That's how I normally scan. The scanner is on an underpowered machine and
saves the scans across the network to my editing machine. Slower to scan,
but editing while scanning is much, much faster. I think 128MB would be too
low, even to scan, but 256Mb would be OK. For that matter, memory is so
It is more expensive, but not that much more. I bought 512mb of RDRAM for
$160.
Tom
-
> Is RDRAM a better choice for systems used for scanning and
> processing large 2d image files?
The PC mags report recently (maybe Nov-Dec) that RDRAM is only a few
percent faster than DDR. It's no surpri
Jim,
Honestly I think you'll find the overall performance of a P4 system or an
Athlon system fairly comparable and the memory differences fairly small.
The more the better. An area to not forget, that has significant impact, is
disk performance.
My current platform is a P4-1.8 with 1GB of RDRAM
I own the 4000 ED and owned the SS4000.
It was a mistake. The Polaroid is a better scanner. The only advantage of
the Nikon is ICE. Dust isn't as big a problem on the Polaroid. The edge
softness IS there.
Keep the Polaroid.
Tom
Funny you should mention it. I am considering whether to retur
It's USB 1.1. Never seen an SS120, so I have nothing to compare. I'd bet it
was at least 3.9, as the SS4000 was very conservatively rated on Dynamic
range.
Tom
Is the USB on the SS4000+ USB 2.0 or 1.1?
Have you compared any scans from the Plus with the SS120? Do you know the
rated Dynamic Ran
Ecost (www.ecost.com) has them listed for $699, but it isn't clear if they
are in stock.
www.bhphoto.com has them in stock for $749
Tom
On Thu, Dec 27, 2001 at 12:51:38PM -0500, Hemingway, David J wrote:
> Plus = Firewire & USB No SSCSI; 14 bits
> All in all at the current price of $500 - $550 a
The Plus is Firewire and USB, while the base model is SCSI. Both the same
basic machine, same carriers, etc.
If I remember correctly, the base model is 12bits and the Plus is 14bits.
Side by side, you literally cannot see a difference.
Huge price difference.
Did the Plus ever get officially r
I bought mine from www.buy.com www.computers4sure.com carries them too.
Not sure if they're in stock now.
Tom
- Original Message -
From: "Patrick M. Florer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 10:15 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] Sprintscan 4000 S
Art,
This is a perfect analysis of the Polaroid situation. I thought I'd add one
more comment, more of a perspective. I am the former owner of an SS4000. I
now own a Nikon LS-4000. I 'upgraded', really, for one reason -- the roll
film adapter, and it is wonderful. Digital Ice is nice, but not
Still waiting here too.
Tom
- Original Message -
From: "Andy Darlow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2001 1:19 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: filmscanners: SS4000 Rebate UPC
Hello:
Has anyone recieved their $200 rebate from SS4000 purchases?
Mi
http://www.nikontechusa.com/
and Nikonscan 3.1.2 is listed
Tom
- Original Message -
From: "Shunith Dutt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 12:51 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon Scan V3.1.2 For Windows and MAC
> James/Enoch
>
> You kn
Me too, with the Sprintscan 4000. I don't like the film at all.
Tom
> I have had the same results as John with Kodak Supra 400 on the Nikon
LS-30 - grain aliasing.
>
> Maris
>
My Olympus E-20 digicam does the same -- syncs up to 1/2000.
Then again, so does my Olympus OM-4T 35mm camera with the F280 flash.
Tom
From: "Jawed Ashraf"
> My Dimage 7 digicam syncs at all shutter speeds upto 1/2000th (which is
the
> fastest the camera's shutter can operate).
> Jawed
>
I'd agree with Rob. I've used both Superia (cheap at the WalMart) and Supra
(more expensive) and actually prefer the results from the Superia.
Tom
From: "Rob Geraghty"
> "Herb Bauer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > recommendations for the "best" out-of-the-box color negative film to use
> > with
I would never have bought the Nikon if the Sprintscan had a roll adapter.
Tom
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 5:38 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Quick / Quality Scans - Help
> Hum, David do you think you could
nt: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 1:28 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Quick / Quality Scans - Help
> From: Tom Scales [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> ...
> I happened to do Soccer, but with the same goal in mind.
