Hello all.
This lurker is going to retire his old Scan Dual and has decided to go
with either the Coolscan IV or a Scan Elite due to budget restrictions(there
seems to be a fire sale on Scan Elites right now). A used/refurb 4000ppi
model is not out of the question but ICE would be nice ;)
O
Or the new Canoscan 4000? Decent price, not no real user experiences yet?
Tim A
In a message dated 6/17/2001 12:35:50 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> This lurker is going to retire his old Scan Dual and has decided to go
> with either the Coolscan IV or a Scan Elite due to budget
restrictions(there
> seems to be a fire sale on Scan Elites right now). A used/refurb 4
What about Polaroid Sprintscan 4000? The price tag is the same as Coolscan
IV. Canon CanoScan FS4000US is about $100 more, Dimage Scan Elite 2820dpi
is almost $300 cheaper.
I am facing the same though decision. Hopefully somebody will bring some
light.
Ed,
> If I were only buying one film scanner, I'd buy the CoolScan IV (LS-40).
> It's a really terrific scanner.
I will given this serious consideration. I'd narrowed the choice down to
the LS 4000 or SS 120 (I know, these are in different leagues), and was
leaning toward the latter (since I _a
In a message dated 6/18/2001 6:59:21 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Are you suggesting that the LS-40 represents better value (less resolution
> and D-Max, but also less expensive), or that the differences in
> resolution/D-Max are so small as to be insignificant, or that this scanner
> h
Based on http://www.samcos.com/rick/equip/scannertest/ssvsed.htm ( if done
accurately) SS4000 is overall "better" than Nikon 4000. Since Nikon IV is
not as "good" as his more expensive brother (this is easy to see!) the
Polaroid is a clear winner.
With no real knowledge about CanoScan FS4000US a
he Nikon's
advantages.
I think I'll keep my AS4000 for now.
Steve
- Original Message -
From: "Peter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 12:24 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Time to upgrade: Opinions wanted
> Based on
Re: filmscanners: Time to upgrade: Opinions wanted
> I think there is only one happy scanner owner, Ed, in this forum. He is
not
> using it mainly for slides though. The rest of people probably own drum
> scanners or do not own scanners at all.
>
> I would expect more input from
I think there is only one happy scanner owner, Ed, in this forum. He is not
using it mainly for slides though. The rest of people probably own drum
scanners or do not own scanners at all.
I would expect more input from people owning scanners in $600-$1500 price
range.
It is unfortunate.
ent: Sunday, June 17, 2001 7:23 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Time to upgrade: Opinions wanted
> What about Polaroid Sprintscan 4000? The price tag is the same as Coolscan
> IV. Canon CanoScan FS4000US is about $100 more, Dimage Scan Elite 2820dpi
> is almost $300 cheaper.
>
> I am f
PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 4:24 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Time to upgrade: Opinions wanted
> Based on http://www.samcos.com/rick/equip/scannertest/ssvsed.htm ( if
done
> accurately) SS4000 is overall "better" than Nikon 4000. Since Nikon IV is
> not as "
My SS4000 came with a SCSI card for my PC.
- Original Message -
From: "Douglas Landrum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 8:08 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Time to upgrade: Opinions wanted
> What are the interfaces - US
bye. I paid $400-US for my scanner by the way. Could it be better? Yes.
Could *I* be better? Oh, yeah. That's also what this list is about. :-)
Best regards--LRA
>From: "Peter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>S
> What are the interfaces - USB or SCSI? Do you need a separate card. I
have
> USB ports but no SCSI, so I opted for the Coolscan IV. I figured a good
> SCSI card would add about US$150 to the cost.
You over shot. I believe you can get it for $50 or less. Some SS4000 comes
with the card.
At 08:08 PM 6/18/01 -0700, Doug wrote:
>What are the interfaces - USB or SCSI? Do you need a separate card. I have
>USB ports but no SCSI, so I opted for the Coolscan IV. I figured a good
>SCSI card would add about US$150 to the cost.
