I've thought the same thing myself, but I'm sure I must be missing
something. I've got one. Overall, I think I like it , but I have some
problems.
My biggest problem is with its software. The Canon software driver is
pathetic and Silverfast doesn't support it. That pretty much leaves me with
Puzzles me too. Maybe everyone has been put off by the references to initial poor
quality control. But what scanner doesn't suffer from this? (OK David, except maybe
Polaroid!)
But much to my surprise, my local (regional Australia) electrical appliance retailer,
who also sells package PC dea
>Bob asked: Is there a reason why this scanner gets so little mention on this list?
>If so few people own them, does that say something about the quality of
>that product?
It might mean that owners of this scanner are contented with it, and that it does the
job without any significant problem
> Is there a reason why this scanner gets so little mention on this list?
Usually people are writing if they have some problems, so I think the quality
is not so bad (LOL).
Up to today I haven't any problem with it. The results are quite good. May be
DMAX is too low (shadow details from PROVIA10
Mark Thomasz wrote:
> SNIP
>
> He's agreed to set it all up, and tomorrow I'll be taking
> some testing slides and neg's over to see what it can do..
>
> If anyone's interested I'll report back
Please do! I'm waiting for this scanner to be delivered (still in backorder)
and opinions are welc
Yes, of course. Your report is appreciated here.
Regards,
Alex Z
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 6:42 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 ppi film scanner
If anybody interesting I can put some parts of full resolution scans on
my home page.
You can find already some results from FS4000 at:
http://ket5.tuniv.szczecin.pl/tc_www/photo/index.html
check link "FS4000 Test" for full resolution raw scans
__
>mt
>Why not take a copy of Vuescan with you and output a Raw file, you could
>then take the Raw file home and open it within Vuescan for more heavyweight
>testing.
>
>Just a thought.
Thanks Richard - a *good* thought - I will.
Given the extraordinary differences in colour balance that I get ou
I think the new Canon arrived on the scene at the wrong time, amidst new
product from Nikon, which always gets more press, and a few early
reports which for some reason were less than flattering. The first
reports I read stated the FARE defect reduction system was a bust. Yet
more recently, the
d by noticeably lower dynamic range of Canon.
Regards,
Alex Z
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 11:44 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 ppi film scanner
I thin
I'll be posting a more full (if not necessarily more professional!) report
than this as soon as I get a few spare moments..
But in the meantime, my one-hour lunchtime play with the Canon FS4000US
revealed that:
- It's a pretty good scanner with nice optics and good depth of field, and
does *re
> I'm still at this junction struggling between choosing SS4000 or
> FS4000, although for about 90% settled for SS4000.
I do not want to say that FS4000 is better choice
but IMO scanner without infrared channel is just a mistake. You will spend
hours
on dust and scratches removing.
Tom
___
ubject: Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 ppi film scanner
>
>
> I'll be posting a more full (if not necessarily more
> professional!) report than this as soon as I get a few spare moments..
> The areas I am mostly interested in, in rough order of
> importance, are:
> - dynamic range (I have some awkward shadowy Provias & Kchromes to throw at
> it, and I am a chronic underexposer..:-)
> - overall sharpness
> - edge to edge sharpness (I got lots of 'bent' Kchromes that I have no
> desi
In a message dated 10/31/2001 10:29:44 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Have you noticed the latest version (7.1.26) of Vuescan will scan panoramas
> with the FS4000.
No, not really. It still only scans a 36mm maximum length. However,
the new version can position the start of this 36mm pie
28 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 ppi film scanner
I'll be posting a more full (if not necessarily more professional!) report
than this as soon as I get a few spare moments..
But in the meantime, my one-hour lunchtime play with the Canon FS4000US
revealed that:
> I'll be posting a more full (if not necessarily more professional!) report
> than this as soon as I get a few spare moments..
> But in the meantime, my one-hour lunchtime play with the Canon FS4000US
> revealed that:
>
> - It's a pretty good scanner with nice optics and good depth of field, and
ober 31, 2001 11:44 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 ppi film scanner
>
>
>I think the new Canon arrived on the scene at the wrong time, amidst new
>product from Nikon, which always gets more press, and a few early
>reports which for some reason were
on 31/10/01 9:53 AM, tom at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I do not want to say that FS4000 is better choice
> but IMO scanner without infrared channel is just a mistake. You will spend
> hours
> on dust and scratches removing.
Only if your negatives are filthy. I have the SS4000 and have scanned
th
Wednesday, October 31, 2001 4:53 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Canon 4000 ppi film scanner
> I'm still at this junction struggling between choosing SS4000 or
> FS4000, although for about 90% settled for SS4000.
I do not want to say that FS4000 is better choice
bu
While it is true that the SS4000 does not have an IR channel it
is not true that one will need to spend hours removing dust and
scratches. I'm reasonably meticulous in 'spotting' my SS4000
scans. I seldom need to spend more than 10 minutes cleaning
up my scans. I don't work in a clean room. I do k
I have an Artixscan 4000 (similar to SS4000) which has scratches removing
hardware, so I may confirm the penible many hours of retouching (even with a
Wacom tablet).
As I print up to A3+ and I tend towards sometimes too much perfectionism, I
have already thought this as an inevitable step because
- Original Message -
From: "JimD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| I've been using an SS4000 for over a year and have been pleased
| with the results. The fact that David Hemingway from Polaroid
| is an active participant on this list was a factor that was important
| to me in choosing Polaroid. Da
e of Canon.
>
>
> Regards,
> Alex Z
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich
> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 11:44 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 ppi fi
Mark,
Thanks for the "review lite" ;-)
This is helpful info for all of us. Many scanners (probably due to
software weaknesses, suffer in the neg scanning area, so the fact that
Canon seems to have gotten that part right is good news.
However, like you, deep shadows and some underexposed slides
--- Original Message -
From: "tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 6:53 AM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Canon 4000 ppi film scanner
> > I'm still at this junction struggling between choosing SS4000 or
> > FS40
I think categorically, anyone who can pick up the SS4000 for $450 US is
a happy camper, and I don't think many would argue that.
The question is how it fits with other scanners in other places than the
US. Here in Canada it is at par or a little more expensive than the
Canon FS4000, so that chan
In fairness to the SS4000, it is not without a dust and scratch
correction system. It does not have an infrared detection system, but
it does have two other features.
It has a lighting source which tends to minimize surface defects (I
can't comment on how it is with the Canon FS4000, but many h
"Ron Carlson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tom's statement is completely contrary to my experience. I 've used the
> SS4000 for about a year and a half and I don't spend on average 2 minutes
> cloning dust spots or scratches. To this point, I wouldn't have used the
> infrared channel even if I had
ning dust spots or scratches. To this point, I wouldn't have used the
infrared channel even if I had it. Regards, Ron Carlson
- Original Message -
From: "tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 6:53 AM
Subject: RE: filmsc
This is indeed one of the points to consider...
Regards,
Alex Z
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of David Lew
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 4:59 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Canon 4000 ppi film scanner
Did you
"Arthur Entlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think categorically, anyone who can pick up the SS4000 for $450 US is
> a happy camper, and I don't think many would argue that.
Yeesh. I paid US$800 for my lower spec Nikon LS30. :(
(but the SS4000 was US$1500 at the time)
Rob
> I do not want to say that FS4000 is better choice
> but IMO scanner without infrared channel is just a mistake. You will spend
> hours
> on dust and scratches removing.
Sorry, I disagree. I recently purchased a SS4000 and, trust me, getting such a great
scanner for $450 WAS NOT A MISTAKE!!!
I
33 matches
Mail list logo