> ...
>
> Isn't it a wider and taller goal? couldn't resi
Alan,
I actually found that with the right 'workflow', it was just as fast to film
scan. And cheaper.
My ultimate solution to the problem was a lot more expensive. I bought a
Nikon LS-4000 with the roll film adapter. I get the negatives returned
uncut. Takes about 30-45 minutes to scan a roll
I happened to do Soccer, but with the same goal in mind.
First, get Vuescan (www.hamrick.com). Best $40 you'll ever spend. If you
get the white and black points right, and scan at 1/7, (it's in downsample
somewhere in Vuescan -- I think you just put in 7. You might try 8 or 9
too), you get webr
Ah, the dreaded dirty scanner problem.
Happened to me too. Call Polaroid and ask for the free cleaning kit.
They'll send you a little brush gadget that attaches to your slide carrier.
Follow the instructions. For 'most' people, that fixes the problem.
For me, it didn't, and I had to send it in
This is an 80-pin, meant to be put in a rack mount. You can get an adapter,
but you're limited in the number of drives you can use in a chain with
adapters and the adapters are about $25.
Better to find a 68pin.
Tom
From: "Ezio c/o TIN"
> Quantum 10KRPM 18GB ultra160 Scsi Raid DUTCH
> Item # 12
Brian,
Yes, the OM-40 (OM-PC in the US) has some reliabilty problems. The one I own
is broken.
Tom
Owner of, well, 17 OM bodies.
> Tom Scales wrote:
> > I am a neaderthal that shoots with Olympus OM equipment. It may be old
but
> > the lens are excellent. I've owned
OK, I'm going to jump in now. Better late than..
I am a neaderthal that shoots with Olympus OM equipment. It may be old but
the lens are excellent. I've owned a number of scanners, from an old
Minolta QS-35 to an Acer Scanwit to a Polaroid SS4000 to my current Nikon
LS-4000.
Using my Epso
OK, let's put this one to sleep.
I just threw my wife off her computer (I'll pay for that) and rebooted XP
Home (she's dual booting Me until she gets everything over). I went into
Add Hardware and told it I would manually select the device.
Clear as day, there was a choice for an IEEE 1394 Cont
It's XP Home and XP Pro. Your statement is wrong. Firewire is supported in
any version of XP. Home and Pro are the same operating system. Home just
lacks some optional features of Pro.
Any XP driver works in any XP version.
Tom
From: "Alex Zabrovsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> As far as I heard, t
I hae an Iiyama 21" monitor (9021, I think). I bought it about two years
ago off www.ubid.com. It's a refurbished monitor and cost me a whopping
$275.
I love it. Rock solid.
Tom
From: "Steve Greenbank"
> Personally I like Iiyama (pronounced "eee-yama") monitors. Yet to see a
bad
> one (or e
Why not Vuescan? I use it with my LS-4000 and Rollfilm adapter and it works
flawlessly. Combine that with Ed's incredible support and you have the
perfect combination.
Tom
> Thanks Joe, I was just about to upgrade again. I'm running dual xeon
450's
> with Win2k and NikonScan 3.1. It crashes
The coupon is at Polaroid:
http://www.polaroidwork.com/media/demosanddownloadables/downloadablefiles/pd
f/us_en_coupon_ss4000_rebate_1231_1f91c.pdf
That's going to wrap, so cut and paste it.
Tom
> The coupon at Ecost.com and pcmall seems like it is generic. Can I buy it
> from, say Cameraworld
I don't use the Firewire card that came with mine (PC has it built-in), but
it works perfectly for me under Win2K SP2. I did have to download the
latest version of Nikonscan, as the version that shipped with the scanner
didn't see the scanner. Try downloading the US version, as I know it
works.
I have an unusual setup, but it works well for me. I use two machines,
networked together, as my scanning platform.
The scanner is attached to the first machine. It's a modestly equipped
older machine with a P3-500 and 512MB memory, running Windows 2000. I start
a scan and it saves the scan to
I've seen the results using a one megapixel Kodak DC260 consumer camera and
was pleasantly surprised. I would guess the results with the hasselblad
would be excellent.
