotion was an attempt to shift attention away from the 1270 disaster. I believe that is an entirely unwarranted conclusion and only expresses your opinion. I'm sure the list members would appreciate your backing it up with facts. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684
re: Scanwit Grain Aliasing WAS: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
Alan wrote: There have been raves about Fuji Reala Superia, Note - Fuji Superia 100 is essentially the same film (at least in Australia) as Fuji Reala. Reala is just a pro version that AFAIK will only give you better batch consistency. Kind of like Sensia II and Astia I believe. Judging by Ed's list of Fuji film types, the names sem to be different in the US compared to Australia, or it just may be that a lot of the Kodak photo cd curves are way out of date for films other than Kodak. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
Bob: I had an interesting experience the other day. I had a 35mm slide printed(8x10) by the Fuji Frontier 370 system. The Fuji system is apparently 5000 dpi and uses a laser to expose Fuji Crystal paper which is then chemically developed. The Fuji print was noticeably sharper(by unaided eye) then the same slide scanned on my Minolta Elite(2880 dpi) and printed at 8x10 with an Epson 1270. Examining the Fuji print with a 20x magnifier revealed that it was much smoother then the Epson print(In addition to resolving more detail). The interesting part is that the scan itself has the fine detail that the Fuji print is showing. This leads me to conclude that the printer is the main limiting device with a 2880 dpi scan at 8x10. When Epson releases a 1 picoliter printer the 4000 dpi scanners will be a necessity for producing the sharpest prints. And as you are saying a 4000 dpi scanner will give one a better shot at producing decent large prints using todays inkjet printers. Ray I agree. Most people don't need 4000dpi. There seems to be very little difference between 2700dpi and 4000dpi for 8"x10" printing. Although there is some difference and some people on this list would insist it is a notable difference. But I want to sell large prints for corporate and home display puposes. I think they call it art. : ) I see no reason why only the painters get to frame their artwork in 24"x36" frames. I'd like to see how close I can get with 35mm film. For that I need all the reolution the film will yield. If 2700dpi with interpolation is almost as good as 4000dpi, then how good is 4000dpi with interpolation? I'd like to find out. As for the cost of more computing power, you're right again. No reason to run out and plop down money just to make good 8x10's, but I want to see how large I can print without using my view camera. So I'm the exception. I'll spend a few thousand bucks to see what it will do for me. Bob Kehl
RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
After I close the film holder, I grab the negative with a clean cotton handkerchief and align it, without rubbing it. It stays put. So I don't worry about getting it aligned much before closing the holder. I also find it convenient that you can blow it off after putting it in the holder. I used to use the original HP PhotoSmart scanner which does not use a holder and the dust problem was worse. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Terry Danks Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 6:50 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? Frank Paris wrote: [snip] The film holder isn't flimsy, but it takes some persistence to learn to live with it,[snip] I find the film strip holder very fiddly and inconvenient! The negs are always getting crooked and aligning the frames horizontally in the openings is a trial. The S20 is far better in that respect! The SS4000 slide holder, on the other hand, is great by me. -- Terence A. Danks Nova Scotia, Canada Wildlife and Nature Photography http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/danksta/home.htm
Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
I've used many different types of enlargers and the film holders for those have been far better than the ss4000's negative holder. The top piece of the ss4000 negative holder is not rigid material. When unlatching the top lid from its detent the top piece assumes an arc shape. I have some real nice cameras that use polycarbonate plastic (Canon). I don't have a general problem with plastic as a material. There's just no way that I can consider the design or function of Polaroid's negative holder as a good value in a machine that lists for $1000. Plus, the fact that my ss4000 died a less than 6 months with light usage does nothing to bolster my confidence in its long term reliability. I've used LS2000's a few times and they seem to be more mechanically solid. If I were considering a 4000 ppi scanner purchase right now I would certainly wait and see how the new Nikon scanners perform (maybe this generation will avoid stepper motor problems). -Jim At 07:49 PM 1/21/01 -0800, Hart or Mary Jo Corbett wrote: I am considering the purchase of an SS4000; just how "pathetically flimsy" are the film/slide holders? Hart Corbett -- From: JimD [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? Date: Sat, Jan 20, 2001, 11:27 AM The pathetically flimsy plastic film/slide holders on my SS4000 are a major reason that I'm real interested in a new Nikon scanner. I'm praying that Polaroid will improve the film/slide holders as they attempt to compete with Nikon. -JimD At 09:09 AM 1/20/01 -0700, jimhayes wrote: snip Improvements? The plastic film holders are flimsy. I thought I heard that with the new Polaroid 120, metal holders are supplied, ones that will work in the SS 4000 as well(?). snip
RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
Ray, Were you able to compare a 2880 scan printed with the Fuji system? The conclusion you draw seems to be a bit hasty. : ) Spencer Stone Bob: I had an interesting experience the other day. I had a 35mm slide printed(8x10) by the Fuji Frontier 370 system. The Fuji system is apparently 5000 dpi and uses a laser to expose Fuji Crystal paper which is then chemically developed. The Fuji print was noticeably sharper(by unaided eye) then the same slide scanned on my Minolta Elite(2880 dpi) and printed at 8x10 with an Epson 1270. Examining the Fuji print with a 20x magnifier revealed that it was much smoother then the Epson print(In addition to resolving more detail). The interesting part is that the scan itself has the fine detail that the Fuji print is showing. This leads me to conclude that the printer is the main limiting device with a 2880 dpi scan at 8x10. When Epson releases a 1 picoliter printer the 4000 dpi scanners will be a necessity for producing the sharpest prints. And as you are saying a 4000 dpi scanner will give one a better shot at producing decent large prints using todays inkjet printers. Ray
RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
I must admit I'm biased because I work for Applied Science Fiction, but I wouldn't consider a scanner unless it has Digital ICE. Try as I can, I can't get all of the dust off of an undamaged negative. Plus, many of the images I scan have defects, some in manufacturing others in handling, that couldn't be corrected EVER in Photoshop (usually because the image and the defect are indistinguishable) not to mention the time involved. It is unbelievable the way Digital ICE can see _under_ a defect and extract the original information captured on the film. You should also check the bit depth of the new Nikon scanner, is higher than eight? Maybe the Cool Scan IV is an upgrade for the Cool Scan III. Is there going to be an equivalent to the LS-2000 that is higher priced? I found the negative carrier doesn't allow scans from border to border on the film. I modified mine (filed out the opening) so it now can get all the way to the edge. Good luck Jack Phipps Applied Science Fiction -Original Message- From: Robert Kehl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 2:18 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? Thanks to very good input from this list I bought both a Nikon LS-2000 and a Microtek 4000t (Polaroid SS-4000) last year for a special project. I used the Nikon for the mainstream scanning because of it's great film handling capabilities (mine didn't have a stepper motor problem) and I used the Microtek for super hi-res scans. I have been delighted with both scanners. However, I am a sound image technology consultant by trade and so I cannot resist having the latest and greatest technology. As I put my former "state of the art scanners" up for sale I wonder, what are they really worth? I realize that with every wave of new technology the former "state of the art" technology fades somewhat, but how much? With the advent of the Nikon LS-40 (Coolscan IV) at it seems my LS-2000 has really got to lose value. Unless I missed something, the LS-40 is the next step up repalcement for the LS-2000 and at $895 it just made my LS-2000 just this side of a boat anchor. But the new Nikon LS-4000ED probably affects 4000t (SS-4000) owners a bit less, since both the new Nikon and the Polaroid scanners ultimately give you same the same image resolution and quality. It seems that LS-2000 owners all around the world may want to move up right away, but the SS-4000 owners have less to gain by running out and buying the new 4000dpi scanner from Nikon when they already have a 4000dpi scanner. Still the film handling and Ice3 could be nice. Any comment from SS-4000 or 4000t owners? Are you planning on a move up to the new technology right away or am I the only one? Anyway, it seems to me that my LS-2000 just dropped in value to somewhere around $600 but perhaps my 4000t (SS-4000) will hold its value a little better, maybe somewhere around $1,200. Response would be appreciated. Regards, Bob Kehl
Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 07:24:07 -0700 Ray McGuinness ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: This leads me to conclude that the printer is the main limiting device with a 2880 dpi scan at 8x10. When Epson releases a 1 picoliter printer the 4000 dpi scanners will be a necessity for producing the sharpest prints. And as you are saying a 4000 dpi scanner will give one a better shot at producing decent large prints using todays inkjet printers. You are looking at 2 separate entities. Scan quality can benefit from higher res, and that can show via Epson printers, so yes, you can get a better result. But Epsons have defects all their own, which I personally find fairly objectionable - the residual coarseness of the dither patter and some sharp discontinuities in the gamut which make for some quite jarring transitions in tone, specially WRT greens. I recently saw samples from a Canon S800 Photo inkjet in Tokyo and they were very much more 'photographic'. It was only a quick look, but they seemed much more like good colour photographic prints than the samples from Epson 870 and 1270 also displayed, let alone my own 1200. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