Nowhere near that amount. More like $30. If your
mother
Just hang around a while and you'll get plenty of this feedback.
However, happiness is a difficult emotion for film scanner users.
The desires and expectations, as the person becomes more educated, is
difficult to maintain.
There are quite a few scanner owners on this list who have scanners
b
I thank all of you for participating. I believe I found answers to most of
my questions. Only time will show if I am going to be happy with my choice.
:)
>From: "Peter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>I think there is only one happy scanner owner, Ed, in this forum. He is not
>using it mainly for slides though. The rest of people probably own drum
>scanners or do not own scanners at all.
>
>I would expect more input from people owning scanners in $600-$1500 p
ange, and also grain would
probably be different. Anyone could help?
Regards,
Alessandro Pardi
- Original Message -
From: "Peter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 4:24 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Time to upgrade: Opinions wanted
> I thank all of you for participating. I believe I found answers to most of
> my questions. Only time will show if I am going to be happy with
> my choice.
So what did you finally choose, Peter? And _are_ you happy with it (so
far)?
I shoot color slide film (velvia and provia 100--leaning towa
hursday, June 28, 2001 8:06 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Time to upgrade: Opinions wanted
> > I thank all of you for participating. I believe I found answers to most
of
> > my questions. Only time will show if I am going to be happy with
> > my choice.
>
> So what did
Dan Honemann wrote:
> I'd thought I'd start with the Nikon LS-40 (Coolscan IV), since it's the
> cheapest of the three I'm considering, but Ed and others have hinted that it
> doesn't have high enough resolution for slide film--and I'm more concerned
> about those than the negatives since I'm
> Why do you (or Ed) think 2700 dpi is not high enough for slide images?
> What are you planning to do with your scans?
Print up to 13x18's on an Epson 1280.
Ed had written the following about the LS-40:
> It's a good value, and the difference in resolution/D-Max isn't
> significant for what I
> So what did you finally choose, Peter? And _are_ you happy with it (so
> far)?
I am tempted to purchase SS4000. I was happy with HP S20 and after some time
I was not so happy (I grew up). Regardless what you get there will be time
when you look at the new technology available and you will be t
Peter wrote:
> I think there is only one happy scanner owner, Ed,
> in this forum. He is not using it mainly for slides
> though.
I certainly have the impression that Ed's main use of the scanner is on
colour neg film. I think you may have a skewed impression of the satisfaction
levels because o
Rob Geraghty wrote:
> Peter wrote:
> > I think there is only one happy scanner owner, Ed,
> > in this forum. He is not using it mainly for slides
> > though.
>
> I certainly have the impression that Ed's main use of the scanner is on
> colour neg film. I think you may have a skewed impression
> Narrow it down, set up criteria based on what you think is
> important, like
>
> dpi,
I want a dpi high enough that I don't run into grain aliasing; from what I
read here, sounds like > 3,000 dpi.
> density range,
Highest possible. From what I understand so far, this may be the most
importan
ysis.
Regards,
Doug
- Original Message -
From: "Dan Honemann" <>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 4:30 AM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Time to upgrade: Opinions
wanted
> > Narrow it down, set up criteria based on what you think is
&
Doug,
Thanks for your thoughts (and useful links) on scanners.
I like your work; in particular, this one:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=137114
I'm prepared for the learning curve and dazzled already. Mostly I'm
impressed with the intelligent folks and posts found on this list.
I believe that my responses to your criteria are accurate, but, if they aren't
you will certainly receive additional ones.
Dan Honemann wrote:
> I want a dpi high enough that I don't run into grain aliasing; from what I
> read here, sounds like > 3,000 dpi.
This places you into the Nikon 4000 (
On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 00:12:38 -0400 Dan Honemann ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> One
> thing I've discovered here, however, is that often it takes my posts a
> full
> 8-12 hours after sending them before they show up on the list; not sure
> if
> that is a problem on my end, or par for the course
32 matches
Mail list logo