Tom
>
> Has anybody any results from using a high quality digital camera in a
slide
> copier to make an instant digital image?
Tomasz,
You can accomplish that, or pretty close, with Vuescan, the Nikon LS-4000
and the roll film adapter. I still do a little cleanup on each picture, but
very little, especially if I turn on ICE. The way I do it is scan at
4000dpi and let Vuescan down sample and convert to JPG at 7x downsam
Oops. Forgot. Vuescan will also create the Index page.
Tom
I would also use this function to make
> indexprints from my negs.
> Tomasz Zakrzewski
>
Ritz,
You should seriously consider the Polaroid Sprintscan 4000. They can be
found for around $700 with a $200 rebate, making the final cost around $500.
You won't find any scanner in the same price range that is close -- 4000dpi
makes a huge difference.
Try www.ecost.com That's where I bought
If portability is an issue, you should check out (surprisingly) IBM's
MicroPortable.
http://commerce.www.ibm.com/cgi-bin/ncommerce/ProductDisplay?prrfnbr=1947327
&cntrfnbr=1&prmenbr=1&cntry=840&lang=en_US
That probably wraps, so cut and paste it. I've seen it in action and lust
after it.
3 poun
Mike,
They are flimsy, but seem tougher than you think. Mine have never broken.
You do want a second one, though -- in fact, I'd recommend it to everyone
with a SS4000. That way you can be scanning one strip while loading the
other. Really speeds up scanning.
Tom
From: "Mike Stephens"
> They
Mike,
I can't really comment as I don't have and have never used Silverfast. I
would suggest, though, download the trial of Vuescan and try it
(www.hamrick.com). It puts a watermark on it, but it will give you the
idea.
I'm a huge fan of Vuescan and use it for every scan I do.
Tom
> I just r
Haven't tried that yet, but discovered that the other day. I'll try it this
weekend.
Tom
> You could have Vuescan do an index file from the roll film adapter,
> effectively creating a contact sheet.
>
Ah, easy question. Vuescan -- best $40 you'll ever spend.
Tom
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2001 4:16 PM
Subject: filmscanners: Silverfast or Polarscan
> Ok folks, now Polariod 4000, first film scanner! Have both pro
That would be really useful. I sure don't know how to do it with my SS4000
or LS4000.
Hey, can I get 40 really small previews with the roll film adapter .
Tom
-
> I used to use (until yesterday :-)) an HP Photosmart scanner. Using
> Vuescan, a strip of negatives would display in the previ
I clearly agree with that, but I tend to err on the side of being
conservative when it comes to a 'work' machine (in this case the Air Force).
As someone in the software business, I'd rather buy an extra copy then risk
it.
Tom
>
> These software EULAs can say/claim anything they want, but the l
I think you want to be careful. I disagree with this position. Most bundled
OEM software is licensed to the computer that has the equipment attached. I
would carefully read the license agreement before sending it to your son.
It's not worth risking his career over this piece of software. I don'
David,
I guess I assume that it would be at the 'real' SS4000 (and LS-4000) price
point of about $1500US
Tom
- Original Message -
From: "Hemingway, David J"
> I think that "some additional costs" over the current steal price would be
> an understatement. Do not expect the new version to
I just bought one today and it was $699 - $200.
Tom
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 5:13 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: ss 4000 & eCost
> Just received mine today. Three days door-to-door once in the warehouse.
>
And a fine lens it is, as are my Olympus 16/3.5 and 18/3.5 and the other
couple dozen Zuikos I own
Now if I could just find that digital OM back.
Tom
From: "bob geoghegan"
> Olympus has made a 21/2 since the '80s. Just don't ask me what digital
> body will take it.
>
> Agreed on the general p
Well, I do agree multipass scanning has many problems and using it to
overcome the limitations of a scanner is clearly a bad idea. Get a better
scanner .
Tom
From: "Hemingway, David J"
> Tom,
> The review in this Octobers MacWorld showed the same result as the review
a
> year and a half ago. Th
David,
While I clearly agree with your point that multiscanning is not a panacea,
that review is against older scanners. I have no idea if multipass improves
a scan on a Nikon LS-4000, for example, but I don't think there is a way to
extrapolate that review to say that single pass on the SS4000 i
Martin,
I own both scanners and, honestly, have not found the Polaroid to be better
than the Nikon. I have never scanned slides, but with negatives, I have to
spend a few minutes cleaning up each image. On the Nikon, I can use Clean
and don't have to do it.