Frank all else who repled to my inquiry: thanks very much for the quick replies and good info. I think I'll take Frank's approach and be determined that I'll master it! Hart Corbett -- From: "Frank Paris" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? Date: Sun, Jan 21, 2001, 10:08 PM There is nothing pathetically flimsy about either one. There are no problems associated with the slide holder, at least that have ever bothered me. I liked it from the start. The film holder isn't flimsy, but it takes some persistence to learn to live with it, but if you have an open mind about it, the device can be mastered. I made up my mind before even seeing it that I would become skilled at using it, and that's all it took. I have no problems with it anymore, but wouldn't turn down a better design if it were offered to me. Frank Paris
RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
Bob writes ... ... ..., I am a sound image technology consultant by trade and so I cannot resist having the latest and greatest technology. ... With the advent of the Nikon LS-40 (Coolscan IV) at it seems my LS-2000 has really got to lose value. ... Anyway, it seems to me that my LS-2000 just dropped in value to somewhere around $600 but perhaps my 4000t (SS-4000) will hold its value a little better, maybe somewhere around $1,200. Response would be appreciated. Everytime I make such a purchase I predict such innovations. For example, the SS4000 was available when I purchased my LS-2000 ... anyone could have predicted Nikon would match the resolution, and with the upper limit of available detail being ~6000ppi, you can also predict subsequent improvements. You are in a unique position of needing to keep up ... I am not ... most of are not. Your situation might beg for the possibility of leasing or renting such equipment. Still, the LS-2000 has ICE capability ... I would believe this still makes it more valuable than you suspect. I wonder if Nikonscan v.3 with ICE^3 will be made available as a purchaseable upgrade for LS-2000 scanners(?) ... or will it work with Firewire only? This software would make the LS-2000 more valuable. shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
Spencer: Very hasty*, but the results were so surprising I couldn't help myself. The picture has a helicopter in it and I have been using it to evaluate the resolution of my scanners. There is some numbering on the side of the helicopter that is very easy to read on the transparency film(using 20x magnifier). The same numbers are quite readable with the Minolta Elite 2880 scan using Photoshop. On the 8x10 print from the Epson 1270 the individual numbers can't be distingushed. They are quite clear on the fuji print. The Epson printer seems to be working properly and I believe all my color printing settings are correct. As you suggested I will bring the 2880 dpi scan to the photo processor for printing on the Fuji Pioneer 370. Also the numbers should be visible if I print the Minolta scan on the 1270 at 11x14 inches. I guess I am surprised at how good the Fuji print is compared to the Epson 1270. Not just the resolution but the smoothness and fineness of the dot patterns. It made me realize that the current Epson printers still have a way to go. By the way same old problem that one has with most low end photo processing outfits, the color balance on the Fuji print stunk, couldn't hold a candle to what I produced on the Epson. *I was printing on the Epson at 300 dpi which conventional wisdom says is good enough. I will now go back and print at something like 400 dpi. Ray Ray, Were you able to compare a 2880 scan printed with the Fuji system? The conclusion you draw seems to be a bit hasty. : ) Spencer Stone
Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
Tony; The Fuji 370 print prompted me to do some experimenting with the Epson 1270 printer settings. I found out the the dither patterns in the monotone areas of the print were much smoother when using High Quality(mono directional) then when using Bidirectional printing(Faster). I only could see this with the 20x magnifier but the effect was definite. No effect on resolution though. But Epsons have defects all their own, which I personally find fairly objectionable - the residual coarseness of the dither patter and some sharp discontinuities in the gamut which make for some quite jarring transitions in tone, specially WRT greens. I recently saw samples from a Canon S800 Photo inkjet in Tokyo and they were very much more 'photographic'. It was only a quick look, but they seemed much more like good colour photographic prints than the samples from Epson 870 and 1270 also displayed, let alone my own 1200. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
That's what I like: an open mind! Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Hart or Mary Jo Corbett Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 11:19 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? Frank all else who repled to my inquiry: thanks very much for the quick replies and good info. I think I'll take Frank's approach and be determined that I'll master it! Hart Corbett -- From: "Frank Paris" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? Date: Sun, Jan 21, 2001, 10:08 PM There is nothing pathetically flimsy about either one. snip
RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
You might break it if you sat on it. Stan Schwartz http://home.swbell.net/snsok -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Hart or Mary Jo Corbett Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2001 9:50 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? I am considering the purchase of an SS4000; just how "pathetically flimsy" are the film/slide holders? Hart Corbett -- From: JimD [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? Date: Sat, Jan 20, 2001, 11:27 AM The pathetically flimsy plastic film/slide holders on my SS4000 are a major reason that I'm real interested in a new Nikon scanner. I'm praying that Polaroid will improve the film/slide holders as they attempt to compete with Nikon. -JimD At 09:09 AM 1/20/01 -0700, jimhayes wrote: snip Improvements? The plastic film holders are flimsy. I thought I heard that with the new Polaroid 120, metal holders are supplied, ones that will work in the SS 4000 as well(?). snip
RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
Rob: Yes the Fuji just paints light on the Fuji Crystal paper with a laser. I guess I was just surprised at the quality of print available at a local fast photo place for $6(8x10). On the other hand comparing the two prints with eyeballs its hard to tell them apart with respect to resolution. I was doing all my comparing with magnifying glasses. I still see the big problem is quality control with the fast photo processing places. The Fuji crystal paper still has to be developed with chemicals and the scanning equipments calibration has to be maintained. It makes me realize that as good as the current Epson printers are, there is still room for significant improvement. Ray Ray wrote: readable with the Minolta Elite 2880 scan using Photoshop. On the 8x10 print from the Epson 1270 the individual numbers can't be distingushed. They are quite clear on the fuji print. But wouldn't the difference be that the Epson has to dither to get a point of colour where the Fuji just prints a pixel? Rob
Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
Epson does seem to be the only manufacturer that has focussed on the longevity/archivability question and that's what attacts me to their products. I'm thinking of getting an Epson 2000P only because I don't have room for anything larger. Since I have a photo archive from 1866 onward, the longevity question is quite important to me. Hart Corbett -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? Date: Mon, Jan 22, 2001, 1:50 PM In a message dated 01/22/2001 1:35:52 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You are looking at 2 separate entities. Scan quality can benefit from higher res, and that can show via Epson printers, so yes, you can get a better result. But Epsons have defects all their own, which I personally find fairly objectionable - the residual coarseness of the dither patter and some sharp discontinuities in the gamut which make for some quite jarring transitions in tone, specially WRT greens. I recently saw samples from a Canon S800 Photo inkjet in Tokyo and they were very much more 'photographic'. It was only a quick look, but they seemed much more like good colour photographic prints than the samples from Epson 870 and 1270 also displayed, let alone my own 1200. So, are the Epsons still the "best" around for the money? I don't hear much talk about HP, Canon, or Lexmark being of astounding quality. Or are Epson people that biased? Ed in Atlanta
RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 14:15:47 -0600 Stan Schwartz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: An upside down shoe box with strategically located cutouts for the cables is just perfect for this. You can afford SHOES as well as photography? Some of you people just lack committment!... G :) Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 14:18:05 -0600 Robert Kehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Anyway, it seems to me that my LS-2000 just dropped in value to somewhere around $600 but perhaps my 4000t (SS-4000) will hold its value a little better, maybe somewhere around $1,200. Response would be appreciated. I consider the 2700ppi market a different one to the 4000ppi. The majority of users won't need the higher res (at A4 or so there is little difference), and the costs of a competent PC to handle the higher res scans (twice the size) are a deterrent. So if the LS2000 already does what you want, why change it? Re the SS4000 and Mtek4000, these already work very well indeed. The addition of ICE sounds very attractive, but the consequent loss of some sharpness may prove unattractive for critical use - the very reason people would choose a 4000ppi scanner. Will ICE+4000ppi really produce a sharper, better result than 2700ppi + interpolation...? It'll be very interesting to see how the Nikons perform, but I think we have now passed the point where successive generations mean large improvements in native scan quality. The real differences are now mostly software, useability and clever stuff like ICE. As with all scanners, there are likely to be rough edges to the software. I wouldn't therefore be in a desperate hurry to upgrade, unless curiosity and wanting to be first matter. In which case, flog 'em now, before the new stuff appears in dealer lists :) Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
