Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

   


   


   















      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: filmscanners: Polaroid 4000 dpi



Another way to reduce noise is with Digital GEM.

Jack Phipps
Applied Science Fiction

-----Original Message-----
From: Hemingway, David J [mailto:HEMINGD@POLAROID.COM]
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 1:48 PM
To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Polaroid 4000 dpi


A word on noise and multi-canning.
Multiscanning is normally used to eliminate CCD noise. The actual CCD used
in a scanner is THE most source of this noise. Manufacturers can elect to us
one of several CCD's in there scanners. The selection process can be
influenced by many things such as price, manufacturers with CCD suppliers,
etc. With our SS4000 the manufacturer originally was going to use a
particular CCD because they had a relationship with the manufacturer.
Polaroid recognized there were higher quality alternatives, and convinced
the manufacturer to change to a much higher quality CCD.
When Ed originally implemented multi-scanning for the SS4000 he commented
that because of the very low noise in  the SS4000 CCD multi-scanning was of
little value. The *

 -----Original Message-----
From:   RogerMillerPhoto@aol.com [mailto:RogerMillerPhoto@aol.com] 
Sent:   Tuesday, April 24, 2001 2:44 PM
To:     filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
Subject:        RE: filmscanners: Polaroid 4000 dpi

I second that motion.  The Polaroid is a good machine and it comes with two
choices of scanning software (Vuscan is an inexpensive third option).
Software documentation isn't great, but then poor documentation seems to be
an industry standard.  The best thing about Polaroid's scanner is that David
participates in this list.  He's able and willing to help if you should have
problems and everything else you try fails.  As you follow this list, you'll
note that many people have had problems with getting service for a broken
scanner.  Scanners have a lot of mechanical parts and they are likely to
break down more often than other electronic devices.  Service is often
spotty at best.  That's why it's good to have David as a last resort.  I
speak from experience.  With regard to the Nikon, I have no experience with
it, so I can't comment personally.  Concerning noise in shadows, the
Silverfast software that comes with the Polaroid allows you to do multiple
scans in order to improv!
e !
reduce noise.  I've never had to
 use it, but I assume it workds as advertised.  Good luck on making your
choice, Charles.

In a message dated Tue, 24 Apr 2001  1:34:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
"Hemingway, David J" <HEMINGD@POLAROID.COM> writes:

<< I think Silverfast, support, and list participation  are some pretty good
reasons : ) Great scans and great shadow detail as well!
David

 -----Original Message-----
From:   Charles Platt [mailto:cp@panix.com] 
Sent:   Sunday, April 22, 2001 1:18 AM
To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
Cc: cp@panix.com
Subject:    filmscanners: Polaroid 4000 dpi

Having only joined this list recently, I don't know if there's been
discussion on Polaroid vs. Nikon 4000 dpi scanners. Is the list archived
anywhere? If not, can someone tell me if a definitive conclusion was
reached regarding these two scanners?

Incidentally as I understand it the Polaroid is really a Microtek; so I
assume there's no substantial reason to choose either of these over the
other.

I have an aging Polaroid Sprintscan 35, and I want to upgrade for the
higher resolution and better dynamic range. I'm really sick of having to
resort to extreme measures to get rid of noise in shadows.

 >>




 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.