That said, I love the Polaroid. The
The 1200 baud modem was fairly common in 1984. The 2400 baud modem became
common in 1985 or so.
In 1978 when I was in college, 110 baud was the best that we could do until
they upgraded to a staggering 300 baud.
There were not 2400 baud modems in 1971.
Perhaps arguements would be more useful w
I'm not a pro by any means -- just a rank amateur having fun, but if you
believe $200 less expenses is a good wage for a photographer, I'm sure never
entering the business. Best case, that's $25 an hour, if there were no
expenses and it was an eight hour day. Worst case it is a 16 hour day with
I agree with everything Roger says -- you cannot get anything close to the
quality of the SS4000 for this money. Buy one!
My only suggestion is that if you're doing lots of scanning, I do find the
spare carrier useful. I do negs, not slides, and they're a little harder to
get properly aligned in
My problem may be my settings. I jumped right in and used it with the
defaults. I will have to try it with the lower setting. That might make me
happier.
Tom
> Tom & Brian
>
> I've scanning at 300 dpi using NikSharpener pro on slides. I'm then
> printing my images 13x19 on an Epson 1280. I do
Well, now that I am done building the pages, I admit that contrary to my
initial optimism, when I view the completed pages, they are oversharpened.
Darn. I wanted this to work better. I'll play with it some more, but I
suspect I've thrown away the money.
I'll look into what you just suggested.
BS.
It is a hoax.
Shut UP
Tom
- Original Message -
From: "Austin Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2001 7:19 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: X-ray and digital camera
>
> Not necessarily. That does not mean that other airlines did not use
Do you actually read? I posted the link showing that this is an urban
legend - a hoax, quite some time ago.
This entire thread is ridiculous. Grow up and shut up.
Tom
From: "Austin Franklin" >
> Did you ever think that the "hoax" that you claim was inaccurate for ONLY
> those airlines, and tha
Brian,
Honestly, it is too soon for me to answer than question. The scanning I've
done with it so far has been low-res web scanning. I certainly haven't
noticed the boundary problems you described. I have not, however, scanned
for printing at full resolution. Once I do that, I'll let post more
It is an urban legend. Visit this link for the details:
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bllaptop.htm
Now, can we get back to scanning and put this pissing contest to bed.
Tom
>
> > Austin writes:
> >
> > > I'm sorry, Anthony, but your claim of a hoax
> > > is false. Now, you're an expe
Just thought I'd throw in my two cents on this one. I just bought a Nikon
LS-4000 to replace my Polaroid Sprintscan 4000. I made the switch purely to
get the roll film adapter. In hindsight, since it sounds like the SS4000
Plus might have the adapter that will be backwards compatible, I guess I
Jack,
I appreciate your opinion from a position of expertise. I'm guessing you're
live in Austin, as I do. Nice place, isn't it.
Anyway, while my new LS-4000 has ICE and my old SS4000 didn't. Perhaps I am
just more careful, but as long as I did a reasonable job getting the negs
cleaned first,
David,
What about slide feeders or roll film adapters? That's what made me defect.
Tom
> Yes, the SS4000 Plus will be released later this year. USB/firewire and 14
> bits are the major differences. We are just moving the remaining SS4000
> inventory. It is the deal of the scanner century and wi
It comes with one slide and one film strip holder. 4 slides at a time, 6
negs at a time.
Make sure you buy a second one (of whichever one you use). Makes it much
more useful. You can load one and scan one.
Heck of a deal -- I paid $1400 about 16 months ago. I just bought a Nikon
LS-4000, only
Well, I'd planned on it, but.
Tom
> At 09:05 AM 9/7/01 -0500, Tom Scales wrote:
>
> >Wow, where'd you buy it? I know a number of people interested at that
price.
>
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> They were available at eCost yesterday. When I first checked they had
Wow, where'd you buy it? I know a number of people interested at that price.
Tom
> John, what is your budget?
> Are you in the U.S.?