- Original Message - From: "Tony Sleep" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2001 10:25 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? It'll be very interesting to see how the Nikons perform, but I think we have now passed the point where successive generations mean large improvements in native scan quality. I agree that gross errors and faults are largely gone from the better scanners today. But noise, "grain" and color accuracy still seem to be common scan quality complaints (besides the ubiquitous software quality issues). It would be interesting to hear why people are upgrading to the new scanners. What current problems are they trying to solve? Byron
Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
It would be interesting to hear why people are upgrading to the new scanners. What current problems are they trying to solve? Byron I bought Scanwit 2720S a couple of months ago as a learning tool figuring that I would want to upgrade once I figure out what I need. I'm very happy with the Scanwit except for one thing. Terrible grain alising in fair skin tones. I mostly shoot weddings so I have to use negative film so that I am able to get low priced proofs. The few slides I scanned were much better and if I was primarily scanning slides I wouldn't upgrade. I said all that to say, the one feature that will absolutely make me upgrade to a new Nikon is GEM. I never thought ICE was all that big a deal. I spend a minute or two dust spotting a frame. That's just a fraction of the time I spend fixing the ugly yellow sploches in my skin tones. The only question is which one. The IV has the specs I want except it's USB. I would like a faster interface. I'm not really on board with 4000dpi. I know that sounds strange but I don't think it makes any real difference in final print quality.I don't think a 35mm neg has that much info to give up. I'm not saying there is NO difference, just no noticable difference in final print quality. I don't care if, on close examination you can see an eye lash on a 4000dip scan that you couldn't on a 2900dpi scan. All I care about is would my customers look at a print from a 4000dpi scan and like the print better than if it had been made with a 2900dpi scanner. I don't think that's the case. Price is not the issue, I'm more concerned with the strain editing 110mb files will put on my nerves than the price difference in the IV and the 4000.
Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
- Original Message - From: bjs [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2001 1:46 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? - Original Message - From: "Tony Sleep" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2001 10:25 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? It'll be very interesting to see how the Nikons perform, but I think we have now passed the point where successive generations mean large improvements in native scan quality. I agree that gross errors and faults are largely gone from the better scanners today. But noise, "grain" and color accuracy still seem to be common scan quality complaints (besides the ubiquitous software quality issues). It would be interesting to hear why people are upgrading to the new scanners. What current problems are they trying to solve? Byron I'm upgrading because I love the film handling of the Nikons vs. the Polaraoid. And I want the 4000dpi and..its only money. Bob Kehl
Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
- Original Message - From: Tony Sleep [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2001 12:25 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? I consider the 2700ppi market a different one to the 4000ppi. The majority of users won't need the higher res (at A4 or so there is little difference), and the costs of a competent PC to handle the higher res scans (twice the size) are a deterrent. So if the LS2000 already does what you want, why change it? I agree. Most people don't need 4000dpi. There seems to be very little difference between 2700dpi and 4000dpi for 8"x10" printing. Although there is some difference and some people on this list would insist it is a notable difference. But I want to sell large prints for corporate and home display puposes. I think they call it art. : ) I see no reason why only the painters get to frame their artwork in 24"x36" frames. I'd like to see how close I can get with 35mm film. For that I need all the reolution the film will yield. If 2700dpi with interpolation is almost as good as 4000dpi, then how good is 4000dpi with interpolation? I'd like to find out. As for the cost of more computing power, you're right again. No reason to run out and plop down money just to make good 8x10's, but I want to see how large I can print without using my view camera. So I'm the exception. I'll spend a few thousand bucks to see what it will do for me. Bob Kehl
Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
Hart writes ... I am considering the purchase of an SS4000; just how "pathetically flimsy" are the film/slide holders? I can't speak for the Polaroid, but the Nikon film strip holder hasn't changed since they introduced the LS-10 ... and it is my preference for the LS-2000 because it holds the film flatter than the film strip feeder. Regarding upgrading from the LS-2000 to the LS-4000, many will, because to be a player with the stock photography bureaus, they'll insist on 50Mb files ... somewhat unjustified in my mind for 95% of the uses for what they sell ... but it IS their game to control. As much as I'd like to upgrade ... and although I've never looked back on all my LS purchases, I'm glad I am a hobbiest and was never in a deadline situation. All Nikon softwares put many users through fits in the beginnings. You really did need to know SCSI hardware to iron things out for dependable workflow ... but once it it was working, it seemed fine (mine anyway). And, now it is "firewire" ... I am in NO hurry :o) my US$0.02 ... shAf :o)
