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: What is 4,000 scanner quality like in practice.



Actually, Nikon has the Coolscan 8000, and Polaroid is now also shipping
(it's name escapes me) a medium format, 4000 dpi scanner. The Nikon has the
ASF ICE^3 suite.


Pat

----- Original Message -----
From: "Laurie Solomon" <laurie@advancenet.net>



> I believe you may be mistaken or misinformed.  The new 4000 ppi scanners
are
> 35mm film scanners and not medium format scanners; hence they will not
> handle 120 films
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> [mailto:owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of TREVITHO@aol.com
> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 4:52 PM
> To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> Subject: filmscanners: What is 4,000 scanner quality like in practice.
>
>
>
> In a message dated 23/5/01 9:28:55 am, Jerry.Oostrom@Alcatel.nl writes:
>
> << If you ever want to use your scanner for other purposes (full res
> scanning
> etc., full quality), then you are better off with another more expensive
> scanner with ICE or FARE (dust removal algorithms), >>
>
> Apparently some photographers are using 4000 ppi scanners for digital
stock
> picture submissions. The new 4000 scanners from Polaroid and Nikon which
> take
> 120 film make this an interesting proposition for me. However, I am
> concerned
> on several points and Cornwall is not the place to find these scanners in
> action.
>
> Dust seems to be a big concern. Just how much time is spent dust busting a
> scan? A test I did on PCD was giving me about 15 minutes work on dust
alone
> which is far too long.
>
> Does ICE lose scan quality?
>
> Is a cheap, if you call 3,000 cheap, scanner a workable substitute for a
> drum scan?
>
> I can currently get 50Mb CGI drum scans at 7.50 each which are absolutely
> spotless.
>
> If I got a 4000 desktop scanner of my own it would need to produce about
ten
> fully finished scans per hour to be worth considering. Is this possible
> considering the amount of time that dust busting might take?
>
> Yours
>
>
>
> Bob Croxford
> Cornwall
> England
>
> www.atmosphere.co.uk


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com




 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.