> I just purchased a Polaroid SS4000 (4000ppi - SCSI2) online for
> $460.00(us)(includes $200 rebate)- the rebate expires September 30.
> Silverfast5 is also bundl
Not an answer, but I had exactly the same problem with Supra 400. Stopped
using it even though it is supposed to be 'scanner optimized'.
Tom
> I have a number of supra 400 images that I will need to get
> decent scans of. Using my SS4000 I get terrible grain
> aliasing making the quality unacce
In my case, neither worked, and it had to go back to Polaroid for the CCD to
be replaced. Thankfully, under warranty.
Keep the dust out!
Tom
> Andrzej wrote:
> >Hi I'm using Polaroid SS4000.
> >My scanner doesn't work, I hear running motor all the time, like on
booting
> >stage and nothing ha
I do, you have the wrong host. It is: halftone.co.uk. Somehow you have
halftone.co.ok]On
Hope that helps.
Tom
>
> Tony,
> I have received the message below with each of two messages I sent that
were
> bounced back to me and the two plus one asking about the bounced messages
> which were also b
I buy 24 exposure 100ASA Fuji for about $1.65 in boxes of four at the, gasp,
WalMart.
Tom
> How cheap is the Fuji? I usually buy 36 exposure Supra 100ASA for about
> $2.89 USD. And, once again, it may not be optimized for scanning, but
Supra
> 100ASA scans very well.
> - Original Message --
Supra 100? Am I missing something?
Tom
P.S. I'm actually not blown away with Supra. I prefer Fuji in my SS4000
> Maris wrote:
> > Slide film is generally less grainy than print film
> > in scanning sky. Have you found any good print film for sky?
>
> Someone mentioned Supra 400. I wish some
That would make the buy decision for me, since I do all my scanning with
Vuescan now.
Tom
> "Tom Scales" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I want to be able to load a roll of film, go to bed, and wake up to 36
> > properly exposed, properly focused scans. Why else
ike a scanner that is late to the market and was
rushed. Given time and releases of the software, it might be an incredible
scanner, but for now, I'll wait.
Tom
P.S. David, hint hint, give me the roll film adapter and I won't defect.
> Tom Scales writes ...
>
> > But should
But should you really have to do that? Isn't that adding a lot of manual
intervention to compensate for a design flaw? I'm really interested in the
LS4000, but I never have to go to this trouble with my SS4000.
Tom
> I forgot to mention before that in NikonScan 3 and Siverfast 5 can the
user
>
Should work fine. Me has Firewire support built-in
Tom
> What about Windows ME.
>
> Gordon
>
> Edwin Eleazer wrote:
>
> > The manual states that Win 98 SE is required.
> > >
> > > > I want to try Nikonscan 3 too (with LS2000), but can't work out if I
> > must
> > > > have Win98SE or not. The we
Leo, Can't help you on most of this, but 4.10.1998 is not 98 SE, it's just
98. SE is 4.10..
Tom
From: "Leo Stachowicz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Under my "general tab" in "system properties" it says my windows version
is
> :MS win98 4.10.1998,which as far as i know is 98SE.
No worries -- I'd be lost on Minolta's.
The SS4000 is a great scanner, though. The extra DPI makes a big
difference!
Tom
> Tells ya how much attention I've been paying to Polaroid's product line...
> oops..
> Mike M.
I'm fairly sure the Polaroid Sprintscan 4000 is a 35mm scanner . If not,
I've been doing something wrong
Tom
P.S. Except for being broken (in for repair), I love my SS4000.
> I was under the impression he was asking about 35mm scanners
> M.Moore
>
> Rob Geraghty wrote:
>
> > "Michael M
I'd certainly argue with them. This is a known problem. In fact, mine is at
Polaroid for warranty repair with the exact problem. As for a supervisor.
Maybe David can help you. It's tough to argue this isn't a design flaw.
Tom
- Original Message -
From: "Bill Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To
my call a
couple weeks ago -- but he didn't know I'd called.
The only other way he could have known was from this list -- I'm guessing
he's a member. Pretty amazing service.
It's off to Polaroid today.
Thanks Tom -- if you're out there.
Tom Scales
I'm not going to do that . I thought the 4000 ED would be better, but
from what I've read, it sounds like it's not. I'll get the SS4000 fixed and
be a happy camper again.