re: Scanwit Grain Aliasing WAS: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
I've noticed this with Kodak Gold 100 film and Agfa 400, which surprises me with the Gold 100, it's actually WORSE than th 400 agfa. This summer I shot a couple rolls of Superia and it was WAY better in both the 100 and 400 speeds, but 4 times the cost too. Recently I've started shooting Fuji Suger G in 400 and haven't shot any 100 I have yet. There have been raves about Fuji Reala Superia, and several about Portra recently. Last weekend I shot a wedding on NHG, which I've heard is a little grainy. alan I bought Scanwit 2720S a couple of months ago as a learning tool figuring that I would want to upgrade once I figure out what I need. I'm very happy with the Scanwit except for one thing. Terrible grain alising in fair skin tones. I mostly shoot weddings so I have to use negative film so that I am able to get low priced proofs. The few slides I scanned were much better and if I was primarily scanning slides I wouldn't upgrade.
RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
ViewScan has improved tremendously for me over the past couple months, and I too have pretty much abandoned Insight. It also helps that I'm getting better at using Photoshop and am actually getting the hang of curves. Sometimes I'm surprised to find that when a scan gets into Photoshop from ViewScan I don't have to do a thing to it. I look at it and say, "Hey, there's nothing I can do to make it better!" I still have occasional problems with ViewScan. Just the other day, scans started coming out dark near the end of a scanning session of several hours. May that was the SS4000's fault. I haven't gone back and tried to rescan those slides yet. Maybe I'll try that today. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of jimhayes Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2001 8:09 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? Vuescan works better than Insight for me. snip Frank Paris wrote: any case, I'm sticking with the SS4000, since in my naivety I can't imagine what could be improved. Software of course...
Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
The pathetically flimsy plastic film/slide holders on my SS4000 are a major reason that I'm real interested in a new Nikon scanner. I'm praying that Polaroid will improve the film/slide holders as they attempt to compete with Nikon. -JimD At 09:09 AM 1/20/01 -0700, jimhayes wrote: snip Improvements? The plastic film holders are flimsy. I thought I heard that with the new Polaroid 120, metal holders are supplied, ones that will work in the SS 4000 as well(?). snip
RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
An upside down shoe box with strategically located cutouts for the cables is just perfect for this. A dust cover would be nice. It's actually mandatory I think. I had one custom made for about $15; most people just make one out of foam-core or the like. I think throwing in a $15 dollar cover wouldn't eat into the profits too much.
RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
I have no problem with the slide holder. What possible difference would it make if it were made out of metal? The problem with the negative holder isn't that it is made out of plastic. It's simply badly designed. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of JimD Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2001 11:28 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? The pathetically flimsy plastic film/slide holders on my SS4000 are a major reason that I'm real interested in a new Nikon scanner. I'm praying that Polaroid will improve the film/slide holders as they attempt to compete with Nikon. -JimD At 09:09 AM 1/20/01 -0700, jimhayes wrote: snip Improvements? The plastic film holders are flimsy. I thought I heard that with the new Polaroid 120, metal holders are supplied, ones that will work in the SS 4000 as well(?). snip
Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
- Original Message - From: "Frank Paris" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2001 12:37 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? I have no problem with the slide holder. What possible difference would it make if it were made out of metal? The problem with the negative holder isn't that it is made out of plastic. It's simply badly designed. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 True enough...I've seen people knock the Canon holder because it is plastic and not metal. But I've sat on it, rolled over it with a chair and otherwise done horrible things to it without a problem. A metal version wouldn't have survived as well in fact. How it is designed is the important factor. Good plastic works as well or better than metal from a materials viewpoint. Byron
Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
