on 8/27/01 5:39 AM, Anthony Atkielski at atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr wrote:
> I've consistently heard that it isn't as good as the LS-2000, and some sample
> scans I've seen appear to support this. Specifically, it appears to have a
> smaller dynamic range.
I don't know where you've heard that, Anthony, but I'd say the optical image
quality of the two scanners is nearly identical, and neither is clearly
better than the other EXCEPT when it comes to pixels, and here the SS4K wins
hands down. 4000 dpi beats 2700 dpi, no question.
I know you have some theoretical reasons for thinking this isn't so but I
can see the difference in sharpness in blind tests on 10x8 prints of scans
of the same image (and so can my wife). The SS4K is consistently better.
As for dynamic range, I ran side by side comparisons of them at my local pro
dealer before I bought mine, concentrating particularly on the Dmax on a
particularly dense slide. To my and the sales guy's total surprise the SS4K
did marginally *better* than the Nikon.
Dmax figures quoted in product brochures simply reflect the bit depth the
equipment scans at, whereas actual detail captured reflects many other
variables including sensor performance, illumination type, scanner
firm/software etc.
I suggest you take some sample negs and trannies down to your local pro shop
(yeah, the expensive one) and get the guy to scan them. Then take the images
home on CD and pore over them. You'll get a real feel for the differences.
Also get the guy to print them out at 10x8 and see how they look. Any
differences at this size will stick out like sore thumbs at bigger mags.
I run the SS4K mailing list () and we get
very few reports of problems. The main one seems to be dust on the sensor.
In every case I know of Polaroid's support has been exemplary.
The bundled Silverfast software is fine for reversal film but I would
recommend Vuescan for negatives.
--
John Brownlow
ICQ: 109343205