Tom
> Don't go and buy a lower-quality scanner just because you're having a
> problem with a support person. Poorer scans
My Minolta QS-35 (since sold) did the same thing. ? in device manager,
worked fine. I wasted a lot of time trying to get rid of that question
mark...
Tom
> Based on list discussion I had a Minolta Scan Elite over-nighted to my
door. I spent
> the afternoon and evening trying to get it to run o
Shoot, I've never seen one, but it seems like the Nikon 4000 ED with the
optional slide feeder would be perfect. 36 shots at a time.
Tom
> You want the best possible quality.
>
> However, time is also of the essence, so you are prepared to make
> minimal trade-offs in absolute quality in order t
Thanks for the advice on handling Polaroid. I always try to be nice and
respectful. I think that gets the best service. I'm not really willing to
spend $250 a year to keep their product working, since I'm just a hobbyist.
If that is really a requirement, maybe it's time to try the Nikon .
Tom
The latest release of Vuescan is supposed to support the 4000.
Tom
> "Jeremy Brookfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The software (Nikon Scan 3.0) is so buggy as to render the scanner
useless
> to
> > all intents and purposes.
>
> Have you tried Vuescan? Does it work?
>
> Rob
>
>
t side...to remove any dust which might then
> finds its way on this sensor...
>
> the only thing, keep the air can upright while using it, other wise...
>
> funny how a dust mote can blind a sensor searching for a unique marking,
> into an 'eternal' movement, but this kind
Yes, followed every one of their instructions. More than once. I
understand the problem, but it does seem like a poor design.
Tom
>
>
> Tom Scales wrote:
>
> > My SS4000 has developed a problem where the yellow light just continues
to
> > flash and the motor runs on a
That's good news. I'm pretty sure I registered it. I'll call them on
Monday...
Tom
> Same thing happened to me. You could try compressed air into the left
> side of the scanner. There was a report that that worked, but it did for
> me only very temporarily. Maybe I was too timid.
>
> I had no p
My SS4000 has developed a problem where the yellow light just continues to
flash and the motor runs on and on. I called Polaroid and they sent me a
'cleaning kit', really just a little brush that attaches to the slide
carrier.
Whoopee.
Didn't do a thing.
Am I just SOL? Do I have to send it to
That's good news, although I noticed you didn't mention the neg feeder,
which is what I truly want.oh well.
Tom
-
> Tom,
> Actually after some fits and starts progress is being made on the slide
> feeder. I canot at tis time give you a delivery date but is more than a
> gleam in Polaroid
David,
I think it was you that mentioned a bulk slide loader and bulk neg loader
that were under development for the SS4000. I'd guess that was six months
or so ago. Any word on their development? It's about the only reason I'm
considering switching to a 4000 ED.
Thanks,
Tom
From: "Hemingwa
If, immediately after rebooting, you run CHKDSK, it should find lost
clusters. When it asks you if you want to save them as files, say yes.
There should be one or more files in your root directory that look like
file.chk. Rename them to file.txt.
Open them one at a time and see if any o
To the moderatorL
I'm kind of new here, and look forward to learning a lot.
I sincerely hope this is the last post by this guy, immediately before you
ban him.
Tom
- Original Message -
From: "Dicky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 11:42 AM
Subjec
t?
Thanks,
Tom
From: "Tony Sleep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 23:14:56 -0600 Tom Scales ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
>
> > This is the main reason I am considering selling my Sprintscan 4000 and
> > buying a Nikon 4000ED. The ability to drop a 3
This is the main reason I am considering selling my Sprintscan 4000 and
buying a Nikon 4000ED. The ability to drop a 36 exposure roll of 35mm film
in and walk away.
Does anybody have any experience yet? That's literally the only reason I
want to make the switch. I like my Sprintscan a lot.
Tom
I am sure this has been asked a hundred times, but I have been offlist for
awhile. Starting back up again and about to run buy a Nikon 4000 ED. Just
wanted to ask the lists' opinion.
Also, does anyone know if Vuescan supports it, or will soon? I couldn't
find an email address on the site.
Tha
92 matches
Mail list logo