- Original Message - From: bjs [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2001 5:11 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? - Original Message - From: "Frank Paris" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2001 12:37 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? I have no problem with the slide holder. What possible difference would it make if it were made out of metal? The problem with the negative holder isn't that it is made out of plastic. It's simply badly designed. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 True enough...I've seen people knock the Canon holder because it is plastic and not metal. But I've sat on it, rolled over it with a chair and otherwise done horrible things to it without a problem. A metal version wouldn't have survived as well in fact. How it is designed is the important factor. Good plastic works as well or better than metal from a materials viewpoint. Byron Plastic vs. metal isn't even the question for me. The Nikon needs NO film holder. Not plastic. Not metal. You just feed the filmstrip in. I've just finished scanning about a thousand frames on my LS-2000 without a hiccup. Hassle free. My SS-4000 really slows me down. Time IS money. Quick and easy. That's what matters! Bob Kehl
filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
Thanks to very good input from this list I bought both a Nikon LS-2000 and a Microtek 4000t (Polaroid SS-4000) last year for a special project. I used the Nikon for the mainstream scanning because of it's great film handling capabilities (mine didn't have a stepper motor problem) and I used the Microtek for super hi-res scans. I have been delighted with both scanners. However, I am a sound image technology consultant by trade and so I cannot resist having the latest and greatest technology. As I put my former "state of the art scanners" up for sale I wonder, what are they really worth? I realize that with every wave of new technology the former "state of the art" technology fades somewhat, but how much? With the advent of the Nikon LS-40 (Coolscan IV) at it seems my LS-2000 has really got to lose value. Unless I missed something, the LS-40 is the next step up repalcement for the LS-2000 and at $895 it just made my LS-2000 just this side of a boat anchor. But the new Nikon LS-4000ED probably affects 4000t (SS-4000) owners a bit less, since both the new Nikon and the Polaroid scanners ultimately give you same the same image resolution and quality. It seems that LS-2000 owners all around the world may want to move up right away, but the SS-4000 owners have less to gain by running out and buying the new 4000dpi scanner from Nikon when they already have a 4000dpi scanner. Still the film handling and Ice3 could be nice. Any comment from SS-4000 or 4000t owners? Are you planning on a move up to the new technology right away or am I the only one? Anyway, it seems to me that my LS-2000 just dropped in value to somewhere around $600 but perhaps my 4000t (SS-4000) will hold its value a little better, maybe somewhere around $1,200. Response would be appreciated. Regards, Bob Kehl
RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
Bob, I have one address for you: Ebay.com. I have seen scanners that are years old on there go for ridiculous prices. Let the bidders establish the market price; some of the items I have seen there are going for more than street prices. I guess bidder mentality, or the water... Anyway, make sure that you set a reserve if you use the service so that you get at least the dollar amount you are satisfied with. Spencer Stone -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Robert Kehl Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 10:18 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? Thanks to very good input from this list I bought both a Nikon LS-2000 and a Microtek 4000t (Polaroid SS-4000) last year for a special project. I used the Nikon for the mainstream scanning because of it's great film handling capabilities (mine didn't have a stepper motor problem) and I used the Microtek for super hi-res scans. I have been delighted with both scanners. However, I am a sound image technology consultant by trade and so I cannot resist having the latest and greatest technology. As I put my former "state of the art scanners" up for sale I wonder, what are they really worth? I realize that with every wave of new technology the former "state of the art" technology fades somewhat, but how much? With the advent of the Nikon LS-40 (Coolscan IV) at it seems my LS-2000 has really got to lose value. Unless I missed something, the LS-40 is the next step up repalcement for the LS-2000 and at $895 it just made my LS-2000 just this side of a boat anchor. But the new Nikon LS-4000ED probably affects 4000t (SS-4000) owners a bit less, since both the new Nikon and the Polaroid scanners ultimately give you same the same image resolution and quality. It seems that LS-2000 owners all around the world may want to move up right away, but the SS-4000 owners have less to gain by running out and buying the new 4000dpi scanner from Nikon when they already have a 4000dpi scanner. Still the film handling and Ice3 could be nice. Any comment from SS-4000 or 4000t owners? Are you planning on a move up to the new technology right away or am I the only one? Anyway, it seems to me that my LS-2000 just dropped in value to somewhere around $600 but perhaps my 4000t (SS-4000) will hold its value a little better, maybe somewhere around $1,200. Response would be appreciated. Regards, Bob Kehl
